How much have we shifted off the wage bill?

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

Well for FFP it will have increased loads.

All players signed before June 2010 don't count so most of the ones who have left were not needed to be declared on the FFP balance sheet for the first monitoring period.

 

[Metal Biker]

I don't get this whole 'players before 2010 don't count' rubbish.

Does that mean the Sheikh was permitted to continue using his own money to pay their wages rather than it being the responsibility of the club? If so then why were the 'experts' moaning so much?

If not then it doesn't matter when they were signed, surely as the wages are added to the overall wage bill, which affects the FFP?

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

We will have paid swp and bellamy a hefty pay off. We will be pay at least 50% of Ade and RSC wages and will now be paying all of bridges wage.

Tevez is still being paid and Nasri Aguerro, And clichy will be on a good number.

Hargreaves Pantilon and savic won't be too drastic.

Wageroll definately increased significantly.

This is not correct.

we got a loan fee of Spurs to cover Ades wages.
RCS accepted less wages so he could move on and play football.

Why would we pay off Bellamy so he could join liverpool for free? dont make any sense, then we could have him in the reserves. so no we dont pay him anything.

we dont pay anything for SWP either

PS.
Boateng has left so 10 million plus hes off the wage bill too


we did good this window

Don't be so ridiculous.

All the players got pay offs. You think SWP just took a massive paycut because he wants to play football? Nice though but never going to happen.

The loan fees for RSC and Ade will not cover their full wage at all and to think so is slightly deluded.

Bellamy would have been happy to sit out his contract without a payoff.

Lets be serious here we were paying SWP about 60k a week and i would be shocked if QPR didnt offer there or there abouts so why would we need to give him a pay off

 

[the goats backside]

This is not correct.

we got a loan fee of Spurs to cover Ades wages.
RCS accepted less wages so he could move on and play football.

Why would we pay off Bellamy so he could join liverpool for free? dont make any sense, then we could have him in the reserves. so no we dont pay him anything.

we dont pay anything for SWP either

PS.
Boateng has left so 10 million plus hes off the wage bill too


we did good this window

Don't be so ridiculous.

All the players got pay offs. You think SWP just took a massive paycut because he wants to play football? Nice though but never going to happen.

The loan fees for RSC and Ade will not cover their full wage at all and to think so is slightly deluded.

Bellamy would have been happy to sit out his contract without a payoff.

Lets be serious here we were paying SWP about 60k a week and i would be shocked if QPR didnt offer there or there abouts so why would we need to give him a pay off[/quote]

He didnt ask for a transfer

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I don't get this whole 'players before 2010 don't count' rubbish.

There is a provision in FFP that the wages of any players who were contracted before 1st June 2010 can be excluded from the FFP calculation for year 2011/12 only if we don't meet FFPR but if we would do if that figure is excluded.

So if the accounts for this year show we paid £150m in wages and £100m of that was to players who were under contract at that time, we can adjust our wages figure to only show £50m to the FFP Licensing body but only if that makes the difference between breaking even or not.

The wages of any players who have signed contracts since 1/6/10, including renegotiated ones, can't be excluded.

They will still be shown in the main accounts in full.

 

[LawsBackHeel]

I don't get this whole 'players before 2010 don't count' rubbish.

Does that mean the Sheikh was permitted to continue using his own money to pay their wages rather than it being the responsibility of the club? If so then why were the 'experts' moaning so much?

If not then it doesn't matter when they were signed, surely as the wages are added to the overall wage bill, which affects the FFP?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/02/01/revealed-why-chelsea-dont-fear-uefas-ffp-rules-wages-dont-count-for-first-two-years-010205/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sportingintelligence.com/201 ... rs-010205/</a>

This explains it very well even though it is on Chelski.