that was required to ease the wage bill. The new Board declared with great pride that they have a plan on wages and that any new player coming in would be capped at the top of the wage structure, i think £5k has been banded about. Excellent - big round of applause by theBoards happy clappy army and also an acknowledgement from the non happy clappy army - of being a sound business decision. For what to happen - Take on HH at maybe over £8k per week, thus breaking their STRICT NEW wage structure - within such a short period of time. Why bother announcing a STRICT wage structure? Some Board Spin perhaps?
I agree that they have stepped outside their self-imposed (and wise) wage structure. Rumours are we pay 8k/week out of HHs wages and the max. is 5. I cannot explain WHY they've decided to do so but I am pleased they have. Basically - again - it's a business decision. They could get someone in who is worth 16k/week and only pay half. HHs worth must be seen not only in his performances but also in what he brings to the squad and the fans. Is it right to decide on a limit and then break it - probably not. Is it the right decision in this case? HELL YEAH!
Didn't they also say that if it meant signing a really good player they would step a bit out of there structure? I think a legend like Helguson is worth it, besides it's only 'til January.
surely heidar should just be viewed as being 1.8 players then? doesnt bother me, hes done more than hoskins and ellington combined so he is definately worth the wages. im sorry paddy, i know your views on the board, but i think your fighting a losing battle on this one!
They may have done Nak - but what guarantees are there that a player will be really good becasue he is more expnsive? - This could quite easily have been a short term disaster with HH being injured so much and with his history of injury - for a club that can't pay its debts after 22/12/09 did it need another player on its books at over the structure price, notwithstanding that - HH is a very good player and is a legend.
There's a case to answer for zero loan/transfer activity at the current time... Even sending back all loanees could be financially justified, surely...?
There are no guarantees but surely if it was going badly we could terminate the loan contract? The benefit of signing someone on a short-term loan is you get a chance to have good player on your book for a while but if he doesn't deliver then you don't have to worry about having on big wages for a few years. His goals could be the difference this season, he got us a point at Leicester, and has helped us pick up wins vs Scunthorpe and Preston. A good move IMO.
I accept and agree with that NAK - even if it was outside the wage structure, they have been fortunate with HH, especially as he is so injury prone - we have been very lucky with him that the injuries have healed quickly enough, but he is wfc and a lift to the fans.
Apparently it's such a strict structure we've not been paying anyone http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8394092.stm ""This week we've had problems with wages at Crystal Palace, at Watford and we've had lower division clubs who've had trouble paying wages where sometimes that's not entirely unexpected." Fantastic prudence from the Russos :sign15:
tht isnt the case though...and was promptly reclarified.... http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sp...s_confirms_Watford_have_paid_players/?ref=rss
I'd say that with a loan player you know its a temporary deal so you can work out the balance of cost against added value from that player for the loan period. If Beckham was available to us for £10,000 a week for 1 month, would we realistically turn it down? (aside from apparently being close to administration, which is not the point made). If all our keepers were injured would it be wise to get a cheap loanee from the reserves of a blue square team, or get someone who is third choice from a decent premier league team? not going to cost us less than £5k a week but certainly worth it short term. We have one forward worth his salt in Graham, without Helguson we'd be reliant on our kids for the length of the season (and Lump), so yes, he's worth the loan fees. I heard there was a fee for retaining Cleverley for the season, however his services also (given his performance levels) are conclusively worth more to us for the year than the small fee we might have paid.
how much is the small fee? and when can we start assessing how much liabities have been made post last board - £172k legal fees Agents fees - share of the amount recently announced of £500k+ Cleverly fee or fees Jure Travener wages and nominal fee/agent? - not played possible loss of sponsorship from the tele co = £? HH wages - albeit i do not disagree with the arguments of bringing him in as he has played and won us points. How much of the shortfall for next June does that add up to - remember the Board do their cash flows and forecasts - so whether its a bluff call by the Chairman to get Ashcrafty to make a move or not, announcing to the world the suspension of the shares on 22/12/09 - surely at some stage their decison making must be contributing to the shortfall. and the ongoing 10 million they say was inherited is reduced - Noddy, Muff, Theo, Tam and Willo sales come to how much, plus the Rodgers compensation and two or three other players off the wages. Interest payments = ? but actualy lets not count this as there would be borrowings and interest payments.
I don't know how much the fee was, i only heard someone talking about it. I doubt its a lot. Maybe it was an increase in amount of wages we're paying? The figures you have brought up are all fairly average in terms of running a football club, even the legal fees are fairly nondescript if you consider having legal battles with old chief execs claiming circa half a million pounds (and we don't know what went on there still, there could be more). If we really were going bust and into admin in two weeks, there WOULD be fire sales. You call it a bluff, I think it might just be to get publicity that we're in need of financial input, wherever that may come from. Its the operation of a viable self sufficient club over the next ten years that I see being a long term problem.
