|
Post by Gods on May 6, 2015 10:04:08 GMT
I read somewhere recently that Crystal Palace max out at £45,000 per week but that under new ownership up to 4 new players will be sanctioned at the £65,000 level as they want to kick some arse next season. I don't know how much of that would be a real rise and how much would be simply keeping up with the inevitable wage inflation arising from wheel barrows full of extra bank notes being parked outside the office doors of the Premier League Chairman. I guess the other thing you have to consider is the reaction of incumbent players at a similar level stuck on existing old money contracts. Interesting to know how far we could/would go though. To some extent this will define our summer activity I imagine
|
|
|
Post by santy on May 6, 2015 10:09:40 GMT
From what has been written in various places about Stoke from as far back as Jones signed from Sunderland it seems we do have a basic pay limit, but bonuses, signing on fees staggered across the contract etc can then be put in place to take this higher.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 6, 2015 10:10:46 GMT
I read somewhere recently that Crystal Palace max out at £45,000 per month but that under new ownership up to 4 new players will be sanctioned at the £65,000 level. I don't know how much of that would be a real rise and how much would be simply keeping up with the inevitable wage inflation arising from wheel barrows full of extra bank notes being parked outside the office doors of the Premier League Chairman. I guess the other thing you have to consider is the reaction of incumbent players at a similar level stuck on existing old money contracts. Interesting to know how far we could/would go though. To some extent this will define our summer activity I imagine I think you mean per week not per month. Wilko gets about £45k per month. I'd imagine that Bojan probably gets close to £60k per week if all the incentives get paid. Obviously his basic will be well below that - lucky for us in the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on May 6, 2015 10:17:51 GMT
I understand that under FFP there are restrictions on the total wage bill but not on individual values. As others have said bonuses etc play a part. Someone coming in with a higher wage than existing players may get a suitable signing on fee to compensate rather than cause others to want the same.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on May 6, 2015 10:43:59 GMT
£25.000 a week,if a player cant live on £100.000 a month, £1.2m a year, then pack football in and go find another job.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 6, 2015 11:14:33 GMT
I read somewhere recently that Crystal Palace max out at £45,000 per month but that under new ownership up to 4 new players will be sanctioned at the £65,000 level. I don't know how much of that would be a real rise and how much would be simply keeping up with the inevitable wage inflation arising from wheel barrows full of extra bank notes being parked outside the office doors of the Premier League Chairman. I guess the other thing you have to consider is the reaction of incumbent players at a similar level stuck on existing old money contracts. Interesting to know how far we could/would go though. To some extent this will define our summer activity I imagine I think you mean per week not per month. Wilko gets about £45k per month. I'd imagine that Bojan probably gets close to £60k per week if all the incentives get paid. Obviously his basic will be well below that - lucky for us in the circumstances. Thanks, amended now, I think some kind of Freudian slip must have prevented me from typing "£45,000 per week" it was just too ridiculous to conceive
|
|
|
Post by PottersBrim on May 6, 2015 11:16:14 GMT
£25.000 a week,if a player cant live on £100.000 a month, £1.2m a year, then pack football in and go find another job. While I agree in principle, if we adopted this tactic we'd be relegated next season.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on May 6, 2015 11:26:33 GMT
£25.000 a week,if a player cant live on £100.000 a month, £1.2m a year, then pack football in and go find another job. While I agree in principle, if we adopted this tactic we'd be relegated next season. This should apply to every club,plus putting all clubs in the Prem.on an even footing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 11:27:18 GMT
Not if you have a tall ceiling, then you can just keep piling the notes in =)
|
|
|
Post by Gifton on May 6, 2015 13:07:34 GMT
It's ridiculous to base knowledge on football manager but I'm going to do it anyway! Plus they are often scarily accurate with this stuff. Highest earner in our squad, according to the folks at FM, is Diouf on £60k, followed by Crouch, Shawcross and Palacios at £45k
|
|
|
Post by santy on May 6, 2015 13:15:30 GMT
It's ridiculous to base knowledge on football manager but I'm going to do it anyway! Plus they are often scarily accurate with this stuff. Highest earner in our squad, according to the folks at FM, is Diouf on £60k, followed by Crouch, Shawcross and Palacios at £45k I put as much effort as I can into those numbers, but FM has limitations which means that we can't correctly emulate signing on fees and such at the moment being paid over the course of a contract. Loyalty bonuses and such are also not included by default so in some cases like with Palacios despite his wage at Stoke being lower that £45k is a compromise on reflection of other factors such as his signing on bonus staggered across the course of his contract and such.
|
|
|
Post by djduncanjames on May 6, 2015 13:45:31 GMT
This Palacios situation is insane, we made him rich FFS!
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 6, 2015 13:51:21 GMT
This Palacios situation is insane, we made him rich FFS! Jeez, 4 long years of that clown wearing out the club carpets while we gently feather his pocket to the tune of £45,000 a week Tempting to give him a boot up the jacksy as he heads out the door isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by djduncanjames on May 6, 2015 14:13:51 GMT
This Palacios situation is insane, we made him rich FFS! Jeez, 4 long years of that clown wearing out the club carpets while we feather his pocket to the tune of £45,000 a week Tempting to give him a boot up the jacksy as he heads out the door isn't it? I did enjoy reading his charity work to keep Honduran gangs away from young boys and put them into football instead, he does give back. BUT -- it seems almost a crime he gets paid so much and is not fit enough to pass medicals. Is that not a breach of contract at his end? Say for instance I got a pro contract and I just chose to stay out drinking and doing drugs all night every night, but made it into training everyday on time, would I not be in breach of my contract fitness wise? Not saying WP is doing that but I'm just wondering how clubs can be held over a barrel like this and have to pay a wage when the employee is not living up to his end of the bargain?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 14:27:41 GMT
While I agree in principle, if we adopted this tactic we'd be relegated next season. This should apply to every club,plus putting all clubs in the Prem.on an even footing. but the teams weren't even on an even footing financially for the decades before the Prem. you succeed = you achieve extra financial success...that's the way it's always been and is kinda the point of competing in this sport as it leads you to being able to push on and get better. yes, silverware is good but if teams weren't rewarded financially for that success as well then the entire sport globally would disintegrate very quickly! why would anyone invest in a team if they knew that succeeding wouldn't mean anything to them? they'd literally be throwing their money down the drain. take away the financial incentives (which have ALWAYS been there even before the Prem was even thought of) and you lose the incentive for competitiveness full stop! i agree the finances are far too much but to say every team should be on an equal footing is simply ludicrous and negates the point of trying to win anything!!!!! the players may say they just want the glory but make no mistake, the clubs themselves and the owners and shareholders want the bucks. to try to infer it's only been that way in the Prem just isn't true! if you make all Prem teams pay the same wages then quite simply all the players would move abroad...if you make all clubs globally pay the same wages then winning,losing, getting promoted, being relegated etc. all becomes pointless and if there's no fear of being relegated or glory in winning a title (because you don't earn as much money...which is fundamentally where those player's wages come from) then the sport disappears. could you imagine any player really giving a shit about going down if they knew they'd still get paid exactly the same regardless of what division they played in? and like i said, you can't just limit it to the Prem or players will just bugger off.there's no way it could/would ever work practically. just the way of the world mate and football is no different, never has been at any point. it may not be the ideal John Lennon world you'd like to see but if it was then competitive sport simply wouldn't even exist!
|
|
|
Post by djduncanjames on May 6, 2015 14:39:50 GMT
This should apply to every club,plus putting all clubs in the Prem.on an even footing. but the teams weren't even on an even footing financially for the decades before the Prem. you succeed = you achieve extra financial success...that's the way it's always been and is kinda the point of competing in this sport as it leads you to being able to push on and get better. yes, silverware is good but if teams weren't rewarded financially for that success as well then the entire sport globally would disintegrate very quickly! why would anyone invest in a team if they knew that succeeding wouldn't mean anything to them? they'd literally be throwing their money down the drain. take away the financial incentives (which have ALWAYS been there even before the Prem was even thought of) and you lose the incentive for competitiveness full stop! i agree the finances are far too much but to say every team should be on an equal footing is simply ludicrous and negates the point of trying to win anything!!!!! the players may say they just want the glory but make no mistake, the clubs themselves and the owners and shareholders want the bucks. to try to infer it's only been that way in the Prem just isn't true! if you make all Prem teams pay the same wages then quite simply all the players would move abroad...if you make all clubs globally pay the same wages then winning,losing, getting promoted, being relegated etc. all becomes pointless and if there's no fear of being relegated or glory in winning a title (because you don't earn as much money...which is fundamentally where those player's wages come from) then the sport disappears. could you imagine any player really giving a shit about going down if they knew they'd still get paid exactly the same regardless of what division they played in? and like i said, you can't just limit it to the Prem or players will just bugger off.there's no way it could/would ever work practically. just the way of the world mate and football is no different, never has been at any point. it may not be the ideal John Lennon world you'd like to see but if it was then competitive sport simply wouldn't even exist! The only place I see this working is in the MLS, as the league is so fragile. There is no relegation and there are salary caps barring your two designated players. It still hasnt helped really as the big spenders like LA still win the league.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 14:46:49 GMT
but the teams weren't even on an even footing financially for the decades before the Prem. you succeed = you achieve extra financial success...that's the way it's always been and is kinda the point of competing in this sport as it leads you to being able to push on and get better. yes, silverware is good but if teams weren't rewarded financially for that success as well then the entire sport globally would disintegrate very quickly! why would anyone invest in a team if they knew that succeeding wouldn't mean anything to them? they'd literally be throwing their money down the drain. take away the financial incentives (which have ALWAYS been there even before the Prem was even thought of) and you lose the incentive for competitiveness full stop! i agree the finances are far too much but to say every team should be on an equal footing is simply ludicrous and negates the point of trying to win anything!!!!! the players may say they just want the glory but make no mistake, the clubs themselves and the owners and shareholders want the bucks. to try to infer it's only been that way in the Prem just isn't true! if you make all Prem teams pay the same wages then quite simply all the players would move abroad...if you make all clubs globally pay the same wages then winning,losing, getting promoted, being relegated etc. all becomes pointless and if there's no fear of being relegated or glory in winning a title (because you don't earn as much money...which is fundamentally where those player's wages come from) then the sport disappears. could you imagine any player really giving a shit about going down if they knew they'd still get paid exactly the same regardless of what division they played in? and like i said, you can't just limit it to the Prem or players will just bugger off.there's no way it could/would ever work practically. just the way of the world mate and football is no different, never has been at any point. it may not be the ideal John Lennon world you'd like to see but if it was then competitive sport simply wouldn't even exist! The only place I see this working is in the MLS, as the league is so fragile. There is no relegation and there are salary caps barring your two designated players. It still hasnt helped really as the big spenders like LA still win the league. exactly mate! if you ensure that all clubs pay the same wages then they'll just pay exorbitant fees in place of that to get the players they want so nothing is achieved whatsoever. if you put a transfer fee cap on then players will move abroad. iof all clubs around the world have the same cap then where's the motivation for any players to improve or achieve more or better? it's basically the real world equivalent of giving every team in the Prem a mars bar for turning up and telling them "They're all winners". the simple fact is that football is a business and for the "Employees" of that business it's their career. no-one tells me i can't work harder to try to get a better position and therefore a better wage so why should they just because it's football?? they happen to have chosen a career where wages are massive, if they work damn hard to achieve their goals and work their way up the ladder then why do they have any less right to earn the going rate in their industry that we do in ours?
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on May 6, 2015 15:24:12 GMT
This Palacios situation is insane, we made him rich FFS! Jeez, 4 long years of that clown wearing out the club carpets while we gently feather his pocket to the tune of £45,000 a week Tempting to give him a boot up the jacksy as he heads out the door isn't it? If that is what he is on then that is eye watering because add wages to His transfer and agent fees he will have cost Stoke City around £300k for each and every one of the 53 appearances he made. That is sick and I just wonder if secretly any heads rolled over the original deal.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 6, 2015 16:08:30 GMT
Jeez, 4 long years of that clown wearing out the club carpets while we gently feather his pocket to the tune of £45,000 a week Tempting to give him a boot up the jacksy as he heads out the door isn't it? If that is what he is on then that is eye watering because add wages to His transfer and agent fees he will have cost Stoke City around £300k for each and every one of the 53 appearances he made. That is sick and I just wonder if secretly any heads rolled over the original deal. I thought it was agreed that he was on £26k per week. That seems to have been the received wisdom for the past few years. Still ridiculous given how little we get for our money but almost £20k per week less than £45K. Yes, there was probably a signing on fee but I can't see that amounting to the equivalent of another £20k per week on top of a £26k wage. I suspect the true figure is somewhere between the two. Anyone can make mistakes and most managers do but what pisses me off about Palacios is that there seemed to be general agreement amongst Spurs fans that, whilst he had been great when they signed him, his head had "gone" after the death of his brother. It was a heluva big risk we took and it didn't come close to paying off.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on May 6, 2015 19:02:24 GMT
If that is what he is on then that is eye watering because add wages to His transfer and agent fees he will have cost Stoke City around £300k for each and every one of the 53 appearances he made. That is sick and I just wonder if secretly any heads rolled over the original deal. I thought it was agreed that he was on £26k per week. That seems to have been the received wisdom for the past few years. Still ridiculous given how little we get for our money but almost £20k per week less than £45K. Yes, there was probably a signing on fee but I can't see that amounting to the equivalent of another £20k per week on top of a £26k wage. I suspect the true figure is somewhere between the two. Anyone can make mistakes and most managers do but what pisses me off about Palacios is that there seemed to be general agreement amongst Spurs fans that, whilst he had been great when they signed him, his head had "gone" after the death of his brother. It was a heluva big risk we took and it didn't come close to paying off. Not sure I go along with this LP. It goes something like this.......WP's brother is kidnapped in 2007 and ransom demands are made for his release. Spurs sign him for £12m in early 2009 when his brother is still held by his captors but they kill him and his body is found in early May. Both Stoke and spurs would surely have had him looked mentally given the amount of money being banded around.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 6, 2015 19:11:27 GMT
I thought it was agreed that he was on £26k per week. That seems to have been the received wisdom for the past few years. Still ridiculous given how little we get for our money but almost £20k per week less than £45K. Yes, there was probably a signing on fee but I can't see that amounting to the equivalent of another £20k per week on top of a £26k wage. I suspect the true figure is somewhere between the two. Anyone can make mistakes and most managers do but what pisses me off about Palacios is that there seemed to be general agreement amongst Spurs fans that, whilst he had been great when they signed him, his head had "gone" after the death of his brother. It was a heluva big risk we took and it didn't come close to paying off. Not sure I go along with this LP. It goes something like this.......WP's brother is kidnapped in 2007 and ransom demands are made for his release. Spurs sign him for £12m in early 2009 when his brother is still held by his captors but they kill him and his body is found in early May. Both Stoke and spurs would surely have had him looked mentally given the amount of money being banded around. Fair enough - which begs the question as to why did his form dip quite so drastically when it did? And it seemed to be mental rather than physical.
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on May 6, 2015 21:12:38 GMT
This Palacios situation is insane, we made him rich FFS! Jeez, 4 long years of that clown wearing out the club carpets while we gently feather his pocket to the tune of £45,000 a week Tempting to give him a boot up the jacksy as he heads out the door isn't it? The boot should be up the arse of the jokers who vetted and sanctioned the deal!
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on May 6, 2015 21:44:09 GMT
Not sure I go along with this LP. It goes something like this.......WP's brother is kidnapped in 2007 and ransom demands are made for his release. Spurs sign him for £12m in early 2009 when his brother is still held by his captors but they kill him and his body is found in early May. Both Stoke and spurs would surely have had him looked mentally given the amount of money being banded around. Fair enough - which begs the question as to why did his form dip quite so drastically when it did? And it seemed to be mental rather than physical. Well just take a look at his career stats from Wiki. Is he really that good? His early career with Olimpia in Paraguay was good....but how "good" is that compared to PL. after Olimpia he played around 100 PL games in six seasons for Wigan, Birmingham and Spurs before arriving at Stoke. Not exactly prolific IMO. Could it be more of he was never that good rather than having a mental or physical fitness problem. In addition he has never tried to get a move to enable him to get more playing time which again points to him being happy with his lot as a sometimes fringe player on a lot of money. Which ever way you look at it he has been just about our biggest financial mistake since promotion. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Palacios
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 6, 2015 21:54:52 GMT
Fair enough - which begs the question as to why did his form dip quite so drastically when it did? And it seemed to be mental rather than physical. Well just take a look at his career stats from Wiki. Is he really that good? His early career with Olimpia in Paraguay was good....but how "good" is that compared to PL. after Olimpia he played around 100 PL games in six seasons for Wigan, Birmingham and Spurs before arriving at Stoke. Not exactly prolific IMO. Could it be more of he was never that good rather than having a mental or physical fitness problem. In addition he has never tried to get a move to enable him to get more playing time which again points to him being happy with his lot as a sometimes fringe player on a lot of money. Which ever way you look at it he has been just about our biggest financial mistake since promotion. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_PalaciosI have said that very thing on here several times in the past, that he was never any good to begin with, and folks have jumped down my throat, but I am convinced it is true, he just wasn't, isn't and never will be much good at football.
|
|
|
Post by Kewstokie on May 6, 2015 22:28:15 GMT
Interesting article in tonight's Evening Standard on Spurs pay structure. Bentaleb currently on £8k a week, Mason seemingly on 25k and Kane, Eriksen and Vertonghen on 40k. Dembele must be on the same 40k probably. Not a lot different from our structure I'd hazard a guess there - but interesting to note that two of their top 'stars' who are on a lot more than that don't play - Adebayor and Soldado, ex Harry men? *note to hide the insanity of player's wages they are always quoted in weekly pay - last time that was done for an ordinary job was in the 80's, we all talk about annual salary now
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on May 6, 2015 23:39:07 GMT
I read somewhere recently that Crystal Palace max out at £45,000 per month but that under new ownership up to 4 new players will be sanctioned at the £65,000 level. I don't know how much of that would be a real rise and how much would be simply keeping up with the inevitable wage inflation arising from wheel barrows full of extra bank notes being parked outside the office doors of the Premier League Chairman. I guess the other thing you have to consider is the reaction of incumbent players at a similar level stuck on existing old money contracts. Interesting to know how far we could/would go though. To some extent this will define our summer activity I imagine I think you mean per week not per month. Wilko gets about £45k per month. I'd imagine that Bojan probably gets close to £60k per week if all the incentives get paid. Obviously his basic will be well below that - lucky for us in the circumstances. I'm pretty sure Wilko gets more than that a month, or at least he used to any way, before his new deal, but back to the original question, I was always under the impression that 45k was our max and as has been said the rest made up with bonuses, Crouch for example got his Tottenham wages met when he joined, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 7, 2015 12:21:12 GMT
I think you mean per week not per month. Wilko gets about £45k per month. I'd imagine that Bojan probably gets close to £60k per week if all the incentives get paid. Obviously his basic will be well below that - lucky for us in the circumstances. I'm pretty sure Wilko gets more than that a month, or at least he used to any way, before his new deal, but back to the original question, I was always under the impression that 45k was our max and as has been said the rest made up with bonuses, Crouch for example got his Tottenham wages met when he joined, apparently. I heard the same as you as regards our standard £45k max. BUT I did hear at the time of the Bojan Transfer that he could get up to £60k depending upon performances and contingency payments. But, given that he cost us the square root of bugger all, I was not surprised to hear that we had broken through our wage ceiling if all contingency payments were made.
|
|