Quantcast
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Not much scope for signings 15:03 - Aug 8 with 3683 viewsPhilTWTD

Seems from the figures put out by the club that there's not much scope for additions within the £2.5m. Aside from the likes of Drinan and Wright, I assume pretty much all the 21 over 21s will be on more than the £113,000 which already takes us a fair bit over £2m and that's not taking into account agents' fees and other sundries. Quite a lot different than the £1,300 which was understood to be the figure existing contracts will be treated as.

https://www.twtd.co.uk/ipswich-town-news/38491
0

Not much scope for signings on 15:06 - Aug 8 with 2401 viewsAce_High1

We have a far to big a squad as it is.

We need quality not quantity. I would like to see us lose around 10 players from the bloated squad and then maybe one or two signings only.
2

Not much scope for signings on 15:08 - Aug 8 with 2377 viewsBlueBadger

As I've been saying for some time now, Evans' lack of vision and competence in running the club resulted in us ending up in League One. Lambert's lack of ability to pick a settled style, formation, first XI, tactics, motivate the side and in the transfer market will see us mired here for years.
[Post edited 8 Aug 17:39]

FOPRP.
Poll: Why wouldn't you join Fishers' 'PRP out' protest?
Blog: From Despair to Where?

3
Not much scope for signings on 15:08 - Aug 8 with 2370 viewsBlueBadger

Not much scope for signings on 15:06 - Aug 8 by Ace_High1

We have a far to big a squad as it is.

We need quality not quantity. I would like to see us lose around 10 players from the bloated squad and then maybe one or two signings only.


The main signing we need is the same as the main departure we need: the manager.

FOPRP.
Poll: Why wouldn't you join Fishers' 'PRP out' protest?
Blog: From Despair to Where?

1
Not much scope for signings on 15:14 - Aug 8 with 2335 viewsAce_High1

Not much scope for signings on 15:08 - Aug 8 by BlueBadger

The main signing we need is the same as the main departure we need: the manager.


Never going to happen so pointless worrying about it.

On the other hand we could clear out Nsiala, Norwood, Nolan, Donancien, Kenlock, Wilson etc etc
0

Not much scope for signings on 15:16 - Aug 8 with 2330 viewsJakeITFC

Realise details might be a thin on the ground as it stands Phil, but do you have any idea whether any sales made would reduce the wage bill by the smeared average rate or by the actual contracted rate (in the example of Toto would we gain £113k of cap space or his actual wage worth)?

Also, any idea whether options taken up now would be at the new wage for entirety or just for the extended period (my assumption is the whole period, hence the options taken on Nolan etc earlier on this summer).

Do you think we have any senior pros on £125k pa or less?
0
Not much scope for signings on 15:21 - Aug 8 with 2290 viewsPhilTWTD

Not much scope for signings on 15:16 - Aug 8 by JakeITFC

Realise details might be a thin on the ground as it stands Phil, but do you have any idea whether any sales made would reduce the wage bill by the smeared average rate or by the actual contracted rate (in the example of Toto would we gain £113k of cap space or his actual wage worth)?

Also, any idea whether options taken up now would be at the new wage for entirety or just for the extended period (my assumption is the whole period, hence the options taken on Nolan etc earlier on this summer).

Do you think we have any senior pros on £125k pa or less?


By the £113,000 I assume [just realised what I think you meant. Any new addition will be assessed at their full wage rather than the £113,000]. I'm sure the likes of Wright and Drinan will be on less than the £113,000 figure. Options now would be taken at the full wage rather than the reduced number, hence the Nolan and Holy option decisions.

This post has been edited by an administrator
0
Not much scope for signings on 15:21 - Aug 8 with 2285 viewsIwasthere

Not much scope for signings on 15:08 - Aug 8 by BlueBadger

The main signing we need is the same as the main departure we need: the manager.


Suits Evans, sells Downes, can't buy anyone due to the salary cap, pockets the fee and sticks with Lambert.
What a terrible club we have become.
0
Not much scope for signings on 15:25 - Aug 8 with 2250 viewsPhilTWTD

Not much scope for signings on 15:21 - Aug 8 by Iwasthere

Suits Evans, sells Downes, can't buy anyone due to the salary cap, pockets the fee and sticks with Lambert.
What a terrible club we have become.


Whatever fee we might get for Downes there seems little chance it will match what ME is likely to have to inject into the club this season given the wider financial issues.
0
Login to get fewer ads


Not much scope for signings on 15:26 - Aug 8 with 2240 viewsHerbivore

In the short term this would appear to give a competitive advantage in the transfer market to the small fry clubs who are paying under the cap already. They have more wiggle room to go out and compete for players, especially those out of contract, than clubs like ourselves who have lots of senior pros on decent money and no real room to play with.

Poll: Should someone on benefits earn more than David Cameron?
Blog: Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

0

Not much scope for signings on 15:27 - Aug 8 with 2240 viewsJDB23

Aren't you glad the club had the foresight to get in 1 or 2 players before this ruling came about.
3
Not much scope for signings on 15:27 - Aug 8 with 2226 viewsBlueBadger

Not much scope for signings on 15:21 - Aug 8 by Iwasthere

Suits Evans, sells Downes, can't buy anyone due to the salary cap, pockets the fee and sticks with Lambert.
What a terrible club we have become.


He must be gutted that he can't continue to make massive losses on us on order to offset his mythical tax bill.

FOPRP.
Poll: Why wouldn't you join Fishers' 'PRP out' protest?
Blog: From Despair to Where?

3
Not much scope for signings on 15:34 - Aug 8 with 2164 viewsPhilTWTD

Not much scope for signings on 15:27 - Aug 8 by JDB23

Aren't you glad the club had the foresight to get in 1 or 2 players before this ruling came about.


Still limited scope to get players in even before that given the figures now quoted. On the upside, I'm guessing players will be forced to take much lower contracts than they would previously.
0
Not much scope for signings on 15:38 - Aug 8 with 2111 viewsJ2BLUE

Not much scope for signings on 15:34 - Aug 8 by PhilTWTD

Still limited scope to get players in even before that given the figures now quoted. On the upside, I'm guessing players will be forced to take much lower contracts than they would previously.


This pretty much kills off any hope of Smith/Garbutt then?

Poll: Would you vote Labour to avoid a Boris led government?

0

Not much scope for signings on 15:42 - Aug 8 with 2095 viewsJermynblue

I've been looking for the full details to gain a real understanding of the salary cap, but can't seem to find the full guidelines. Does anyone know how optional years under a contract which can be exercised after yesterday will be treated under the new rule? From memory we seem to have this included in many contracts.
0
Not much scope for signings on 15:43 - Aug 8 with 2081 viewstractorboy1978

Not much scope for signings on 15:38 - Aug 8 by J2BLUE

This pretty much kills off any hope of Smith/Garbutt then?


Without going through their squad, would think Sunderland will be in the same boat as us.
0
Not much scope for signings on 15:45 - Aug 8 with 2082 viewsPhilTWTD

Not much scope for signings on 15:38 - Aug 8 by J2BLUE

This pretty much kills off any hope of Smith/Garbutt then?


Makes Garbutt very difficult, I would say, particularly as they're looking at other signings. I don't know enough about Sunderland to say whether that makes their position any different. Having made the formal offer their local press reported I assume they did that knowing how the situation would develop with the salary cap. Don't think we're looking at bringing in Tommy.
1
Not much scope for signings on 15:45 - Aug 8 with 2074 viewsJDB23

Not much scope for signings on 15:34 - Aug 8 by PhilTWTD

Still limited scope to get players in even before that given the figures now quoted. On the upside, I'm guessing players will be forced to take much lower contracts than they would previously.


I have no idea what our average wage is but surely it's quite a bit more than the £130,000? The agents and signing on fees would also not have counted towards the cap if we had bought the players before yesterday.

I guess even if we had signed players and got them classed at £130,000 there was still the possibility of that taking us over the edge. Any idea what would have happened had we been over the £2.5m already?
0
Not much scope for signings on 15:48 - Aug 8 with 2043 viewsPhilTWTD

Not much scope for signings on 15:42 - Aug 8 by Jermynblue

I've been looking for the full details to gain a real understanding of the salary cap, but can't seem to find the full guidelines. Does anyone know how optional years under a contract which can be exercised after yesterday will be treated under the new rule? From memory we seem to have this included in many contracts.


From what I'm told they would count as new contracts so at full value for next season, hence Town taking Holy and Nolan options.
0
Not much scope for signings on 15:53 - Aug 8 with 1994 viewsPhilTWTD

Not much scope for signings on 15:45 - Aug 8 by JDB23

I have no idea what our average wage is but surely it's quite a bit more than the £130,000? The agents and signing on fees would also not have counted towards the cap if we had bought the players before yesterday.

I guess even if we had signed players and got them classed at £130,000 there was still the possibility of that taking us over the edge. Any idea what would have happened had we been over the £2.5m already?


Yes, definitely more than that, a fair bit I assume. Was just thinking that we're at £2.x million in wages even with any new additions at £113,000, so we were limited in our options anyway. Clearly we were trying to get Keogh in ahead of that deadline as someone who would have been on a lot more than that. Does make me wonder whether Garbutt is still hoping to get a Championship side.

Re the over £2.5m limit even with the £113,000 thing, I've no idea. I suspect they'd not thought of that.
0
Not much scope for signings on 15:53 - Aug 8 with 1994 viewsGavTWTD

Not much scope for signings on 15:43 - Aug 8 by tractorboy1978

Without going through their squad, would think Sunderland will be in the same boat as us.


This is interesting from a Sunderland point of view:

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/what-efls-salary-ca

If you liked my post, please take the time to upvote it. It's very much appreciated.
Poll: Will you watch the Championship Play-Off Final?
Blog: Man v Fat Football - A Personal Blog

1
Not much scope for signings on 15:57 - Aug 8 with 1956 viewsJDB23

Not much scope for signings on 15:53 - Aug 8 by PhilTWTD

Yes, definitely more than that, a fair bit I assume. Was just thinking that we're at £2.x million in wages even with any new additions at £113,000, so we were limited in our options anyway. Clearly we were trying to get Keogh in ahead of that deadline as someone who would have been on a lot more than that. Does make me wonder whether Garbutt is still hoping to get a Championship side.

Re the over £2.5m limit even with the £113,000 thing, I've no idea. I suspect they'd not thought of that.


Makes sense.

Regarding the criteria of what counts towards the cap, it doesn't specifically state loan fee's, only fees that are directly going to a player. Does this mean for example we could go to a club and say "look we're not going to be able to take any of the players salary on but we'll give you a fat loan fee to take him while you continue to pay his wages"? I assume there would be some ruling against that but can't see it in their statement.
[Post edited 8 Aug 15:57]
0

Not much scope for signings on 16:04 - Aug 8 with 1903 viewsDennyx4

Very little point in selling Downes, if you cant really replace - would have to be an enormous offer to make it worthwhile now.
1
Not much scope for signings on 16:06 - Aug 8 with 1890 viewsPhilTWTD

Not much scope for signings on 15:57 - Aug 8 by JDB23

Makes sense.

Regarding the criteria of what counts towards the cap, it doesn't specifically state loan fee's, only fees that are directly going to a player. Does this mean for example we could go to a club and say "look we're not going to be able to take any of the players salary on but we'll give you a fat loan fee to take him while you continue to pay his wages"? I assume there would be some ruling against that but can't see it in their statement.
[Post edited 8 Aug 15:57]


That sounds like exactly the sort of work around clubs will be thinking of if not specificlly outlawed.
0

Not much scope for signings on 16:08 - Aug 8 with 1865 viewsleftback

I can’t see how they will be able to legally apply this rule..........
The PFA must be going crazy about it.
Also it will seriously limit clubs valuations of someone like Downes, knowing full well we can’t offer him a sizeable contract even if he was keen to stay, likely to run down contact and leave for a pitiful tribunal fee, making the whole point of academies a waste of time.
0
Not much scope for signings on 16:10 - Aug 8 with 1841 viewsDennyx4

Not much scope for signings on 15:53 - Aug 8 by GavTWTD

This is interesting from a Sunderland point of view:

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/what-efls-salary-ca


Interesting read on Promotion bonuses not counting. That could be a really good way of enticing players to us.
0

Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2020