How much to spend on transfers and wages ?

[onlythetruth]

Following on from the thread about if you had £20m to spend who would you buy forgetting about wages.

I think it is worth asking which way you would like to see the club go

Everything we have achieved recently has come through the club being careful and prudent with the panel (whether you like them or not) hugely involved

We have a solid and tight wage structure which would be the envy of many many clubs (within that structure we have still been able to find some gems so to speak at the right price and on the right wages).

Camp, Gunter, Morgan, Cohen, Wilson, Anderson all come to mind with the possibility of Majewski and Boyd should they work out etc.

There would be two things that will undoubtedly happen if we get promoted:

Number 1: Existing key players will look for a wage rise for sure

Number 2: We will need to strengthen for sure

How we approach it is crucial I think

If we overspend on either transfer fees or wages or both we could do ourselves more harm than good

Any negotiations with our existing players on wages will be influenced hugely by what they know we are prepared to spend on wages of players we bring in - if we brought in a £40k per week player - that will set the new benchmark for players like Cohen and Camp to aim for with us

If we limit to £20 to £25k we keep the benchmark lower

I myself favour trying to find the gems or the bargains - right time and club is how you end up getting Camp for next to nothing. Gunter we picked up when out of favour, Wilson was going nowhere etc

We so nearly picked up Bale when he was out of favour with wages to us at the time looking at £12kish a week. Look at him now.

I feel these are the kind of things we still need to do (to be honest I think that is what will happen anyway but I for one will be glad)

Someone mention if there is £20m to spend I want it all spending before the end of summer - that I disagree with unless evey player fits a tight wage criteria

By being careful and prudent as above - if we were only able to add 3/4 quality players in the summer at the right price and wage and ensured our existing key players were also happy with their deals I myself would be happy

Would not want the new players coming in to stop but would rather our club operate in a way that allowed continuous gradual improvement along careful tight guidelines

This way we should be able to keep our best players unless we get ridiculous offers and slowly but surely add to them without blowing our budgets whatever League we are playing in

Put it this way if Camp and Cohen continue to flourish and we cannot afford to pay them wages they might get elsewhere to stay with us at least we will get fabulous profit on them that we can spend on more gems at the right price and wages

Tough one - what do you guys think ?

 

[The Oracle]

I agree, I am totally non-expectant, and although I'd love us to make a go of it IF we get promoted, I am expecting, and would not be dissapointed, if we came straight back down, even if we beat Derby's point's total for the least amount of points.

I would like us to be prudent, to pick and choose carefully our targets, and signings. To spend wisely and try to pick up the likes of Camp, Gunter, Anderson etc.

What is far more important to me however, and I would love every fan to feel the same, that no matter what happens next season, whether we qualify for Europe, or come straight back down without winning a game, that we fully get behind the team, and that Billy is given our, and the boards, full backing, to ensure that, if we do go down, Billy is in charge to bring us straight back up !! Billy Davies, under no circumstances, should be sacked from his position, Derby's loss is our gain, and there is no way i could sit and watch as he takes over another poor Championship team (let's face it, we were) and do the same with them as he has done all his managerial career !!!

 

[onlythetruth]

I agree, I am totally non-expectant, and although I'd love us to make a go of it IF we get promoted, I am expecting, and would not be dissapointed, if we came straight back down, even if we beat Derby's point's total for the least amount of points.

I would like us to be prudent, to pick and choose carefully our targets, and signings. To spend wisely and try to pick up the likes of Camp, Gunter, Anderson etc.

What is far more important to me however, and I would love every fan to feel the same, that no matter what happens next season, whether we qualify for Europe, or come straight back down without winning a game, that we fully get behind the team, and that Billy is given our, and the boards, full backing, to ensure that, if we do go down, Billy is in charge to bring us straight back up !! Billy Davies, under no circumstances, should be sacked from his position, Derby's loss is our gain, and there is no way i could sit and watch as he takes over another poor Championship team (let's face it, we were) and do the same with them as he has done all his managerial career !!!

Yes if everybody gives Billy support fair enough

In same way Billy needs to stop blaming people if he doesn't always get everything he wants

Then we can all be happy

 

[andover red]

Agree totally with both of you.

I would like our approach to be the one West Brom have taken in recent years - cautious investment without risking the long term future of the club. Even though they have been relegated a few times they have always sustained their place as one of the best teams in the Championship and have bounced back.

That would be much better than risking it all on staying up and blowing all of the money that comes with the Premiership on expensive high risk signings. Hull are going to pay for that approach for years to come in my opinion.

In the end it doesn't matter whether they are £1M signings on £10k per week or £10M signings on £50k per week. The common factor should be value for money. If the fee and the wages are good value then I say we should try everything to sign them. If they are overpriced and overpaid then avoid them like the plague.

 

[The Oracle]

In all the years Doughty has been at the club, and all the years we have had a Transfer Panel.....this is the most successful. Billy knows what he's doing, and I, in no way, shape or form, think the Transfer Panel should be disbanded, but things have got to loosen up slightly to ensure everyone is happy.

Is Billy moaning at not getting his own way, or does his passion shine through and his frustration get the better of him, knowing that we should have added a few players in January, knowing our two closest rivals, in terms of league position did, and seeing how they eased away from us at the most important part of the season leaving us the lottery of the play off's.

Don't get me wrong, anything from 12th place up is a good season for us this year, when you think where we were last year, but the season Stoke got promoted, they threw £500,000 at a 3 month loan signing for Shola Ameobi, and their chairman's reasoning was "whilst we're in this position, we need to throw everything we've got at it, as it might never come round again"

I'm not saying we should have thrown everything at it, but last summers investment bought us onto a par with alot of teams, and we've over achieved this year, that last little bit of investment might have made all the difference.

Anyway !!! I've totally sidetracked.....Billy often gets frustrated, and throws his toys out of the pram now and then, but it work's doesn't it ? Preston, Derby, Forest....he does something to those teams, that people after him can't !

Live and let live.....we'll miss him when he's gone !!

 

[RRRREDUN]

Sorry. If we do go up (and we've a good chance of doing so), then I for one will be bitterly disappointed if we come straight back down. What is all this about beating Derby's total of 11 points? That shouldn't be our benchmark. If we plan correctly and make the right decisions, then we should be able to do a Bolton, Stoke, Birmingham - rather than a Hull, Portsmouth (or Derby).
The real problem with the Prem (and the rest of the divisions) is the proportion of money spent on wages. Spending £20 million on players would cost us £10-£12 million in wages alone (over ONE season). We don't earn that as a club now, but with Sky, better sponsorship and increased advertising, we should cover it easily.
Portsmouth! Good players, even though they had to sell £80 million worth. Reached the FA cup final (where they may earn £3 million) BUT they will still be £80 million in debt.
So - it's getting the balance right - enough has got to be spent to keep us up but we can't afford to waste any. My big prediction? The Prem could implode and clubs will find that they will go to the wall. Good management is the key. Although Billy might be the bees knees as far as team management is concerned, he has got to have one eye on the long-term sustainability of our club.
Apologies for the essay, but this is SERIOUS. One disastrous season up could put us back to square one or worse (a la Derby). We don't want that do we?

 

[The Oracle]

How can we be disappointed in getting relegated IF we go up, when we have totally over achieved this year.

I certainly think we should not over extend ourselves next year if we go up, spend wisely, take the money, and try again with a more solid, financial foundation to get back up and give it another go in 2012-2013 !!

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

There's no way we'd stay up without significant, desperate investment into the playing staff if we did go up.

We'd need at least 10 new players, both to fill quality gaps in the starting eleven and have strength in depth on the bench.

If we did go up, I'd rather us invest miminally in decent Premiership players like Shorey, Reo Coker and Nugent for example as well as taking on some promising youth. I'd want our team to be capable of bouncing back at the first time of asking on the presumption we did go down.

Defeatist it may be, but welcome to the current era of football which is money dominated. Let's build cautiously and slowly over time rather than splash the cash with no extra guarantee of success.

 

[The Oracle]

I wrote an epistle and couldn't get my point accross as well as you did in a few sentences.

Well Done :cheers:

 

[The Oracle]

Also, regarding Derby's points total, i meant that i wouldn't be too down hearted if we DIDN'T manage to amass as many points, therefore holding the new record for least amount of points. I couldn't care less about beating it...at the end of the day, a record is a record !

 

[eezzeetiger]

Beating Derby's points is all i ask...if we kept the team unchanged we'd have a chance & £60M

 

[Anatoli]

There were these eggs...

 

[GibraltarRed]

I would hazard a guess that the following would be a pretty sensible budget if we went up:

Income

SKY money - £60m
Ticket sales - £13m
Sponsors/shirts etc - £7m
Total - £80m

If we say that a recommended expenditure for players is 60% of turnover to cover wages and transfers, i woould suggest the following budgets for wages and transfers:

Player wages (Average of £20k per week for squad of 30 players) - £31.2m
60% of 80m is 48m less wages 31.2m gives us a transfer budget of £16.8m

The above would be fairly sensible, and could see us sign 4 or 5 decent players, with some other going the other way.

 

[Al LeftLion]

I really hope we stick with the current model of paying low basics and high performance related bonuses. I think we are one of the few teams at this level who are operating the right way (and how many clubs will in the future). So raise the basics just a bit, and then double or triple the bonus payments (or whatever is sensible, it's hard to know without knowing the current wages and contracts). If new signings are up for that challenge then they probably have the right attitude for our team, have agreements in all contracts that relegation will see the bonuses reduced down without massive changes to their basic payments.

As a player that gives you a stable income no matter what happens and which division you are in, it gives you reward for you and the team performing well. As a club it means you only spend more money when you are doing better, which leads to more money.

 

[oz]

I really hope we stick with the current model of paying low basics and high performance related bonuses. I think we are one of the few teams at this level who are operating the right way (and how many clubs will in the future). So raise the basics just a bit, and then double or triple the bonus payments (or whatever is sensible, it's hard to know without knowing the current wages and contracts). If new signings are up for that challenge then they probably have the right attitude for our team, have agreements in all contracts that relegation will see the bonuses reduced down without massive changes to their basic payments.

As a player that gives you a stable income no matter what happens and which division you are in, it gives you reward for you and the team performing well. As a club it means you only spend more money when you are doing better, which leads to more money.

All very good, but this is why the AP gets so much stick when we don't land players!!!

 

[GibraltarRed]

I really hope we stick with the current model of paying low basics and high performance related bonuses. I think we are one of the few teams at this level who are operating the right way (and how many clubs will in the future). So raise the basics just a bit, and then double or triple the bonus payments (or whatever is sensible, it's hard to know without knowing the current wages and contracts). If new signings are up for that challenge then they probably have the right attitude for our team, have agreements in all contracts that relegation will see the bonuses reduced down without massive changes to their basic payments.

As a player that gives you a stable income no matter what happens and which division you are in, it gives you reward for you and the team performing well. As a club it means you only spend more money when you are doing better, which leads to more money.

The other prob with this approach especially in the prem, is that say we went up and have a season like birmingham (In my dreams) then your bonus payments could end up astronomical, it also can leave players with long term injuries frustrated if they don't play enough etc. It is actually easier for the club to plan, when they know the costs involved with wages, hence have a more stable basis with basic pay of a more comparable level.

 

[Al LeftLion]

I'm not an anti AP'er, it works plain and simple. I do see your point regarding birmingham as an example, but you can calculate the additional income earned from higher league positions or cup runs and can do the maths to split that across your contracts as bonus payments, sure it's not a straightforward calculation. When you are talking 50million plus of income it's not like you don't have accountants on board to work out the every eventuality, that's what budgeting is and that's how most businesses run (football being one of the few exceptions where it's fine to spend more than you earn year after year).

I also agree that injured players and players not getting games might not like it, but the reality is paying massive salaries to players who are injured or not playing is throwing money away anyway. It might be what players are currently used to but i can see that changing over the coming decade, i'd be happy to see forest lead that change.

If as a player you are happy to sit on a bench because 'at least you're getting paid well' then you don't have the right drive to be a pro footballer at the highest level, you have to want games; money or no money, and you'll find most players are like that (or enough anyway). If you aren't able to get into a team at least on rotation then it's probably time to find a new team (unless you are young of course).

Also as a footballer you shouldn't expect the same money when you are injured as when you are fit, it's a harsh reality but if i break my arm and can't work my employer is only going to pay me sick pay for a certain amount of time at full wack. After that Statuary Sick Pay kicks in at £79.15 a week and their basic will be a lot higher than that.

It's not straight forward and it's a brave stance to take, but i honestly think it's the sensible and correct one in the current climate of football finance. If a player can't see that, then we have to accept it and move on (which is no doubt why it takes us longer to sign 'the right' players.

 

[RRRREDUN]

There was a comment made earlier about bonuses and injuries. Part of the bonus would be payable to anyone in the first team squad. That's what contracts are all about. Also, I was talking to a Newcastle mate earlier and he feels part of the financial problems at Newcastle (had to be bailed out by Ashley to the tune of £25million this season), was that there were no clauses in player contracts to reduce wages if relegation occured. This is a must.
Whatever - we'll spend more than we should.

 

[Matt90]

I would hazard a guess that the following would be a pretty sensible budget if we went up:

Income

SKY money - £60m
Ticket sales - £13m
Sponsors/shirts etc - £7m
Total - £80m

If we say that a recommended expenditure for players is 60% of turnover to cover wages and transfers, i woould suggest the following budgets for wages and transfers:

Player wages (Average of £20k per week for squad of 30 players) - £31.2m
60% of 80m is 48m less wages 31.2m gives us a transfer budget of £16.8m

The above would be fairly sensible, and could see us sign 4 or 5 decent players, with some other going the other way.

Thats pretty sensible but its not beyond the realms of possibility that if we went up ND would throw X amount of his own cash into the transfer kitty. As long as we don't embarrass ourselves I'd be happy.

 

[It's Baggio]

'Income' of £80m is ambitious.

Stoke's turnover for their 1st year in the Prem was £54m, for instance.

 

[onlythetruth]

Where does that figure of £60m sky income come from ??

Birmingham City 2007/2008 Premiership Season had a total income of £49m

With less than £20m income coming from media including the sky deal

 

[earthworm]

Isn't the income set to go up this year though? Or wasn't it at any rate. Haven't OFCOM decided to break Sky into two companies?

 

[onlythetruth]

The latest sky deal which last to 2013 was said to be a great deal simply becasue it was as good as the previous one despite the economic crisis

As far as I know Premier clubs get less than £20m per year - unless someone knows any different

Birminghams wage bill for the same season was £26m out of interest and they went down

 

[It's Baggio]

You get £13.9m from the Sky deal, £480,000 per match (guaranteed a minimum of 10 matches) and then the prize money depending on where you finish (ranges from £750k, if you finish bottom, to £15m for the Champions).

Plus there's £12m that comes from the overseas TV rights.

West Brom, who finished bottom last year, earned £31.9m.

 

[onlythetruth]

I would hazard a guess that the following would be a pretty sensible budget if we went up:

Income

SKY money - £60m
Ticket sales - £13m
Sponsors/shirts etc - £7m
Total - £80m

If we say that a recommended expenditure for players is 60% of turnover to cover wages and transfers, i woould suggest the following budgets for wages and transfers:

Player wages (Average of £20k per week for squad of 30 players) - £31.2m
60% of 80m is 48m less wages 31.2m gives us a transfer budget of £16.8m

The above would be fairly sensible, and could see us sign 4 or 5 decent players, with some other going the other way.

Well if TV Money is nearer £30m than £60m I would put the Forest potential income as more like this:

TV £30m
Gate £10m
Other £5m

Total £45m

At 60% of turnover the transfer/wage budget becomes £27m

I think we can still end up with average wages of no more than £13k per player in the Premiership if we are selective and strict (many of our existing players who we would want to keep would still fall below that even with large increases)

And a squad of 25 players on that would come to £17m approx - with all other staff costs to add in manager, coaching staff, academy, office etc bringing our wage bill to £20m

So that would leave us £7m to spend on players plus anything we can bring in from sales of players

Anything else would need the Chairmans money

He might take a gamble which would be nice - but we cannot and should not rely on that

The key is keeping the wage bill tight though for sure - buying the right player at the right time - something the panel have been good at so far

My fear is that the Manager will complain all the time that the panel don't give him his first choices though - this complaining has to stop for all our sakes