|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Aug 1, 2014 8:19:49 GMT
If we don't get rid of several players and their wages (including at least one big earner) then, at the moment, we will be way over the salary limit by the time the season is a few weeks old. Last season our total wage bill was allowed to rise by about 4 or 5 £million. I'm not sure what the figure is this season but I suspect it is similar and, if you look at Diouf and Bojan I expect they'll be right at the top of our wage structure. The fact is that, currently, our squad is bigger than last season and there are at least two top earners who have come in with only Jones of the top earners going out - and the loss of his wages is partially compensated for by the arrival of Wingie and his wages. If I had to take a guess I'd say we need to lose at least £4 million from the wage bill as things stand at the moment. Excuse my 100% ignorance on this, but you seem the man to ask this kind of question. You're talking of our clubs big earners and wage bill and it's compliance with the Premier League rules and such like. Is it a blanket rule and set amount for every club in the league? As i'd assume it should be, therefore don't clubs like Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool & Spurs have players on much, much higher wages than ourselves? Meaning that they'd have to sell a few players to comply? Sorry if that's a daft question but i can't profess to know about all this FFP malarky. I'm not an expert either but it's to do with income. The more you earn the more you can pay out on wages. Did you really expect the Premiership elite to agree to 'FFP' and it actually be fair?
|
|
|
Post by FakeStokeBloke on Aug 1, 2014 8:22:14 GMT
Does anyone know if we have any talent in our academy at right back? Southampton sold Chambers for £16 mil and it would be nice if we had someone like that to fill in as the squad role and move Geoff on.
I know we can also play Pieters and Wilson etc
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Aug 1, 2014 8:25:02 GMT
Does anyone know if we have any talent in our academy at right back? Southampton sold Chambers for £16 mil and it would be nice if we had someone like that to fill in as the squad role and move Geoff on. I know we can also play Pieters and Wilson etc Doesn't appear to be any players who are close,no.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Aug 1, 2014 8:31:00 GMT
Excuse my 100% ignorance on this, but you seem the man to ask this kind of question. You're talking of our clubs big earners and wage bill and it's compliance with the Premier League rules and such like. Is it a blanket rule and set amount for every club in the league? As i'd assume it should be, therefore don't clubs like Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool & Spurs have players on much, much higher wages than ourselves? Meaning that they'd have to sell a few players to comply? Sorry if that's a daft question but i can't profess to know about all this FFP malarky. I'm not an expert either but it's to do with income. The more you earn the more you can pay out on wages. Did you really expect the Premiership elite to agree to 'FFP' and it actually be fair? What I would say though is at least they've earnt it from good crowds and finishes what annoys me more is the likes of QPR and Pompey throwing loads of money around and trying to bully themselves to the top in double quick time on the back of a rich owner and little support rather than doing it gradually with proper foundations. From as far back as I remember however much we don't like them Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton and Spurs have been big clubs. Now you can add Man C and Chelsea who've bought success. Nothing's going to change
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on Aug 1, 2014 8:48:44 GMT
Presumably, The Family can (if they are so inclined) meet the club's FFP/Wage obligation simply by naming/sponsoring the stadium to whatever sum is necessary to meet the regulations?
This could be what is underpinning our new found confidence and 'buy first/sell later' approach...
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 1, 2014 8:54:25 GMT
The bidding starts at 5 million pounds......
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 1, 2014 8:58:46 GMT
Presumably, The Family can (if they are so inclined) meet the club's FFP/Wage obligation simply by naming/sponsoring the stadium to whatever sum is necessary to meet the regulations? This could be what is underpinning our new found confidence and 'buy first/sell later' approach... Isn't that what Citeh fell foul of when they got nabbed last season?
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Aug 1, 2014 9:01:46 GMT
I'm not an expert either but it's to do with income. The more you earn the more you can pay out on wages. Did you really expect the Premiership elite to agree to 'FFP' and it actually be fair? What I would say though is at least they've earnt it from good crowds and finishes what annoys me more is the likes of QPR and Pompey throwing loads of money around and trying to bully themselves to the top in double quick time on the back of a rich owner and little support rather than doing it gradually with proper foundations. From as far back as I remember however much we don't like them Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton and Spurs have been big clubs. Now you can add Man C and Chelsea who've bought success. Nothing's going to change Hmmm the good finishes have come from them stitching up the rest of the clubs. It's no coincidence that since the Premiershit started and clubs kept their own gate receipts, one club has been the most successful. A club that is massively in debt too! Maybe Arsenal are the only club, out of the top 4 or 5, who have tried to do it the right way. Sacrificing success on the field to finance their new stadium. Anyway, as you say, nothing will change. As for Cameron, let him go, he annoys me with his hair and the way he keeps trying that outside of the right foot crossing!
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Aug 1, 2014 9:09:05 GMT
Wouldn't surprise me if he did move on. I'm sure no club at a higher level can GUARANTEE a player a first team spot but there may be more game time for him elsewhere and he hasn't really got the time to see how it goes for a season. Coming up to 30, he needs regular football which he may or may not get here, we don't know.
However, it would be a bit of a backwards step from having Geoff and Bardsley competing for RB to then go to Bardsley and Wilko/Wilson competing for it. I hope he stays and thrives on the competition for places rather than move at the first possible whiff of it. I get the impression he prefers a central role and for all the cries of "give him a go" in CM, I can't see it happening if it hasn't already.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 1, 2014 9:18:43 GMT
For the life of me, I can't see how we can find a space for Geoff even on the bench next season.
The problem for him is that we already have two really good utility players likely to be regular substitutes next season, one right footed (Wilson) and one left footed (Muniesa) and there's no way you can justify having a third utility player on the bench.
If the first XI looks something like:
--------------Begovic---------------
Bardsley---Ryan---Huth---Pieters
--------Whelan-----N'Zonzi--------
----MFW------Ireland-----Arnie----
----------------Diouf-----------------
then your bench cover would look something like this:
------------Tommy/Jack-------------
Wilson----Wilson---Muniesa----Muniesa
---Wilson/Muniesa-----Sidwell-------
--ODW---------ODW----------Assaidi--
-------------Bojan/ODW-----------------
which would give you a 7 man bench of:
Tommy/Jack Wilson Muniesa Sidwell Odemwingie Assaidi Bojan
So who exactly do you drop from that bench to give Geoff a place?
And yes I can't find a spot for Charlie either!
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Aug 1, 2014 9:20:09 GMT
I would imagine the manager is keen for him to stay. Cam comes over as the perfect pro, always fit, adaptable, intelligent and probably great to manage. If he can't get in the starting eleven, I would think that MH would see him as the first name on the bench due to his versatility. It would be perfect for us if that was the case, but would Geoff see it that way? Southampton could be a good fit for him and lets face it at the minute he could pick where he wanted to play for them at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Aug 1, 2014 9:20:26 GMT
Or Walters. You bastard.
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Aug 1, 2014 9:21:27 GMT
Bardsley in and Cameron out is poor business in my book. Bardsley is a marginally better full back than Cameron but we will miss Cameron's ability to place in 2 other positions. You need to keep him Hughes
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 9:22:38 GMT
Paul, is an MFW a Midfield Winger? Or is it a player i don't know of? I got confused by someone calling Diouf 'MBD' the other day and i stared at it for literally seconds wondering "Who on earth is that?"
|
|
|
Post by Block 22 on Aug 1, 2014 9:25:03 GMT
Am I the only one that thinks G-Cam played a decent part in our success last season?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2014 9:25:53 GMT
If we don't get rid of several players and their wages (including at least one big earner) then, at the moment, we will be way over the salary limit by the time the season is a few weeks old. Last season our total wage bill was allowed to rise by about 4 or 5 £million. I'm not sure what the figure is this season but I suspect it is similar and, if you look at Diouf and Bojan I expect they'll be right at the top of our wage structure. The fact is that, currently, our squad is bigger than last season and there are at least two top earners who have come in with only Jones of the top earners going out - and the loss of his wages is partially compensated for by the arrival of Wingie and his wages. If I had to take a guess I'd say we need to lose at least £4 million from the wage bill as things stand at the moment. Excuse my 100% ignorance on this, but you seem the man to ask this kind of question. You're talking of our clubs big earners and wage bill and it's compliance with the Premier League rules and such like. Is it a blanket rule and set amount for every club in the league? As i'd assume it should be, therefore don't clubs like Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool & Spurs have players on much, much higher wages than ourselves? Meaning that they'd have to sell a few players to comply? Sorry if that's a daft question but i can't profess to know about all this FFP malarky. I've just got back in from walking the dogs so someone may already have replied. But they took the situation as it was when the rules came in - that date was ground zero for all clubs. Clubs below a certain level £50 million ish on wages were allowed to go up to that level. Clubs above that level were allowed a certain (modest) increase each year. But (I think) a new source of income (such as a major sponsorship deal) allows you to go above your cap. Cynics would say that as Bet365 own the club and sponsor the club that we have nothing to worry about!
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on Aug 1, 2014 9:26:54 GMT
Presumably, The Family can (if they are so inclined) meet the club's FFP/Wage obligation simply by naming/sponsoring the stadium to whatever sum is necessary to meet the regulations? This could be what is underpinning our new found confidence and 'buy first/sell later' approach... Isn't that what Citeh fell foul of when they got nabbed last season? Don't know the specifics, Paul, although it obviously makes sense to put limits on sponsorships to 'cook the books', particularly when the sponsor is the owner. It's a real minefield though for the authorities - what's to stop, say, Emirates giving £100m to a third party/subsidiary who then sponsor the stadium? I dare say the bigger clubs with bigger lawyers can exploit the loopholes...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 1, 2014 9:27:26 GMT
Paul, is an MFW a Midfield Winger? Or is it a player i don't know of? I got confused by someone calling Diouf 'MBD' the other day and i stared at it for literally seconds wondering "Who on earth is that?"
Mystery Foreign Winger chap.
I'm absolutely convinced that Hughes is looking for one to play on the right.
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Aug 1, 2014 9:27:31 GMT
Am I the only one that thinks G-Cam played a decent part in our success last season? Nope. I thought he was good and I really don't think Bardsley is an significant improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2014 9:29:31 GMT
Isn't that what Citeh fell foul of when they got nabbed last season? Don't know the specifics, Paul, although it obviously makes sense to put limits on sponsorships to 'cook the books', particularly when the sponsor is the owner. It's a real minefield though for the authorities - what's to stop, say, Emirates giving £100m to a third party/subsidiary who then sponsor the stadium? I dare say the bigger clubs with bigger lawyers can exploit the loopholes... Citeh fell foul of the UEFA FFp rules not the Prem FFP rules. The Prem rules mainly deal with wages whereas the UEFA rules try to keep losses within a certain limit. Incidentally, the Prem rules are so new that no can have fallen foul of them yet as the relevant accounts for the first year of the new rules will not, for most clubs, have been published.
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Aug 1, 2014 9:30:06 GMT
We currently dont have someone called MFW or Assaidi on our books so its odd that they are given a place before Cameron.Take those two out of the equation and anticipate bans and at least one longish injury and we are back to the Shotton/Wilko inclusion in the matchday squad both who are surely much inferior to Cameron. Also our disciplinary record is simply awful expect a serious number of red cards again.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 1, 2014 9:33:50 GMT
We currently dont have someone called MFW or Assaidi on our books so its odd that they are given a place before Cameron.Take those two out of the equation and anticipate bans and at least one longish injury and we are back to the Shotton/Wilko inclusion in the matchday squad both who are surely much inferior to Cameron. Also our disciplinary record is simply awful expect a serious number of red cards again.
Assaidi is most certainly about to sign and even if he doesn't, Hughes will find an alternative.
Bowen has made it quite clear that we are looking for two wingers.
And if one of those spots did become available then as we already have two utility players on the bench then surely the likes of Adam and Walters would still be ahead in the queue for a place there.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 1, 2014 9:37:59 GMT
Excuse my 100% ignorance on this, but you seem the man to ask this kind of question. You're talking of our clubs big earners and wage bill and it's compliance with the Premier League rules and such like. Is it a blanket rule and set amount for every club in the league? As i'd assume it should be, therefore don't clubs like Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool & Spurs have players on much, much higher wages than ourselves? Meaning that they'd have to sell a few players to comply? Sorry if that's a daft question but i can't profess to know about all this FFP malarky. But (I think) a new source of income (such as a major sponsorship deal) allows you to go above your cap. And I think that was why the gob smacking three quarters of a billion pound (£750 million) deal which Manchester United signed with Adidas was such a huge thing for the club
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 1, 2014 9:38:43 GMT
Don't know the specifics, Paul, although it obviously makes sense to put limits on sponsorships to 'cook the books', particularly when the sponsor is the owner. It's a real minefield though for the authorities - what's to stop, say, Emirates giving £100m to a third party/subsidiary who then sponsor the stadium? I dare say the bigger clubs with bigger lawyers can exploit the loopholes... Citeh fell foul of the UEFA FFp rules not the Prem FFP rules. The Prem rules mainly deal with wages whereas the UEFA rules try to keep losses within a certain limit. Incidentally, the Prem rules are so new that no can have fallen foul of them yet as the relevant accounts for the first year of the new rules will not, for most clubs, have been published.
I'll be gobsmacked though if the Prem FFP rules don't mirror the principle of the UEFA one's John, in that an owner/sponsor can't simply increase their sponsorship level in order to cover the clubs' spending.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2014 9:44:33 GMT
Citeh fell foul of the UEFA FFp rules not the Prem FFP rules. The Prem rules mainly deal with wages whereas the UEFA rules try to keep losses within a certain limit. Incidentally, the Prem rules are so new that no can have fallen foul of them yet as the relevant accounts for the first year of the new rules will not, for most clubs, have been published.
I'll be gobsmacked though if the Prem FFP rules don't mirror the principle of the UEFA one's John, in that an owner/sponsor can't simply increase their sponsorship level in order to cover the clubs' spending.
Yes, I'm sure you are correct Paul. The Prem, like UEFA, will want to know that Sponsorship deals are believable - especially when a club's main sponsor is also their owner as is the case with Citeh and ourselves. Actually, I don't think Denise is the sort of girl to overpay on a Bet 365 sponsorship deal. She's enough of a businesswoman to want a good deal for Bet365 rather than a ridiculously beneficial deal for Stoke City! Good on her, say I.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 1, 2014 9:44:41 GMT
Why do people think Cameron will be happy with being back up? He quite clearly isn't, he wants to play, fair play to him.
|
|
|
Post by StokieAsh13 on Aug 1, 2014 9:51:53 GMT
Why do people think Cameron will be happy with being back up? He quite clearly isn't, he wants to play, fair play to him. He must of been reading your tweets about him. So if he goes youre to blame
|
|
|
Post by reddipotter on Aug 1, 2014 9:54:31 GMT
Am I the only one that thinks G-Cam played a decent part in our success last season? Nope. I thought he was good and I really don't think Bardsley is an significant improvement. What do we do if Bardsley turns out to be poor or gets injured early in the season, if Geoff has gone?
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 1, 2014 9:55:37 GMT
On the matter in hand I remain entirely unconvinced we should have signed Bardsley.
We made our bed on the Cameron question at that point.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 1, 2014 9:57:03 GMT
all this talk about nzonzi and cameron, people seem to forget we have signed sidwell who was decent last year and a rejuvenated glen whelan
im sure if they both went and we could get rid of wilson, there is another midfielder on hughes radar
|
|