One out one in is how its going to be

seanwharton said:
We do have a multi millionaire owner who said he was going to put in the Parachute payment money as and when is needed . Perhaps it’s needed now so we don’t have to have the rigid one in one out route . Or be in a position where we lose two of our most effective players over the course of one and a half windows


GOM has answered that above mate . It’s not definitive
Click to expand...
But that doesn’t solve the wage problem. Paying fees, from my understanding, isn’t really the issue it’s the wage cap.
If we don’t do something to reduce it we’re heading for trouble next season, regardless of which league we are playing in.
 


Invictus said:
But that doesn’t solve the wage problem. Paying fees, from my understanding, isn’t really the issue it’s the wage cap.
If we don’t do something to reduce it we’re heading for trouble next season, regardless of which league we are playing in.
Click to expand...

Wage cap doesn't apply in the Championship. Obviously spending a fortune would mean we make a big loss, but if we're at break-even or profit-making now then, again, it isn't going to cause an issue with FFP. It's about owner appetite/ambition
 
BumbleBee said:
Would a potential way to solve cashflow and income be for the owners to drip feed in some of the cash they owe SAFC @Grumpy Old Man ?
Click to expand...

It ought to be, so long as HMRC don't treat it as a donation. Because it related to parachute payments, which would have been treated as taxable income in previous tax years, it could be open to HMRC to do this. If this happened, it's effectiveness would be reduced as part of it would have to go in corporation tax, as you can't set non-trading profits against trading losses brought forward.
 
JimmyQuinn said:
Wage cap doesn't apply in the Championship. Obviously spending a fortune would mean we make a big loss, but if we're at break-even or profit-making now then, again, it isn't going to cause an issue with FFP. It's about owner appetite/ambition
Click to expand...

However, given that we, off all fans, should know that nothing in football is guaranteed, it would be foolish not to plan at this stage for the possibility of not getting promoted. That means we need to start bringing the wage bill down now; if not, and we don't go up, that will mean an immediate need to drop the wage bill. In other words, a fire sale next summer. It's a conundrum with no easy solutions.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
It ought to be, so long as HMRC don't treat it as a donation. Because it related to parachute payments, which would have been treated as taxable income in previous tax years, it could be open to HMRC to do this. If this happened, it's effectiveness would be reduced as part of it would have to go in corporation tax, as you can't set non-trading profits against trading losses brought forward.
Click to expand...

This doesnt sound great for ever getting back the borrowed parachute payment into the club.
 
kildaremackem said:
we have signed two new midfielders...and taken robson's wage back onto the books..so three more CMs being paid from catts money..

if he is first choice-why did we sign hume? if he is not good enoughto be a league one starter-we shouldnt have wasted money on signing him..
Click to expand...
We didnt sign hume... he was a youth :confused:
 
chriswallace85 said:
I've obviously missed summit here. What's the crack? Can I trouble @Grumpy Old Man for a quick catch up?
Click to expand...

It was pretty well summed up in the RR article. In L1, there's a salary cap, which is 60% of revenue. Including this year's parachute, our cap will be around £18m. You trigger an EFL investigation (a bit like special measures) if you're over 90% of that. That gives us around £16.2m in reality. Next season, if we don't go up, that will fall to around £9.7m. The only way that can be increased is by getting in transfer income, or by the owners putting in share capital or donations. Our current wage bill is uncomfortable close to the £16.2m. The real constraint is not being able to bring in new wages, not paying transfer fees.

studs said:
This doesnt sound great for ever getting back the borrowed parachute payment into the club.
Click to expand...

It's a definite problem. The Drumaville/Madrox SPA has, charitably, not been well drafted.
 
Last edited:
kildaremackem said:
we have signed two new midfielders...and taken robson's wage back onto the books..so three more CMs being paid from catts money..

if he is first choice-why did we sign hume? if he is not good enoughto be a league one starter-we shouldnt have wasted money on signing him..
Click to expand...
Same can be said of Sammut and Burge who look to be squad players at best, who you conveniently count as positive signings. You're need to defend the owners and club on everything,, even when it contradicts what you have previously said, is very strange.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
It was pretty well summed up in the RR article. In L1, there's a salary cap, which is 60% of revenue. Including this year's parachute, our cap will be around £18m. You trigger an EFL investigation (a bit like special measures) if you're over 90% of that. That gives us around £16.2m in reality. Next season, if we don't go up, that will fall to around £9.7m. The only way that can be increased is by getting in transfer income, or by the owners putting in share capital or donations. Our current wage bill is uncomfortable close to the £16.2m. The real constraint is not being able to bring in new wages, not paying transfer fees.



It's a definite problem. The Drumaville/Madrox SPA has, charitably, not been well drafted.
Click to expand...

So really the owners could put in capital donations and we'd be okay?
 
redgauntlet said:
Is he good enough? Are any of the younger players good enough? Do we have time to piss about with them. Do we actually want promotion. Not so canny leetle Soonlun’ at the moment!


I don’t think that Ross has it in him. There was plenty of need for change last season, it was plain to see but he just didn’t seem capable of making any change and appeared to have given up before the end.
Click to expand...
I sonr know but ross has said it so he will play his part
 
Butters said:
Same can be said of Sammut and Burge who look to be squad players at best, who you conveniently count as positive signings. You're need to defend the owners and club on everything,, even when it contradicts what you have previously said, is very strange.
Click to expand...

Sammut and Burge both look they could do a job in the first team as required.
 
kildaremackem said:
we have signed two new midfielders...and taken robson's wage back onto the books..so three more CMs being paid from catts money..

if he is first choice-why did we sign hume? if he is not good enoughto be a league one starter-we shouldnt have wasted money on signing him..
Click to expand...
How do you know Robson's wage wasn't at least partly covered by ourselves? To class him as a new signing is utterly bizarre.

And that second sentence what the fuck? What money have we wasted on signing Hume? :confused:
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
It was pretty well summed up in the RR article. In L1, there's a salary cap, which is 60% of revenue. Including this year's parachute, our cap will be around £18m. You trigger an EFL investigation (a bit like special measures) if you're over 90% of that. That gives us around £16.2m in reality. Next season, if we don't go up, that will fall to around £9.7m. The only way that can be increased is by getting in transfer income, or by the owners putting in share capital or donations. Our current wage bill is uncomfortable close to the £16.2m. The real constraint is not being able to bring in new wages, not paying transfer fees.



It's a definite problem. The Drumaville/Madrox SPA has, charitably, not been well drafted.
Click to expand...
Just have a read through now - missed it.

What's stopping them?
 

Back
Top