Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

January transfer window 19/20 season Post Mortem


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, diggerlad07 said:

That's exactly what I am saying. Under Monk most players who joined us were giving a significant signing on fee and their agents were giving massive sweeteners to make the transfers happening.

What players were on at previous clubs I cannot speculate as I don't have that information, but offering players 500k+ signing on fee would be enough for players to jump ship regardless of their basic salary at the previous club I would of thought.

If all that is true then the one good thing about that window is that we managed to keep the wage budget down instead of just giving them all massive wages. So it could be worse. Glad to hear that someone like fletcher and Shotton aren’t on 30k if what you’ve been told is true 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  •  

    426

  •  

    318

  •  

    306

  •  

    215

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sorry I just needed to see kids as off to London tomorrow until saturday.   Randolph - West Ham tried to renegotiate with us and wanted a loa  as they couldn't be sure with injury... woody s

@Lurker, @diggerlad07 @Smoggydownsouth and all the other ITK posters. Thank you for all the ITK info you guys share. Think i speak for everyone when i say it is much appreciated. Without it the l

Roberts is done. As someone has said, Ayala is on £25k a week. Don’t know what he’s been offered but I can’t believe it would be £5k. Randolph is gone, assume it’s West Ham.    5 more

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, diggerlad07 said:

That's exactly what I am saying. Under Monk most players who joined us were giving a significant signing on fee and their agents were giving massive sweeteners to make the transfers happening.

What players were on at previous clubs I cannot speculate as I don't have that information, but offering players 500k+ signing on fee would be enough for players to jump ship regardless of their basic salary at the previous club I would of thought.

And yet the players who seem to earn the most here recently have tended to be those same players signed over that period regardless of any large signing on fees they were paid.  A £5k per week decrease in salary over three years is £750k.  Double it and double the amount.  £500k wouldn't be enough to cover those types of losses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Borodane said:

If all that is true then the one good thing about that window is that we managed to keep the wage budget down instead of just giving them all massive wages. So it could be worse. Glad to hear that someone like fletcher and Shotton aren’t on 30k if what you’ve been told is true 

Completely agree.

Nunthorpered is more or less bang on with who the big earners are but Friend is up there too unfortunately. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

And yet the players who seem to earn the most here recently have tended to be those same players signed over that period regardless of any large signing on fees they were paid.  A £5k per week decrease in salary over three years is £750k.  Double it and double the amount.  £500k wouldn't be enough to cover those types of losses.

So you know what those players were on at previous clubs do you? 

Your missing the point in what I said, I never said decrease in salary from a previous club?

I said they won't need much of a basic salary increase because a significant signing on fee would be more than acceptable to entice them to join along with the agents getting a sweater.

Braithwaite was given a £2million signing on fee as was Randolph. Like I stated, I don't know what Randolph was on at West Ham but that signing on fee must of been enough to entice him to drop down a division (regardless of been 1st choice or not)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Borodane said:

If all that is true then the one good thing about that window is that we managed to keep the wage budget down instead of just giving them all massive wages. So it could be worse. Glad to hear that someone like fletcher and Shotton aren’t on 30k if what you’ve been told is true 

We didn't keep it down though, the wage bill for that season was £43m!  Our wage bill in the Premier League season was only £57m.  Add another £5m and £7m respectively for social security costs as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, diggerlad07 said:

So you know what those players were on at previous clubs do you? 

Your missing the point in what I said, I never said decrease in salary from a previous club?

I said they won't need much of a basic salary increase because a significant signing on fee would be more than acceptable to entice them to join along with the agents getting a sweater.

Braithwaite was given a £2million signing on fee as was Randolph. Like I stated, I don't know what Randolph was on at West Ham but that signing on fee must of been enough to entice him to drop down a division (regardless of been 1st choice or not)

 

I have a sense of what some players would be on yeah.  Shotton played in the PL with Stoke, then made successive transfers to Derby and Birmingham who were both quite happily overpaying players.  Then he came here to another club who have done the same so I'd be surprised if that journey saw him earning no more than £15k per week.

All I'm talking about is their wages.  You're talking about two players who also got large basic salaries here receiving big signing on fees as well.  So what is the significance of these large signing on fees if we were dishing them out to everyone including the highest earners?  It doesn't prove anything other than we were spending money hand over fist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

We didn't keep it down though, the wage bill for that season was £43m!  Our wage bill in the Premier League season was only £57m.  Add another £5m and £7m respectively for social security costs as well.

I meant it could have been much worse. Apparently. Not that it was low. But lower than what it could have been. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

I have a sense of what some players would be on yeah.  Shotton played in the PL with Stoke, then made successive transfers to Derby and Birmingham who were both quite happily overpaying players.  Then he came here to another club who have done the same so I'd be surprised if that journey saw him earning no more than £15k per week.

All I'm talking about is their wages.  You're talking about two players who also got large basic salaries here receiving big signing on fees as well.  So what is the significance of these large signing on fees if we were dishing them out to everyone including the highest earners?  It doesn't prove anything other than we were spending money hand over fist.

No what I am saying is people automatically pressume that players join other clubs because of a pay increase in their basic salary and I am stating that isn't always the case because of signing on fees and whose to say that wasn't the case when Shotton joined Derby or Birmingham.

Just because you have played football manager doesn't mean you get a good gage of what players are earning or not.

I was absoutely gobsmacked when I was told figures of what players were on because I had no connections with players so just took everything with a pinch of salt but I thought I had a good idea but like I say I was completely wrong.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Borodane said:

I meant it could have been much worse. Apparently. Not that it was low. But lower than what it could have been. 

I don't think it would, mate.  I don't see a scenario in which players would accept less money than they actually want.  The method of paying that money  - wages or signing on fees - wouldn't alter how much money we have to pay them.  Unless there is some tax benefit to a signing on fee then there would be no reason for any player to accept a bigger signing on fee but miss out on more from a lower wage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Borodane said:

I meant it could have been much worse. Apparently. Not that it was low. But lower than what it could have been. 

Me and most members knew what you meant but some people just like to argue if the grass is green or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, diggerlad07 said:

No what I am saying is people automatically pressume that players join other clubs because of a pay increase in their basic salary and I am stating that isn't always the case because of signing on fees and whose to say that wasn't the case when Shotton joined Derby or Birmingham.

Just because you have played football manager doesn't mean you get a good gage of what players are earning or not.

I was absoutely gobsmacked when I was told figures of what players were on because I had no connections with players so just took everything with a pinch of salt but I thought I had a good idea but like I say I was completely wrong.

 

 

Lol, I'm not getting it from Football Manager.  I might also say that just because someone tells you something that doesn't make it true.

I understand that players don't automatically join other clubs because of a basic salary increase.  I simply don't believe Shotton signed here for a wage of that amount and I find it odd that the local media and some of the ITK types had him as one of our highest paid players if that was the case.  I also wouldn't have thought that wage would have necessitated him taking a pay cut to join Wigan but who knows on that one.

Some interesting figures for the back up keepers though 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

I don't think it would, mate.  I don't see a scenario in which players would accept less money than they actually want.  The method of paying that money  - wages or signing on fees - wouldn't alter how much money we have to pay them.  Unless there is some tax benefit to a signing on fee then there would be no reason for any player to accept a bigger signing on fee but miss out on more from a lower wage.

Let me break this down for you in normal people's wages terms :

say you earn £500 a week working for Middlesbrough council but Hartlepool council offers you the same £500 a week but a signing on fee of say £2,000 then you wouldn't say you are better off? That's exactly what some players do

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, diggerlad07 said:

Let me break this down for you in normal people's wages terms :

say you earn £500 a week working for Middlesbrough council but Hartlepool council offers you the same £500 a week but a signing on fee of say £2,000 then you wouldn't say you are better off? That's exactly what some players do

Of course that's what some players do, I'm not disputing that and that has nothing to do with my point.  You still have to pay the £2000 signing on fee is my point.  Say the contract at the council is for 1 year then you could just as easily offer a pay rise to £538 per week for the year with no signing on fee and you are paying the same amount as £500 with a £2000 signing on fee.  You still have to pay whatever the person wants to be paid, it's still in your accounts as wages, it's just a different method of the money being paid out.  I can only guess there's some tax benefit to a signing on fee otherwise it makes absolutely no difference at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...