wages and transfers question

As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
User avatar
brazilianGOONER
Posts: 9208
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:27 am
Location: i think we're parked, man
Contact:

wages and transfers question

Post by brazilianGOONER »

don't know if this deserves a new thread or should be discussed at the transfer thread, anyway feel free to lock this down if you feel best.

for a while i've been reading that the reason we can't offload garbage like diaby, almunia, squilacci, etc, is because of their wages - we pay too much for our 'squad players' and since the smaller teams that want to buy them pay much lower wages, those players wouldn't accept the paycut. that's the problem, isn't it? i just heard that zaragoza wanted to buy one of those shit players, but couldn't get the deal done because of the player's wages.

now, what i can't understand is: if those players don't find new clubs, they will leave on a free as soon as their contracts are up for obvious reasons, so if the offers are by any means reasonable, why don't we pay the wage difference until the end of their current contracts and take the transfer fee? lots of clubs did that in the past, and considering you sell the player for a reasonable fee, you end up with more money than what you have to keep paying the player - and what's more important, you get rid of the fucker and have more room to put some new blood to the squad. we are paying their fucking wages anyway, even when they basically never play (almunia and squilacci for example), and i don't believe someone will change their mind about paying squilacci 60 grand a week with him sitting on the bench!!

at the same time, i'm the guy who watches football at weekends, not the director or manager who is in the job for over 3 or 4 decades, so what am i missing here? there's got to be more complications in this matter?

User avatar
brazilianGOONER
Posts: 9208
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:27 am
Location: i think we're parked, man
Contact:

Post by brazilianGOONER »

just to give one example: squilacci is on a three year contract, meaning he still has 1 and a half years to go. if his wages are the aledged 60k a week, and a team like zaragoza wouldn't pay more than half of that, 30k a week for the next 18 months means 2,1 million pounds in wages until his current contract is up.

so the question is: is it better to keep squilacci and pay him the 4,2 million in wages to see him sit on the bench with that stupid looking face of him and then let him go on a free, or do we sell him for 1-2 millions and pay the wage difference to have little or no loss, or depending on the fee, even some profit?

where am i missing the fucking point? :banghead:

User avatar
Chippy
Posts: 9480
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: A town called malice.

Post by Chippy »

This is an interesting point so please don't turn it into another slag Wenger, the board, Gazidis thread, we have enough of them.

User avatar
Kvltman
Posts: 600
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:39 am
Location: Sunny South

Post by Kvltman »

Well on one hand you have Bendtner, he has gone out on loan to Sunderland. Now this could be because Wenger wants him to have first team football with a view to bringing him back next season in his view a stronger player, or he totally fell out of favour and just wanted him out the club. In that case surely it would of made sense to propose some kind of offer to Sunderland just what brazilianGOONER has suggested, freeing up cash and squad space.

On the other hand I guess sometimes players just reject a move because they don't like the look of the potential new club, or judging by some players these days, are happy to sit on their arses and pick up their 60k for an easy life, perhaps the board might baulk at the initial outlay paid out to the player to move and it also being an admission of failure in trying to get rid of the player in such a manner.

It's certainly something that the board/manager/whoever needs to address. They must be able to see this strategy has failed.

User avatar
SpanishJoe
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:39 pm
Location: granada, spain

Post by SpanishJoe »

I think that the embarassment factor plays a big part.
Robbie Fowler went from club to club after leaving Leeds but Leeds continued to pay most of his massive wages. A prolonged testament to managerial and Board stupidity.

While many on here would think it money well spent to pay Squillaci 40k a week to sod off somewhere else, it's not hard to imagine the vitriol that would be heaped on AW and the Board.

On a slightly different point, but relevant to this, is how do those posters that scream about Diaby's 60k pw or ANOther's 250k pw know what the specific salaries are? I suspect they don't and if a player is on 10 or 15k a week less than suggested the opportuntiy cost of selling him while still contributing to his wages would change significantly.

User avatar
brazilianGOONER
Posts: 9208
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:27 am
Location: i think we're parked, man
Contact:

Post by brazilianGOONER »

SpanishJoe wrote: On a slightly different point, but relevant to this, is how do those posters that scream about Diaby's 60k pw or ANOther's 250k pw know what the specific salaries are? I suspect they don't and if a player is on 10 or 15k a week less than suggested the opportuntiy cost of selling him while still contributing to his wages would change significantly.
i agree with this. it is known fact that we have a philosophy of paying more to the less important members of the squad (compared to other teams) to make the wages more level between players, but the exact wages there's no way we can be sure of. the numbers that people use are the numbers that the player's agents shout to the media, usually in an attempt of getting better deals to their clients.

it is not unlikely though that a player like squilacci, who came here as an experienced french international, and who many thought would be the first choice partner of vermaelen last season, must be somewhere around the 50 or 60 grand scale. it sounds absurd when we see how bad the move turned out to be, but at the time of the signing it seemed like a sensible deal.

Rosie_titters
Posts: 5491
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Aberystwyth

Post by Rosie_titters »

where do supporters get there figures from, i read alot on here, about one player getting £60k, another getting £75k, are these accurate or just mythical amounts supporters just make up

if so i am on £5k a week :wink: :wink:

User avatar
Chippy
Posts: 9480
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: A town called malice.

Post by Chippy »

About 2 weeks ago Babatunde put a link to a French website that does the same sort of thing as the Times rich list, for footballers. CBA to find it but someone will know.

User avatar
TeeCee
Posts: 10082
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:26 pm
Location: On the Cusp in SW France

Post by TeeCee »

One possible answer is to lower the transfer fee we're asking for, so the buying club can afford the wages. Ie: if we want 3m for Squillaci, let's lower it to 1.5m or if we want 5m for Denilson, we could pay someone 1m to take him off our hands!! 8) :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Chippy
Posts: 9480
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: A town called malice.

Post by Chippy »

There's going to be some accounting reason for this. Players are assets so on the balance sheet. Wages are expenses so part of the P&L (profit and loss account). I'm struggling to see why this would stop BG's idea but I know we have a few high powered accountants on here (Boomer?) who can explain it.

arseofacrow
Posts: 6173
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:06 pm
Location: Cologne

Post by arseofacrow »

Chippy wrote:There's going to be some accounting reason for this. Players are assets so on the balance sheet. Wages are expenses so part of the P&L (profit and loss account). I'm struggling to see why this would stop BG's idea but I know we have a few high powered accountants on here (Boomer?) who can explain it.
:coffeespit: :coffeespit: :coffeespit:

User avatar
OOKed
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:59 pm
Location: under Peter Hill-Wood's Poster Bed

Post by OOKed »

TeeCee wrote:One possible answer is to lower the transfer fee we're asking for, so the buying club can afford the wages. Ie: if we want 3m for Squillaci, let's lower it to 1.5m or if we want 5m for Denilson, we could pay someone 1m to take him off our hands!! 8) :lol: :lol:

I'm afraid when it comes to tranfers, it takes 4 to tango.
The selling club should be happy with the offer. The purchasing club should be happy with the asking price. The player should be happy with his new contract , prestige, and the signing fee. The player's agent should be happy with his commission.

Transfers are more complicated than just agreeing a number between the first two and switching player cards.

The question to be asked is, why was the player signed in the first place if we (club) knew he is will not contribute or why was the player given a big money contract if the club didn't think he is a big asset.

This problem is a lack of forward planning and judgement issue by Arsenal's transfer policy makers.

Rosie_titters
Posts: 5491
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Aberystwyth

Post by Rosie_titters »

is there anyone on here, who runs there own business and knows about Balance sheets and profit and loss, too many people talk like it's Fifa 12 -

sell this bloke for 1m, get 50k off the wages, etc, etc

User avatar
frankbutcher
Posts: 3857
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:07 pm
Location: Arsenal's Treatment Room

Post by frankbutcher »

Rosie_titters wrote:is there anyone on here, who runs there own business and knows about Balance sheets and profit and loss, too many people talk like it's Fifa 12 -

sell this bloke for 1m, get 50k off the wages, etc, etc
I advise businesses for a living. :oops: I see no reason not to flog a player cheap to get his wages off of the wage bill. If anything, your cash-flow is far more important than "assets" on the balance sheet. We have the stadium and the training ground which is far and away enough to keep us solvent. I would put our lack of effort to cut the dross more down to pride and or a blindness to how worthless these players really are. :oops:

User avatar
Chippy
Posts: 9480
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: A town called malice.

Post by Chippy »

I've also run my own business and managed multi billion euro budgets for major multi nationals (no bullshit), but I still wonder if there is some technical accounting reason not to do it. Surely it can't be just down to pride! surely!

Post Reply