Wages

[Begley]

I was adding the £45m "promotion bonus" line to the £85m-odd under wages which was £10m up on 2017/18. Our wage bill increased by over £30m in the promotion season so I would be amazed if Villa's bonuses weren't in a similar vein. Amounts paid to the former owners would normally be treated as share premiums so not hit the P&L but they're tagged as "impairments of amounts due to the company relating to liabilities arising on promotion". It doesn't really matter whether the wagebill was £85m, £100m or £130m, all of those are well above what we would have paid out last season in the Premier League. This is relevant to the discussion about United's ability to pay PL wages insofaras it relates to the wagebills of theoretically equivalent sides. Villa's player wages will, I would have thought, be well over £100m per season now - on income in the region of £120m that's not ideal. Ours will be in the £60-70m which at around 50% of turnover is far more sustainable but unfortunately the amount doesn't allow us to be truly competitive.

We could sign someone like Danny Welbeck on £65k per week. It's extremely unlikely he'll generate a transfer fee in the future so that's a sunk cost of £3.8m per season, £11m cost over three years. We chose to sign Brewster on (at a guess) £35k per week and a £18m transfer fee in the hope and maybe expectation that he'll develop to the point where we can sell him for £30m in three years' time. At that point he's generated us £6m over the three years (£30m income less initial £18m fee + £2m per year in wages). There's also the potential imbalance which would be generated if we brought in someone like Welbeck on more than double the next highest earner rather than increasing the top wage incrementally. What has gone hugely wrong is that the big signings haven't had anything like the impact we needed them to have because the team structure has been compromised, an issue discussed at length elsewhere on the forum.

The final simple fact remains that you're still not correct in stating that Villa Park was revalued in the year of its sale. I would imagine that the only reason NSWE sold it to the holding company was to provide Villa with cashflow. The associated P&L benefit was just an added bonus.

You appear to be just trying to throw mud hoping some will eventually stick. Read my comments again and you will see you are making errors. I didn’t say VP was revalued the year it was sold, I said the opposite. I said it was revalued in advance of VP been sold and I also said it was revalued other previous owners.
I also agree this conversation has nothing to do with SUFV ability to pay PL wages. So why then did you raise the issue in the first place? Wasn’t it not you that commenced (incorrectly) quoting Villa’s wages from their Championship promotion campaign?

 

[BushBlade]

This thread is like an exam for ACCA.

 

[Varkanoid]

This is a really genuine question as I disagree with the SUFC cannot afford higher wages. I am open to understanding the opposite opinion. But SUFU, like all companies budget for a number of years in advance. They also look at what is realistic and what is not. During the promotion season in the Championship, I can't believe for one moment that the board of SUFC did not gamble everything on winning promotion to the Premier League. SNIP

Think people forget that there was a takeover during the championship years going into the PL and that will have been the biggest issue in what it would have cost to take the club on and they needed to get it to a financially stable situation. Dont forget its come from spend thrift McCabe where we would never consider paying over 2m for a player. It takes a lot to shake off an old legacy and get the business running how they want. Last thing you would do is pay £50k plus for players when you are uncertain how much cash you have going forward. It can take 3-4-5 years or more to shake off the old trappings.

They will have also seen other clubs taking a gamble as you say and digging themselves into a bigger hole when they get relegated. Aston Villa is an example think what situation they would have been in if they didnt have a rich owner who can just chuck cash at the club.

Also from what I understand it we have a owner new to the PL so there are bound to be problems and mistakes. In my opinion the biggest issue has been spending the "new money" on poor choices its like CW has lost his ability to pick a bargain basement player that can turn out into a star. Also not providing a decent LCB for JoC. To me I would have not bought Brewster and pulled in the best LCB we could afford to fill the void. Its obvious from last year the 1-0 wins came out of a good defence with strikers not scoring well. This time we have strikers not scoring well but we cant pinch the 1-0 wins because of a leaky defence.

Just my tuppeny bit opinion as I cant afford the big price of a star opinion.

 

[JJBlade]

But where does that so called "common knowledge" come from ? not the players, not the club or management, CW has said we can't compete with the big boys but the rest ? who knows ?

It's true
We WON'T compete with Brighton, Fulham, Crystal Palace or anybody else, we've lost players to them very recently.

Plus, we're talking about Sheffield United, not being able to compete is in the DNA, we couldn't even compete with some League One clubs when we were in League One

That's why we ended up with so many League Two and Non League standard players

 

[Varkanoid]

It would never ever happen because if it did we would have to stop singing "Oh we ain't got a barrel of money......" and I love that song.

 

[Sportbilly /Detroit Blade]

This thread is like an exam for ACCA.

I prefer CIMA, sorry I meant SEMEN!

 

[albinonick]

Rubbish.

There were many good options out of contract.

Welbeck instead of Brewster 24m
Sturridge instead of Burke 6m
Joe Hart instead of Ramsdale 18m
Jack Wilshere instead of Berge 21m

Just to name 4.

If you dish out 80k a week to a player over 2 years, its 8.2mill. For someone like Sturridge/Welbeck where no fee is needed its far far cheaper than McBurnie, or even Mousset and we're getting an experienced PL player.

Its not a fee vs wages thing, its about how you split them. 12mill on a free player over 3 years is a FAR better investment than 24m on a fee + wages over 3 years.

Great idea, wellbeck not played a full season.
Sturridge not played a full season.
Wilshire not played a full season.
Hart brilliant.

 

[Delboyscap]

Rubbish.

There were many good options out of contract.

Welbeck instead of Brewster 24m
Sturridge instead of Burke 6m
Joe Hart instead of Ramsdale 18m
Jack Wilshere instead of Berge 21m

Just to name 4.

If you dish out 80k a week to a player over 2 years, its 8.2mill. For someone like Sturridge/Welbeck where no fee is needed its far far cheaper than McBurnie, or even Mousset and we're getting an experienced PL player.

Its not a fee vs wages thing, its about how you split them. 12mill on a free player over 3 years is a FAR better investment than 24m on a fee + wages over 3 years.

Although you have a point I am not sure you have chosen the best players as examples. Both Sturridge and Wilshere are potential sicknotes and Hart's best were many years ago now. Hindsight is a wonderful thing of course. Looking at the signings made over the past 12 months or so you have to acknowledge that the Blades appear to have a transfer policy of signing youngish players with potential of recouping money in the future, or at least getting many years of service. The likes of Sturridge, Wilshere and Hart would be stop-gaps at best and could have been very expensive mistakes given Sturridge and Wilshere's injury history. Imagine signing these on 80k a week and they then only muster a handful of games a season. Again we are back at hindsight but you can see the merits of the current transfer policy, albeit it is limited and thus far seems to have been spent on the wrong players.

 

[ancientblade]

still think the players chris has signed mcburnie brewster bogle lowe robinson osborn and even freeman have been brought in knowing there would be every chance of a championship campaign in the future and its now going to happen maybe 3 will go but 3 or 4 will come in this summer and i think weve a great chance of dare i say it bouncing back up utb fto

 

[Booker4]

Think people forget that there was a takeover during the championship years going into the PL and that will have been the biggest issue in what it would have cost to take the club on and they needed to get it to a financially stable situation. Dont forget its come from spend thrift McCabe where we would never consider paying over 2m for a player. It takes a lot to shake off an old legacy and get the business running how they want. Last thing you would do is pay £50k plus for players when you are uncertain how much cash you have going forward. It can take 3-4-5 years or more to shake off the old trappings.

They will have also seen other clubs taking a gamble as you say and digging themselves into a bigger hole when they get relegated. Aston Villa is an example think what situation they would have been in if they didnt have a rich owner who can just chuck cash at the club.

Also from what I understand it we have a owner new to the PL so there are bound to be problems and mistakes. In my opinion the biggest issue has been spending the "new money" on poor choices its like CW has lost his ability to pick a bargain basement player that can turn out into a star. Also not providing a decent LCB for JoC. To me I would have not bought Brewster and pulled in the best LCB we could afford to fill the void. Its obvious from last year the 1-0 wins came out of a good defence with strikers not scoring well. This time we have strikers not scoring well but we cant pinch the 1-0 wins because of a leaky defence.

Just my tuppeny bit opinion as I cant afford the big price of a star opinion.

Problem with spending a big amount of money on a LCB is that Wilder knows that come March this season, or at the latest next season, that JOC comes back and he can't sit on the bench, nor could the replacement if he's good enough. Instead a loan was probably the best situation, but they're arguably harder to get the right player in. A new LCB maybe could have played LWB or centre back, but we've got Norrington-Davies coming through at LWB and Egan is still very strong for the centre back role. So recruiting for that position isn't easy and Wilder did try - we know that.

Not signing Brewster sounds like sense now, but we were all over the moon when he arrived and he'd done so well at Swansea and has the potential to develop. Ok, we can't sell him for as much as we'd like if we do, due to the buy back clause, but we'll still make a profit. Mousset was and is injury prone so we needed another fast forward. Ivan Toney was arguably the best alternative, but he'd have to come up two leagues and that would be very difficult. Brentford in the Championship create chance after chance, but in the Prem with a struggling side, I doubt Toney would have more than 2/3 goals by now. Who knows!

The good thing about Wilder's signings is that they're all young and have time to develop and improve. We've not signed older players like we did under Robson who have little development and cost more in wages. Saying that we could do with a couple of more experienced heads, maybe we could have got the odd player around the 30 mark who could have done a job for a couple of years. The Snodgrass signing for West Ham will be a good signing but I bet he's on about £60,000.

 

[Balham]

You appear to be just trying to throw mud hoping some will eventually stick. Read my comments again and you will see you are making errors. I didn’t say VP was revalued the year it was sold, I said the opposite. I said it was revalued in advance of VP been sold and I also said it was revalued other previous owners.
I also agree this conversation has nothing to do with SUFV ability to pay PL wages. So why then did you raise the issue in the first place? Wasn’t it not you that commenced (incorrectly) quoting Villa’s wages from their Championship promotion campaign?

This will be my last comment on this. I started on the Villa thing as you stated - per the below - that the £70m loss Villa posted in the year to June 2019 was due to "accounting writedown of assets" or "accounting practice". It wasn't - it was because the wagebill was £30m more than the turnover then there were other expenses adding a further £65m of losses. Yes, I inadvertently added the promotion contingencies to the wagebill but the fundamental point is that you were wrong. The emphases in the quotes below are mine.

Villa's losses (owner first)
Lerner 14/15 £(26.6)m
Lerner 15/16 £(81)m (includes asset writedowns)
Xia 16/17 £(14.5)m
Xia 17/18 £(36.1)m
NSWE 18/19 £(68.9)m (after profit on disposal of Villa Park)
19/20 £?

That's not quite correct. The Villa loss of 70m in 18/19 was an accounting writedown of assets. That has nothing to do with actual money. It is simply saying our accounts have assets valued at a certain value and they are no longer worth that value. So on the balance sheet, their 'true' market value was used. The difference between the 'true' value and the previous value is considered an accounting loss. 69.5m of the loss in 18/19 was just accounting practice. I am guessing that it was a clever tactic to reduce tax liability for when the owners sold Villa Park to a holding company. Reducing the value made this transaction more cost-effective for them. Further, Villa has to pay rent to the holding company which will be based on the sale price of Villa Park. So the lower the value the lower the rent. Rent is counted towards FFP so this was a financially prudent thing to do

I think u may need to rethink that. The 70m loss is specifically recorded and documented as a write-down of assets in the approved and published accounts submitted to the Companies House. A quick Google and you can find them. The sale of Villa Park was in a different accounting year to the 70m loss. The 70m loss was incurred under the previous ownership (accounts are published in arrears, not in advance!). The 36m was the profit on the sale of Villa Park. NSWE sold it to themselves for about 56m, VP valuation was recorded on the accounts at close to 20m, therefore a 36m profit. This was a positive 36m towards FFP calculations. If Villa Park was valued higher than the 20m, the profit would have been less than 36m and Villa would have likely failed FFP.

As a final point, I first commented on Villa after Fraggle Blade questioned why we couldn't compete with them. With hindsight, the comment on promotion bonuses below is incorrect but the wages point stands.

That's not entirely accurate. Villa's wagebill was astronomical because their owners could afford to underwrite losses of nearly £70m in 2018/19. Villa's basic wage bill that season was over £80m and they paid £45m of promotion bonuses on top of that. They're in a different league; they were also allowed leeway against FFP as they were in receipt of parachute payments. Our owners (McCabe and Price Abdullah at that stage) both couldn't and wouldn't underwrite huge losses so the wages had to be better controlled.

 

[JJBlade]

It would never ever happen because if it did we would have to stop singing "Oh we ain't got a barrel of money......" and I love that song.

Ahhhhhgghh
And I hate it,

Our fans would still sing it anyway.

Just like they were singing "We're on the March with Cloughies army, we're not going to Wembley"

During the quarter final against Charlton

 

[bongleblade]

Found this neat correlation of factors which determine Premier League points. Wages paid was highest correlation with points accumulated, Position the previous season was the least determinant factor. Pretty much sums us up.

Determinants of Premier League Points

By Stephen Brosnan Recently , I discussed the relationship between the expenditure by Premier League clubs on players’ wages and the number of points accrued so far in the 2016-17 Premier League...

www.sportseconomics.org

edit: Oh... and lump on leeds to go down next season... https://www.spotrac.com/epl/payroll/

 

[Houston_Blade]

View attachment 111740

Found this neat correlation of factors which determine Premier League points. Wages paid was highest correlation with points accumulated, Position the previous season was the least determinant factor. Pretty much sums us up.

Determinants of Premier League Points

By Stephen Brosnan Recently , I discussed the relationship between the expenditure by Premier League clubs on players’ wages and the number of points accrued so far in the 2016-17 Premier League...

www.sportseconomics.org

edit: Oh... and lump on leeds to go down next season... https://www.spotrac.com/epl/payroll/

We should have just doubled everyone's money and we'd have had a much better chance of staying up

 

[BushBlade]

We should have just doubled everyone's money and we'd have had a much better chance of staying up

That was almost how McCabe saw it when we were in L1. We had a high wage budget so logically we should be getting promoted, ignoring the fact that we’d overpaid the better players and then signed mainly shit, who we probably also paid too much to. (Chancer also).

 

[Corkblade]

Palace paying 4 time's our wages, crazy stuff to be fair.

 

[bongleblade]

Palace paying 4 time's our wages, crazy stuff to be fair.

that is crazy! i cant believe they are above Everton! Serious trouble ahead for them when they go down, small club loaded with old players and inflated wages.

 

[bartman]

Serious trouble ahead for them when they go down, small club loaded with old players and inflated wages.

You could be referring to The Blades with that comment

 

[bongleblade]

You could be referring to The Blades with that comment

true except for the last part, luckily we have a championship wage structure. As mentioned before Palace are 7th in the wages table, crackers

 

[AdamSufc1997]

Just saw this wtf

 

[Balham]

Just saw this wtf

Not sure those are wildly unrealistic, with the possible exception of Jack Robinson on £30k per week. The total of that lot would be £35m per season basic and our wage bill last season (total - all staff, including bonuses) was over £70m. As an aside, if it is accurate then Wilder truly lost the plot when we signed Brewster.

 

[ComedyClub]

Just saw this wtf

If robinson and brewster are on that figure wilder really needs checking in broadmoor...

 

[S40BLADE]

Just saw this wtf

Those are fairly realistic after listening to a few people that know their marbles. Shows that we are not paupers some like to make us out to be. Also makes this horrendous season even worse.

 

[AdamSufc1997]

Giving Burke a 30k a week contract should have been a sackable offence

 

[Iffy Onuora's Shiny Head]

Can't see all these been factual though some probably won't be far from the truth.

If we are paying Foderingham, Burke, Robinson and Lowe a combined £100k a week (That's over £5m a year) then that is utterly disgraceful.

 

[Broomhall Blade]

Foderingham £20k
I'm sure we could have got a younger keeper just as good for less.

Baldock £10k if that's true fair play to him for not chucking his toys out of the pram especially with what Bogle, Robinson, Osborn and Lowe are supposed to be getting.

I even have a bit of sympathy for Lundstram now.

 

[DronnieBlade]

Some bang on.
Some way out.

UTB

 

[mcbladeface]

Wasn't McB supposed to have been on 20k a week according to that court thing?

 

[TJB.]

I don't believe that table for a minute.

If we're paying Wes Foderingham double what we pay Chris Basham then we want shooting.

 

[CPB]

Just saw this wtf

I'm extremely skeptical of things like this.
There's no way they can really know for confidentiality and information protection matters.
Yeah sometimes for big name signings they may tout that they are rumoured to be on £100k a week. But for most of ours wages are disclosed as they should be. The only figure that we ever see will be what's in the accounts and that's the entire budget.

Much of those on there seem quite wild. To start with Jack O'Connell on £12,500 seems a bit low. Ramsdale on £42000 seems rather high. I'd take a list like that with a pinch of salt.