This sums it up for me


Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand why we didn't just hand Congerton and Advocaat £30-40m in the summer and tell them to get the 5/6 quality players in that he needed. It would be easier to get rid of players that way as they'd know their days are numbered. We'd have time enough to sort the wage bill out. But Short calls a meeting during the summer and tell them he can get those players but he has to sell and lower the wage bill. Why did he wait until then?

I know splashing the cash is a big gamble but what are doing now is even bigger one!
 
We're hamstrung by poor decisions. Drummerville had a scattergun approach and the Henderson money was never invested correctly. Add to that De Fanti and countless changes of manager. If we arn't generating cash we can't spend. It's almost like we can't afford to be a Premier League club.

If we are presently hamstrung (and I would agree that we are), then the choice for the club is between treating the injury or accepting that we will always have limp. In my view treating the injury ('SAFC in breakthrough hamstring bypass surgery' !) is the best way forward - but an Elastoplast won't get the job done, it will require some expensive and quite major surgery.

Just by being a member of the Premier League generates income for SAFC and these earnings will increase still further in the near future, so long as membership is maintained. The truth is that we can no longer afford not to be a member of the Premier League.

The article is pretty much spot on with my own assessment of the situation. Whilst the journalist (Scott Wilson) makes a small mistake, by suggesting that
"... the fact that Sunderland are still paying off instalments owed on transfers that stretch back two or three years ..." is unusual, when, in fact, it is the regular practice of all clubs and so cannot be an explanation "... for why the scope for further investment is limited ..."

For me, the most striking comment in the article is - "... Other clubs have found ways of working around FFP regulations ...". This seems to bear out my assertion from earlier this week that SAFC need a creative accountant more than a creative midfielder.

It is my opinion that the FFP wages limitation is being trotted out by the club to justify a lack of action and to mask the preference for doing things 'on-the-cheap'.
 
..."

For me, the most striking comment in the article is - "... Other clubs have found ways of working around FFP regulations ...". This seems to bear out my assertion from earlier this week that SAFC need a creative accountant more than a creative midfielder.

It is my opinion that the FFP wages limitation is being trotted out by the club to justify a lack of action and to mask the preference for doing things 'on-the-cheap'.

It doesn't to me mate..to me its a journo making an all encompassing statement when he hasn't got a Scooby what these ways around it actually are.............

In reality Southampton can spend as they have made around £100 million from player sales,Stoke have sold their best two players for decent cash and Palace have a wage bill that's below the FFP limit where the £4 million a year kick in...............

If the wage bill increase is a rolling one its wages that were above £56 million in the last accounts and ours was £68 million.......

And according to the two comments below his article the journo is a mag who never says anything optimistic about us.......

Bet it's somewhere around 30k
That's hardly a big hitter then especially when you consider that's less than the average PL wage and if he had left we would have likely had to pay a fee for a replacement..........

For the record I didn't want him to stay.........
 
It doesn't to me mate..to me its a journo making an all encompassing statement when he hasn't got a Scooby what these ways around it actually are.............

In reality Southampton can spend as they have made around £100 million from player sales,Stoke have sold their best two players for decent cash and Palace have a wage bill that's below the FFP limit where the £4 million a year kick in...............

If the wage bill increase is a rolling one its wages that were above £56 million in the last accounts and ours was £68 million.......

And according to the two comments below his article the journo is a mag who never says anything optimistic about us.......


That's hardly a big hitter then especially when you consider that's less than the average PL wage and if he had left we would have likely had to pay a fee for a replacement..........

For the record I didn't want him to stay.........
West Ham and to a lesser extent Everton always seem to do fine. West Ham must have a canny wage bill.
 
Presumably DA has his own fitness/nutrition gadgy who specifically does this..........Poyer did tho he looked like a Nazi death camp doctor...............



You have nothing at all to base that on though............

You tell me what they are then as man city have found out which is stopping them investing again this summer
 
West Ham and to a lesser extent Everton always seem to do fine. West Ham must have a canny wage bill.
Both of them are over the limit but its only this season now clubs are having to start to think about this and Eerton haven't signed anyone yet have they?

Granted West ham have but they have lost Downing who was on shitloads from their wage bill...........

You tell me what they are then as man city have found out which is stopping them investing again this summer
Man Citys problems have stemmed from the Uefa Rules which they are subject to having qualified for one of their competitions..............

PL FFP does state the sanctions if they do get set down will include points deductions.........Uefa have no such power..............
 
If we are presently hamstrung (and I would agree that we are), then the choice for the club is between treating the injury or accepting that we will always have limp. In my view treating the injury ('SAFC in breakthrough hamstring bypass surgery' !) is the best way forward - but an Elastoplast won't get the job done, it will require some expensive and quite major surgery.

Just by being a member of the Premier League generates income for SAFC and these earnings will increase still further in the near future, so long as membership is maintained. The truth is that we can no longer afford not to be a member of the Premier League.

The article is pretty much spot on with my own assessment of the situation. Whilst the journalist (Scott Wilson) makes a small mistake, by suggesting that
"... the fact that Sunderland are still paying off instalments owed on transfers that stretch back two or three years ..." is unusual, when, in fact, it is the regular practice of all clubs and so cannot be an explanation "... for why the scope for further investment is limited ..."

For me, the most striking comment in the article is - "... Other clubs have found ways of working around FFP regulations ...". This seems to bear out my assertion from earlier this week that SAFC need a creative accountant more than a creative midfielder.

It is my opinion that the FFP wages limitation is being trotted out by the club to justify a lack of action and to mask the preference for doing things 'on-the-cheap'.

Short and SAFC was one of, if not the, chief instigators of the FFP rules. He can't well be seen canvassing for clubs spending within their means and stop the vicious circle of overspending and then go and find loopholes in the very proposals he's put forward.
 
Both of them are over the limit but its only this season now clubs are having to start to think about this and Eerton haven't signed anyone yet have they?

Granted West ham have but they have lost Downing who was on shitloads from their wage bill...........


Man Citys problems have stemmed from the Uefa Rules which they are subject to having qualified for one of their competitions..............

PL FFP does state the sanctions if they do get set down will include points deductions.........Uefa have no such power..............
So we panicking over something which nobody knows what or how if anything will be enforced
 
So we panicking over something which nobody knows what or how if anything will be enforced

No the framework is there and do you want to take the risk of points deductions............they just haven't put the meat on the bones yet but that not to say at some point they might not........

Plus anyway like most PL clubs we have loads of debt but we unlike mist have sod all that's saleable...........
 
No the framework is there and do you want to take the risk of points deductions............they just haven't put the meat on the bones yet but that not to say at some point they might not........

Plus anyway like most PL clubs we have loads of debt but we unlike mist have sod all that's saleable...........
But nobody has been penalised by it and QPR blew that out the water last year and had a £58 million or so fine imposed which already looks like it's been reduced to £10 million. I will bet they end up paying nothing at all. I'm not suggesting anything quite like what QPR did but we bring in about 4 proven quality players it would stop the need to build a new team every year. We would only need 1 or 2 quality players then on in per year and the books would sharp balance themselves
 
No I countered both your points ..........its hardly Shorts fault Southampton produce so much from their academy or Crystal Palace have a low wage bill they can push up far more than ours is it.

And PL clubs wage bills only go one way thanks to the money in the game and he inherited one that was almost the same as the limit at which FFP restrictions start........


Having looked Southampton actually picked up Bale from having a satellite academy in Bath so I suppose it was their catchment area........

Wonder what prompted that in the first place and if they still have it.............?

Are Crystal Palace not subject to the £4m cap on any year-on-year increase that is being trotted out to justify why we are unable to act ? I would have thought that Palace may have been starting from a lower base, but would still have only been able to increase their wage bill by £12m during the last three years.

I am also sure that you are correct about the general direction of travel of Premier League clubs' wages bills being inexorably upwards. However, I thought the speed of travel was limited by the aforementioned £4m maximum increase, year-on-year.
 
But nobody has been penalised by it and QPR blew that out the water last year and had a £58 million or so fine imposed which already looks like it's been reduced to £10 million. I will bet they end up paying nothing at all. I'm not suggesting anything quite like what QPR did but we bring in about 4 proven quality players it would stop the need to build a new team every year. We would only need 1 or 2 quality players then on in per year and the books would sharp balance themselves
No because the first -PL penalties were mooted from around the start of the year but haven't been clarified yet............They were only due to wage bill restrictions as well..........

QPR had the fine under Championship riles which are different to the PL ones ...they only relate to clubs making losses and have nothing to do with wage bills........and they are in place and clarified...........

Yes the monster fines probably going to be reduced but its got nothing to do with the PL ones..........

Are Crystal Palace not subject to the £4m cap on any year-on-year increase that is being trotted out to justify why we are unable to act ? I would have thought that Palace may have been starting from a lower base, but would still have only been able to increase their wage bill by £12m during the last three years.

I am also sure that you are correct about the general direction of travel of Premier League clubs' wages bills being inexorably upwards. However, I thought the speed of travel was limited by the aforementioned £4m maximum increase, year-on-year.
No because Palace have a current wage bill that's well under the FFP level where restrictions kick in.............They have a lot more room to add to it than we do.............

Their current wage bill is around £45 million which is around 10% less than ours was when Short bought the club..........
 
No because the first -PL penalties were mooted from around the start of the year but haven't been clarified yet............They were only due to wage bill restrictions as well..........

QPR had the fine under Championship riles which are different to the PL ones ...they only relate to clubs making losses and have nothing to do with wage bills........and they are in place and clarified...........

Yes the monster fines probably going to be reduced but its got nothing to do with the PL ones..........
I honestly believe we are hiding behind it. If it's the wages then why don't we pay some of them off and then the wage bill will be lower? Also we sold Wickham and straight away signed mvila and tried to sign fer who combined would of both been on more wages...considerably more. Something just is not right at the moment at the club
 
I honestly believe we are hiding behind it. If it's the wages then why don't we pay some of them off and then the wage bill will be lower? Also we sold Wickham and straight away signed mvila and tried to sign fer who combined would of both been on more wages...considerably more. Something just is not right at the moment at the club
Its the wage bill at the start of the financial year which is July 1st so paying folk off wouldn't make a slightest bit of difference at the moment and if you paid some one of who had more than a year to run it makes it worse as it adds it all to this years wage bill...............

If Wickham was on the reputed £50/60k a week then we would have scope to increase it by £13o/140k a week which having signed Kaboul/Lens/Mvilla we are probably close to...........
 
Its the wage bill at the start of the financial year which is July 1st so paying folk off wouldn't make a slightest bit of difference at the moment and if you paid some one of who had more than a year to run it makes it worse as it adds it all to this years wage bill...............

If Wickham was on the reputed £50/60k a week then we would have scope to increase it by £13o/140k a week which having signed Kaboul/Lens/Mvilla we are probably close to...........
So it's after July 1st now so no point in getting rid of the shite as won't make a difference as per selling Wickham?
 
So it's after July 1st now so no point in getting rid of the shite as won't make a difference as per selling Wickham?
Youre on about paying them off........players wont leave unless they get their contract paid up so in Fletchers sake( as hes in his last year) it still means the wages on the bill for this financial year but possibly paid to him in one go to get him to leave (not that he would anyway).

Wickhams wage is obviously only on the bill until the point he left so if he went say on Aug 1st its only 4 weeks and the other 48 aren't paid as hes left...........
 
Youre on about paying them off........players wont leave unless they get their contract paid up so in Fletchers sake( as hes in his last year) it still means the wages on the bill for this financial year but possibly paid to him in one go to get him to leave (not that he would anyway).

Wickhams wage is obviously only on the bill until the point he left so if he went say on Aug 1st its only 4 weeks and the other 48 aren't paid as hes left...........
Right I get this now with regards to paying players off. Could we not be creative in say our sponsorship of say the ground with one of shorts other companies...Man City did.
If the club were serious of kicking on then they would imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top