Wages matter more than transfer fees - what does that mean for us?

[JJ Sefton]

A while back I read that some research had been done showing that the amount of money a team spent on transfer fees had little relation with how well they did (judged by league placings) but that there was a strong correlation between the wages they pay and how well they do. Assuming this is true, what does it mean for us?

1 - We overachieved in the couple of seasons prior to this one. Credit to everyone, especially Wilder and Knill.
2 - We would have been better off directing the cash spent upfront on the likes of Berge, Mousset, McBurnie, Ramsdale, and Brewster, towards the wage bill.
3 - Following on from the above, that means we have to pick up players without spending huge sums upfront. That requires a much better scouting system than we appear to have in place.

 

[Sean Thornton]

The higher the wages the higher the transfer fee?

 

[LudlamBlade]

I'm still unsure who stipulated the wage caps so heavily.

Was it PA and the board or was it a CW "no big time charlies" thing?

I have always thought it weird. McBurnie's fee + £25k+ a month for a season isn't actually that far shy of what Spurs have paid to get Bale on loan.

Not that we'd get, or want, Bale on loan. But it's food for thought.

Had ACL surgery on Wednesday and now this...just when I thought it couldn't get any worse

 

[JJ Sefton]

The higher the wages the higher the transfer fee?

I don't think that holds. The wages will be dictated by how in demand a player is (their leverage), the transfer fee will be driven partly by that, but also by how much the owning club wants to sell (their leverage). A top player at the end of their contract will get attract top wages but a relatively small transfer fee.

 

[Rodley]

A while back I read that some research had been done showing that the amount of money a team spent on transfer fees had little relation with how well they did (judged by league placings) but that there was a strong correlation between the wages they pay and how well they do. Assuming this is true, what does it mean for us?

1 - We overachieved in the couple of seasons prior to this one. Credit to everyone, especially Wilder and Knill.
2 - We would have been better off directing the cash spent upfront on the likes of Berge, Mousset, McBurnie, Ramsdale, and Brewster, towards the wage bill.
3 - Following on from the above, that means we have to pick up players without spending huge sums upfront. That requires a much better scouting system than we appear to have in place.

Given our wage structure is comparatively so poor, it’s understandable that a fire sale of players was heavily resisted by CW. Are we using the capital to subsidise other matters?

 

[robbiez666]

The problem is our rapid ascent.

Look at all the other clubs in the top flight. They've all spent a large proportion of the last 10 years in the top flight or top end Championship.

We've spent most of the last 10 years in league 1.

Because we went up from the Championship in the second season our wages were still low for that league. They're obviously the lowest in the Premier League.

We've been sunk by our own success. You can't simply double everyone's wages. What happens when we go down? Who signs a contract which halves your wage is we go down? Why would any player sign on those terms?

Simply put, in order to gradually raise your wage bill you need to stay in the same division. Our wage bill will be one of the highest in the Championship next season. We need to have a youth system that provides squad depth. Which provides saleable assets. We need to bring players in who don't automatically want high wages. Imagine how someone like Egan or Bash feel when we sign someone like Brewster on similar money to them.

The way we operate is simply no sustainable without a billionaire in charge.

 

[themaninblack]

I'm still unsure who stipulated the wage caps so heavily.

Was it PA and the board or was it a CW "no big time charlies" thing?

I have always thought it weird. McBurnie's fee + £25k+ a month for a season isn't actually that far shy of what Spurs have paid to get Bale on loan.

Not that we'd get, or want, Bale on loan. But it's food for thought.

Had ACL surgery on Wednesday and now this...just when I thought it couldn't get any worse

That’s a double whammy; good luck with the rehab!

 

[ATL Recs]

I'm still unsure who stipulated the wage caps so heavily.

Was it PA and the board or was it a CW "no big time charlies" thing?

I have always thought it weird. McBurnie's fee + £25k+ a month for a season isn't actually that far shy of what Spurs have paid to get Bale on loan.

Not that we'd get, or want, Bale on loan. But it's food for thought.

Had ACL surgery on Wednesday and now this...just when I thought it couldn't get any worse

Spurs are not paying 25 k a week for Bale what utter nonsense

 

[LudlamBlade]

That’s a double whammy; good luck with the rehab!

Cheers mate!

 

[LudlamBlade]

Spurs are not paying 25 k a week for Bale what utter nonsense

No mate, they're not.

That's why I said...

"McBurnie's FEE + £25k(+) a week for a year"

We paid just under £20m for McBurnie.

£100k a month (25k per week) for a year is £1.2m, plus bonuses etc.

Its actually probably closer to £120k a month because he's actually on around £27,500pw as is evidenced the court fines he received for drink driving.

If Madrid and Spurs are splitting his salary equally, that means Spurs have seemingly paid roughly £13.5m for a year of Bale.

We've paid over £20m for a year of McBurnie.

You make your own mind up

You do the maths.

 

[BlairBlade]

A while back I read that some research had been done showing that the amount of money a team spent on transfer fees had little relation with how well they did (judged by league placings) but that there was a strong correlation between the wages they pay and how well they do. Assuming this is true, what does it mean for us?

1 - We overachieved in the couple of seasons prior to this one. Credit to everyone, especially Wilder and Knill.
2 - We would have been better off directing the cash spent upfront on the likes of Berge, Mousset, McBurnie, Ramsdale, and Brewster, towards the wage bill.
3 - Following on from the above, that means we have to pick up players without spending huge sums upfront. That requires a much better scouting system than we appear to have in place.

Presumably a DoF would be of no help in achieving that.

 

[JJ Sefton]

Presumably a DoF would be of no help in achieving that.

I assume thas being facetious. Seriously, I think it might help. I've generally been against it as I tend to think it muddies responsibility, too many cooks and all that, but I gather that its what a lot of bigger clubs do now so I guess you have to move with that.

 

[BlairBlade]

I assume thas being facetious. Seriously, I think it might help. I've generally been against it as I tend to think it muddies responsibility, too many cooks and all that, but I gather that its what a lot of bigger clubs do now so I guess you have to move with that.

Sorry just joking and muddying the waters a bit.
On the basis you are correct about wages, a DoF sounds a sensible way to go.
How you then go about getting the quality players to join and avoid dealing with their scummy agents is another matter altogether.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

No mate, they're not.

That's why I said...

"McBurnie's FEE + £25k(+) a week for a year"

We paid just under £20m for McBurnie.

£100k a month (25k per week) for a year is £1.2m, plus bonuses etc.

Its actually probably closer to £120k a month because he's actually on around £27,500pw as is evidenced the court fines he received for drink driving.

If Madrid and Spurs are splitting his salary equally, that means Spurs have seemingly paid roughly £13.5m for a year of Bale.

We've paid over £20m for a year of McBurnie.

You make your own mind up

You do the maths.

View attachment 107949

The huge difference is the sell-on. MC Burnie should (!) still be able to get £20m back into the club when sold. Bales wages won't.
McBurnie might not be best example, but highlights the principle.

 

[LudlamBlade]

The huge difference is the sell-on. MC Burnie should (!) still be able to get £20m back into the club when sold. Bales wages won't.
McBurnie might not be best example, but highlights the principle.

Yeah that is true in theory, but the counter argument is that players who get paid less are usually not as good...

Take the difference between Watkins and McBurnie's first PL seasons, staggering.

I'm not slating McB, I'm actually one of his backers, but you can see the difference a mile off.

Transfermarkt has him estimated at £13.5m at the moment, I wonder if we'd get that on his current form!

 

[robbiez666]

The huge difference is the sell-on. MC Burnie should (!) still be able to get £20m back into the club when sold. Bales wages won't.
McBurnie might not be best example, but highlights the principle.

If Bale gets Spurs a couple of places higher then that covers his wages.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

If Bale gets Spurs a couple of places higher then that covers his wages.

That's true, I'm just saying the overall net cost is higher than a purchase plus normal wage.

 

[gordoncharles]

Let's get some perspective by using Norwich as an example.

Being an ex-PL club they spent more on wages than we did in the Championship, and they needed to go up in 2019 as they were running out of money. They spent £54.3m on wages in 2017-18 (we spent £19.6m). Player wages are usually around 70-80% of the total wage bill.

In the promotion year, including bonuses, Norwich spent £54.4m to our £41.2m. We know Norwich's promotion bonus payments were £10.8m as they published it.

Having got to the PL Norwich famously didn't spend much on improving their squad. We all thought this was to create profits in order to pay off debt and then go back stronger to the Championship.

But Norwich reported their 2019-20 results last November. Though they made an operating profit of £11m, when you take player trading and amortisation of fees and contracts out, their overall profit from their single PL season was a paltry £2.1m.

This was despite turnover going from £33.7m to £119.4m

Their total wage bill was £88.9m

With the going rates for players the clubs can't make money from the Premier League, the players and their agents do. Championship clubs can only offset their own losses by selling their best players.

The only model is to assemble players within a proper, controlled wages framework, with those who are likely to have a higher re-sale value, and preferably signed towards the end of their contracts. Identifying and contracting those players, which also fit the playing style, is a full time job.

 

[JJBlade]

We've spent too much on transfer fees and nowhere near enough on wages

But I'm surprised at Wilder if he's walked.

It does appear that he hasn't been fired which means he's allowed the festering position regarding a DOF and maybe one or two other things nark him so much that it's finally come to this, walking away from managing your boyhood club.

I've been watching his face for the last 8-9 months and he has shown to all and sundry that he's unhappy.

How much of this has transferred to the players who have been brought up with that "All in it together" attitude

We all have to be flexible at work nowadays and put up with all sorts of crap, this iron hand and my way or the highway is an extremely outdated approach.