Worried about the wages????

[Matty]

Whilst I obviously don't fully understand the new UEFA Financial rules and regulations I'd be astonished if ADUG, with their resources, weren't well aware of the nuances and didn't have a detailed plan in place to deal with our wage bill and our transfer spending under these new guidelines.

 

[Braggster]

I hope the club know something we don't, because there's no way if we continue like this that we'll be able to meet UEFA's regulations.

Some of the wages we're handing out are just absurd. Even with CL revenue we won't cover them IMO

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Really, really daft post. Sorry.

It's not the owner's wealth that anyone is worried about but the impact on our future financial position under the Fair Play regulations. Our current wage bill now probably far exceeds our revenue and that should be a cause for concern of all of us. Even very average (on a good day) players like SWP are demanding £100k a week allegedly because he sees new players coming in on ludicrous salaries. These sort of wages set the benchmark so we won't get away with offering anyone even £50k a week from now on. Remember when we refused to go over £30k a week?

The key questions are:
1) What would happen if the Sheikh walked away?
2) Even if he doesn't, what's the plan to make us self-financing?

city street is the first step mate....i take it this will be open all year round, not just match days and will look to atrract people onto the complex. I'm hoping to eventually see a couple of hotels too.

Do we still have plans in place to brand the city name around the globe? We were looking at opening city themed restaurants and hotels around the globe. I'd have thought this has been put on the back burner until we are globally known and a regular CL team, therefore making it easier to market.

I'm hoping we're gonna get some presence from the WestCornwallPastyCo. Seems it'll be the only way yer'll get a decent pasty in East Manchester on a matchday!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'm hoping we're gonna get some presence from the WestCornwallPastyCo. Seems it'll be the only way yer'll get a decent pasty in East Manchester on a matchday!

Amazing isn't it. You can find two really good pasty stalls at any London station yet can't get one near Eastlands.

 

[Damocles]

For those on here who are continually highlighting the HUGE wages we choose to pay to assemble the best, lets get some perspective!
It was the wankers from Trafford that started this game of silly wages, to try to maintain their stranglehold on the monopoly of top tallent.
It was them again who insisted on the 'global brand' issues in merchandising to keep them ahead of any competition, so don't let any rags dare to whinge now they are down and out.
Beckham and Ferdinand were being paid around £100k a week almost ten years ago.
But to ease your minds slightly, if our owner didn't invest any of his money and never made another penny, and chose to pay each of our 1st team squad £4millon a week, it would take over a hundred years before he even went close to his overdaft!
so lets stop being petty and let the ones with nowt do the worrying!

Its not the wages its the expectation that goes along wth it - may people seem to think a 160K a week players is twice as good as a 80K \ week player which we know to be bollocks and when things go awry people start postng shit and the fans get on the players/ manager back.

The major issue with the wages is the new financial rules coming in force and i am expecting some quite brutal cuts in the playing staff this transfer window. I really dont think the EPL has thought this 25 man squad through - there is going to be an awful lot of unhappy / unemployed footballers this year.

For me i dont care what they earn - people who point out how disgusting what footballers earn is the polotics of envy - if people are going to start complaining what they earn then complain about top golf pros or motor racing drivers (many of whom fook off to Monaco to avoid UK tax) or actors of fookin TV chefs.

UEFA rules:

"Players under contract before 1 June 2010
If a licensee reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the
acceptable deviation and it fulfils both conditions described below then this
would be taken into account in a favourable way.
i) It reports a positive trend in the annual break-even results (proving it has
implemented a concrete strategy for future compliance); and
ii) It proves that the aggregate break-even deficit is only due to the annual
break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 which in turn is
due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010 (for the
avoidance of doubt, all renegotiations on contracts undertaken after such
date would not be taken into account).
This means that a licensee that reports an aggregate break-even deficit that
exceeds the acceptable deviation but that satisfies both conditions described
under i) and ii) above should in principle not be sanctioned."

The acceptable deviation is the maximum aggregate break-even deficit possible
for a club to be deemed in compliance with the break-even requirement as
defined in Article 63.
2 The acceptable deviation is EUR 5 million. However it can exceed this level up
to the following amounts only if such excess is entirely covered by contributions
from equity participants and/or related parties:
a) EUR 45 million for the monitoring period assessed in the licence seasons
2013/14 and 2014/15;
b) EUR 30 million for the monitoring period assessed in the licence seasons
2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18;
c) a lower amount as decided in due course by the UEFA Executive Committee
for the monitoring periods assessed in the following years.

Anything signed before this transfer window doesn't count.

 

[stonerblue]

I couldn't give a shit how much a player earns

 

[cibaman]

If the owner sold the club the wage bill would be a major factor in how much he would get for the club, how big a loss he makes. The new owner would then gradually reduce the wage bill to a level he can afford.

Ultimately the new owner would reduce the wage bill to a realistic proportion of turnover. He/she would have to take into account the likely reduction in turnover that would result from selling higher paid players. Eventually we would reach a sort of steady state.

I've never expected the Sheikh to be still owning City in 10 years time. The key for City is that, during his period of his ownership, we significantly increase our turnover on a sustainable basis. If he eventually sells us when our average gate has increased to say 55,000, when our sponsorship and merchandising income has increased fivefold, when we are regularly earning decent prizemoney, then we will still be able to still employ top quality players But obviously there would be a period of re-adjustment. Equally obviously he isnt going to keep spending £100m+ every summer and paying players twice what they are worth.

 

[daveduke67]

I thought Blackburn started the 'flash the cash' thing. Jack Walker put £30m into the club and got Shearer from under the noses of the rags. I'm not sure he would have chosen the mighty Rovers over utd. if the wages were the same.

Saying that, our own manager chose Sampdoria over the club he adored and used to travel ten hours on a bus with his Dad to see, Juventus. He said it was for the challenge of playing for a club that had never won a major trophy before. If that's true, and I have little doubt it isn't - respect to the man.

 

[Chippy_boy]

For those on here who are continually highlighting the HUGE wages we choose to pay to assemble the best, lets get some perspective!
It was the wankers from Trafford that started this game of silly wages, to try to maintain their stranglehold on the monopoly of top tallent.
It was them again who insisted on the 'global brand' issues in merchandising to keep them ahead of any competition, so don't let any rags dare to whinge now they are down and out.
Beckham and Ferdinand were being paid around £100k a week almost ten years ago.
But to ease your minds slightly, if our owner didn't invest any of his money and never made another penny, and chose to pay each of our 1st team squad £4millon a week (that's a total weekly outlay of £100million), it would take over a hundred years before he even went close to his overdaft!
so lets stop being petty and let the ones with nowt do the worrying!

Top post sir

I don't think it is.

Anyone who thinks that because he's loaded the Sheikh doesn't worry about money is plain dreaming. EVERYONE worries about money no matter how much you have. No-one likes to be ripped off and everyone needs to feel they are getting value - a decent return on their investment.

If this was not the case, why doesn't the Sheikh just buy Messi for £250m, Ronaldo for £150m and everyone else he feels like buying and we can win the PL and Europa next season, the CL the year after and stay at the top for 10 years.

He isn't doing that because - amongst other things - he is not a fool with his money and yes, we do have limited funds.

 

[Northern3]

It is outrageous what wages players earn now adays,but they are in the entertainment business and like it or not the wages are here to stay for a long time yet.Footballers are up there with film stars and pop stars when it comes to being put on a pedastal with an halo.

I don't think you can just blame the players for the wages they earn,the clubs can always say no,but obsession to be the best team in europe or win a domestic trophy pushes a lot of clubs to the brink of extinction you can use Portsmouth or Leeds as prime examples.And the reality is only a handle of clubs normally have even a chance of winning any sort of silverware.Also the mega wealth that is generated by the Premier League once again pushes the clubs to going out of business.