| Yorkshire ‘journalist’ getting it all wrong 20:33 - Apr 4 with 5197 views | ElderGrizzly |
Tw*t
|  | | |  |
| Yorkshire ‘journalist’ getting it all wrong on 14:07 - Apr 5 with 405 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Yorkshire ‘journalist’ getting it all wrong on 13:16 - Apr 5 by giant_stow |
Just on a point of detail, I'm sure I read that Ben Gibson is our highest player on 60 grand a week.
Says a lot about the bind relegated clubs find themselves in I think. Obviously, the parachute payments are a big advantage, but it should be remembered that a lot of that will be spent on previously dishes out unsuccesful contracts which have to be honoured. |
Wow! That is a big saddle to carry. I guess this will be his last year or is it even longer than that? Was he thought of as a possible future England International around the time he was given that contract? You seem to have quite a few older expensive players.
The point of the parachute payments was to help cover those poorly-advised contracts. Where it has enabled the likes of Leicester, Leeds and Southampton to keep Premier League players on is their shortcoming. Where it has allowed poorly bought, overpaid "stars" to not drive clubs into administration is more understandable. |  |
| |
| Yorkshire ‘journalist’ getting it all wrong on 14:19 - Apr 5 with 372 views | Vegtablue |
| Yorkshire ‘journalist’ getting it all wrong on 08:53 - Apr 5 by tractorboy1978 |
He's right though to a point. What we are doing is phenomenal and he's being a bit disingenuous but our budget does dwarf the likes of Luton, Huddersfield and Blackpool.
Not sure where the £11.4m comes from in the above tweet but in our last set of accounts (last season) our total wages were £17.4m. Wages will be a fair chunk higher than that this year. We will never know the split between playing and non-playing staff. |
This may surprise, but Luton's budget was bigger than Coventry's last season. Wages in a PL promotion year (£27.6M) are inflated due to bonuses paid, but we know Luton's were £17.8M in 21/22 and they invested further in the playing squad last season, so it may have still been above £20M normally. Coventry's wage bill was £16.6M, one of the lower figures recorded in the league so far.
That being said, our wage bill was a lumpy £19.8M, in L1 of all places (page 24 separates social security costs and pensions, but for like-for-like comparison these are added back and expressed as a single figure on page 4). This may have been inflated by promotion bonuses, but inevitably there will be salary uplifts this season anyway. Unusually, we did provide wages for playing staff: £12.7M. Our decision to do so may have been promoted by L1's SCMP (salary-related financial fair play) rules and our desire to show compliance in the accounts.
I think there's a good chance our wage bill is in the top half now. Frankly, the table is wildly wrong. No disrespect intended to whoever produced it, but they've placed their faith in salary websites haven't they, where most numbers are blind guesswork. Wednesday's overall wage bill last season was £5M less than ours. Cardiff's was £14M less than Bristol City's. And we know our playing wages will be noticeably above the £12.7M we spent last season. Codswallop really.
Luton did triumph with a distant 80 points in the playoffs though, and won their Wembley final with the bigger budget (or rather, bigger spending). Conversely, we're fighting toe-to-toe at the very top, against three clubs who were more established in the PL than those who usually return here. Leicester's playing staff are "only" being paid £60M according to the table, but they were also reportedly "only" paid £85M in 22/23. We now know Leicester's overall wage bill in 22/23 stood at a colossal £206M, astonishing stuff. Rumours are they didn't insert relegation clauses into contracts either (oops if true!). Either way, we're likely battling a club with the largest wage disparity ever seen at this level. |  | | |
| Yorkshire ‘journalist’ getting it all wrong on 14:22 - Apr 5 with 369 views | giant_stow |
| Yorkshire ‘journalist’ getting it all wrong on 14:07 - Apr 5 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Wow! That is a big saddle to carry. I guess this will be his last year or is it even longer than that? Was he thought of as a possible future England International around the time he was given that contract? You seem to have quite a few older expensive players.
The point of the parachute payments was to help cover those poorly-advised contracts. Where it has enabled the likes of Leicester, Leeds and Southampton to keep Premier League players on is their shortcoming. Where it has allowed poorly bought, overpaid "stars" to not drive clubs into administration is more understandable. |
I'm too out of touch to give you an answer on Gibson's qualities, but on the face of it, what a waste of la la.
Absolutely agree with what you say. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
