Wage Protocol Thingy

[Jim Chimmerney]

It's interesting to see where we are with this wage protocol thing for next season particularly when we're potentially looking at bringing a decent striker in and maybe The Beard.

Presuming we ended up last season at the limit, here's the comings and goings with a guesstimate as to the comparable wages;

Coady (Basham), Hill (Butler), Miller (McNulty), Paynter (Wallace) and Westlake (Campbell-Ryce).

It looks like Freeman may well be back on loan and we've negotiated deals for Porter and Davies (both probably on less than last season). Taylor and Brandy will be off and there'll doubtless be the a few kids coming back / going out on loan so by my reckoning, we should still have the equivalent of whatever we paid Beard last season and a decent(ish) wage from Taylor and Brandy.

I could be way out but it looks like we're not far off being spot on given a couple of 'big' names coming in. Obviously Harry's situation clouds it a bit but if he stays on bigger wages we would probably off load Kennedy on loan to balance the books given we now have Butler covering (or playing).

Of course with the Prince, sponsorships etc, it may well be that we've wangled more 'available income'

 

[Selly]

It's interesting to see where we are with this wage protocol thing for next season particularly when we're potentially looking at bringing a decent striker in and maybe The Beard.

Presuming we ended up last season at the limit, here's the comings and goings with a guesstimate as to the comparable wages;

Coady (Basham), Hill (Butler), Miller (McNulty), Paynter (Wallace) and Westlake (Campbell-Ryce).

It looks like Freeman may well be back on loan and we've negotiated deals for Porter and Davies (both probably on less than last season). Taylor and Brandy will be off and there'll doubtless be the a few kids coming back / going out on loan so by my reckoning, we should still have the equivalent of whatever we paid Beard last season and a decent(ish) wage from Taylor and Brandy.

I could be way out but it looks like we're not far off being spot on given a couple of 'big' names coming in. Obviously Harry's situation clouds it a bit but if he stays on bigger wages we would probably off load Kennedy on loan to balance the books given we now have Butler covering (or playing).

Of course with the Prince, sponsorships etc, it may well be that we've wangled more 'available income'

Plus the cup run of course, that will have swelled the coffers to a certai amount.

And of course Adidas will have bunged us a wodge of cash for allowing them to make the shirt of the original United

 

[MobileBlade]

Plus the cup run of course, that will have swelled the coffers to a certai amount.

And of course Adidas will have bunged us a wodge of cash for allowing them to make the shirt of the original United

And I am sure there will be a little advertising board with some middle eastern toilet paper company in the corner of South Stand/Kop that has been sold for a few million.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

And I am sure there will be a little advertising board with some middle eastern toilet paper company in the corner of South Stand/Kop that has been sold for a few million.

I did mention this at the time he came on board, could a match ball be sponsored for £2M making it relevant to income but I seem to recall it can't

Not sure exactly how it all works though, I presume this season's 'budget' is based on last year's 'earnings' but it's probably a damn sight more complicated knowing the FA.

 

[blade too long]

its all tax deductible , if Starbucks can operate for all these years paying sod all tax dont see why we should worry over the vagaries of some undecipherable code of conduct , that Bournemouth rode rough shod over

 

[Balham]

its all tax deductible , if Starbucks can operate for all these years paying sod all tax dont see why we should worry over the vagaries of some undecipherable code of conduct , that Bournemouth rode rough shod over

Loss making enterprises don't pay corporation tax. United won't have paid a corporation tax bill for 10+ years.

As long as the sponsorships are reasonable they're fine; therefore Etihad's £40m per year sponsorship of all things Manchester City was fine whereas the Qatar Tourism Authority's €200m per year deal with PSG isn't.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Loss making enterprises don't pay corporation tax. United won't have paid a corporation tax bill for 10+ years.

As long as the sponsorships are reasonable they're fine; therefore Etihad's £40m per year sponsorship of all things Manchester City was fine whereas the Qatar Tourism Authority's €200m per year deal with PSG isn't.

How can you define reasonable?

 

[Balham]

How can you define reasonable?

By following the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it probably is a duck" principle. If a firm was to sponsor an advertising board in the corner of a third tier team's stadium for £5m pa then it would look slightly dodgy but if it was £1m was to sponsor the ground, shirts and other things then it'd probably be OK.

Lawyers love "reasonable". It's arguing about what is and isn't reasonable that makes cases last so long

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Lawyers love "reasonable". It's arguing about what is and isn't reasonable that makes cases last so long

21 minutes and no sign of Dazzler to defend himself

 

[Darren]

By following the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it probably is a duck" principle. If a firm was to sponsor an advertising board in the corner of a third tier team's stadium for £5m pa then it would look slightly dodgy but if it was £1m was to sponsor the ground, shirts and other things then it'd probably be OK.

Lawyers love "reasonable". It's arguing about what is and isn't reasonable that makes cases last so long

That's only because lots of laws are framed with the word "reasonable" in them. You are guilty of rape if you don't have a reasonable belief in consent, the police can arrest you if they have a reasonable belief you have committed a crime, the High Court can overturn decisions of public authorities if they are "Wednesbury Unreasonable*" etc etc.

Lawyers don;t make the law, we just have fun arguing about it.

* Don't ask.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

That's only because lots of laws are framed with the word "reasonable" in them. You are guilty of rape if you don't have a reasonable belief in consent, the police can arrest you if they have a reasonable belief you have committed a crime, the High Court can overturn decisions of public authorities if they are "Wednesbury Unreasonable*" etc etc.

Lawyers don;t make the law, we just have fun arguing about it.

* Don't ask.

Ched, Ched, Ched, that's all you ever think about...................

 

[UnitedBlade]

its all tax deductible , if Starbucks can operate for all these years paying sod all tax dont see why we should worry over the vagaries of some undecipherable code of conduct , that Bournemouth rode rough shod over

The thing is Bournemouth broke no rules - owners can inject "equity" but they can't do it through loans. This bloke at Bournemouth has more money than sense but he can spend as much as he wants in L1 (he's more limited in the Championship though). Brentford have also spent beyond their means but their owner is also loaded although he seems to have a credible plan.We could also spend beyond our means, but I actually don't advise it.

It's taken a long time to find a good article that properly explains SCMP but the one below is the best I've come across.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php

Unfortunately McCabe stopped throwing money at transfers and wages and the Prince isn't rich enough to start throwing money willy nilly at us. For every million an owner chucks at a club, they will only ever turn that into £600k in first team wages.

I think this is why we are getting investment in a new pitch next season but sensible recruitment of players until we get to the Championship.

I think they are going about it in the right way so far (tin hat on) but we do desperately need a couple more strikers and hopefully hang on to Harry and lure the Beard back. That's my wish list.

We don't have ownership that can chuck money at us regardless but we do now have a great management structure. Nigel has changed the whole landscape and long may it continue.

 

[Balham]

That's only because lots of laws are framed with the word "reasonable" in them. You are guilty of rape if you don't have a reasonable belief in consent, the police can arrest you if they have a reasonable belief you have committed a crime, the High Court can overturn decisions of public authorities if they are "Wednesbury Unreasonable*" etc etc.

Lawyers don;t make the law, we just have fun arguing about it.

* Don't ask.

Ah, the Wednesbury Unreasonableness test. That takes me back - was a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable man displaying reasonable judgement could possibly have come to it. I know the actual wording's different but you get the gist.

And anyway, if you read my post I didn't say that you lawyers make the law - just that you love the concept of reasonableness as it gives you something to argue about. I believe you've managed to argue my point while agreeing with it!

 

[mattbianco1]

Plus the cup run of course, that will have swelled the coffers to a certai amount.

I thin NC was aware of the potential money available from the cup run and was one of the reasons we rested players vs. Peterborough and Rotherham rather than going for the last play off spot, as it happens the two i mentioned we won but...

I don't think John Brayford would be even in our thoughts if we hadn't reached the cup semi final.

I would love to know how much MBuzz paid to sponsor our shirts that day. Is it "reasonable" to pay £10m to sponsor a kit for one game when it will be viewed worldwide by millions?

 

[Darren]

Ah, the Wednesbury Unreasonableness test. That takes me back - was a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable man displaying reasonable judgement could possibly have come to it. I know the actual wording's different but you get the gist.

And anyway, if you read my post I didn't say that you lawyers make the law - just that you love the concept of reasonableness as it gives you something to argue about. I believe you've managed to argue my point while agreeing with it!

Indeed.

But it's a bit of a silly criticism (if you were making that criticism, you make not have been) to deride the concept of reasonableness. You can't get away from it.

Take the rights of the police to arrest someone. They have to have a "reasonable suspicion" that you committed the crime for which you have been arrested. Remove the reasonableness requirement and you could then get a copper saying "well I suspected him of that burglary and arrested him because his eyes are too close together" and that would be perfectly lawful.

Of course, the concept of reasonableness is eminently fluid and contestable and leads to lots if argument. There's no remedy for that.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Indeed.

But it's a bit of a silly criticism (if you were making that criticism, you make not have been) to deride the concept of reasonableness. You can't get away from it.

Take the rights of the police to arrest someone. They have to have a "reasonable suspicion" that you committed the crime for which you have been arrested. Remove the reasonableness requirement and you could then get a copper saying "well I suspected him of that burglary and arrested him because his eyes are too close together" and that would be perfectly lawful.

Of course, the concept of reasonableness is eminently fluid and contestable and leads to lots if argument. There's no remedy for that.

Anyway, back to the original post.........................

 

[Balham]

Indeed.

But it's a bit of a silly criticism (if you were making that criticism, you make not have been) to deride the concept of reasonableness. You can't get away from it.
Of course, the concept of reasonableness is eminently fluid and contestable and leads to lots if argument. There's no remedy for that.

I'm not criticising it at all. The idea of reasonableness is as good as it can be but as it's not definitive those who haven't had the legal education that you or I have will mostly find it a little more difficult to grasp: just look at the 1000+ posts we get on every Ched Evans thread.

 

[Selly]

Unfortunately McCabe stopped throwing money at transfers and wages and the Prince isn't rich enough to start throwing money willy nilly at us. For every million an owner chucks at a club, they will only ever turn that into £600k in first team wages.

In the immediate short term this is true. But if SUFC then use the other £400k to buy houses and rent them out, the rental agreement would count as income, 60% of which could be used for first team wages.

This is why increasing turnover in areas unrelated to the sucess of the team on the pitch is so important. It may also have been a factor in going with Adidas (as more shirt sales = more turnover)

 

[blade too long]

Its like tax law , theres tax dodges or evasion tips
likewise as has been put who defines reasonable sponsorship
if clubs get sponsored by pay day loan companies , is their money more reasonable then is a saudi puppy loving toilet paper company unreasonable
Definitions are blurry at best, when does gift become loan , or loan become gift
McCabe wrote off debt has that loan become a gift
Surely with 18000 regular gates our marketing, club sales are 3 times greater than say yeovil, surely this imbalance is unfair in itself
Football will and can never be on an even footing

 

[Sothall_Blade]

The thing is Bournemouth broke no rules - owners can inject "equity" but they can't do it through loans. This bloke at Bournemouth has more money than sense but he can spend as much as he wants in L1 (he's more limited in the Championship though). Brentford have also spent beyond their means but their owner is also loaded although he seems to have a credible plan.We could also spend beyond our means, but I actually don't advise it.

It's taken a long time to find a good article that properly explains SCMP but the one below is the best I've come across.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php

Unfortunately McCabe stopped throwing money at transfers and wages and the Prince isn't rich enough to start throwing money willy nilly at us. For every million an owner chucks at a club, they will only ever turn that into £600k in first team wages.

I think this is why we are getting investment in a new pitch next season but sensible recruitment of players until we get to the Championship.

I think they are going about it in the right way so far (tin hat on) but we do desperately need a couple more strikers and hopefully hang on to Harry and lure the Beard back. That's my wish list.

We don't have ownership that can chuck money at us regardless but we do now have a great management structure. Nigel has changed the whole landscape and long may it continue.

<< Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity >>

This is the important point that everybody seems to keep ignoring.
Owners at our level don't need to resort to subterfuge like spending £10M on an advertising board.
They can simply make a donation or inject equity into the club if they want to.
Kevin McCabe didn't want to put any more money in, which was his choice and that's fair enough.

But there is nothing in the SCMP rules to say that the Prince can't make donations to the club to pay the wages of let's say Brayford and a quality striker.
At the end of the day, he could maybe buy a racehorse or a new yacht or promotion for Sheffield United (as Brentford and Bournemouth Chairman have both done recently).

 

[blade too long]

like all financial rules , and business dealings vagueness rules, its well known businesses run to monthly figures that they add to from next month when required or hold back till the next figures, wednesday kept paying their players with HMRC money for 2 years, no one does figures in football that are a year in arrears , attendances are fiddled all the time, , you know that when they put 21000 turned up and you know theres 25000 in a ground , , everyone knows it happens.

 

[Woodwardfan]

<< Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity >>

This is the important point that everybody seems to keep ignoring.
Owners at our level don't need to resort to subterfuge like spending £10M on an advertising board.
They can simply make a donation or inject equity into the club if they want to.
Kevin McCabe didn't want to put any more money in, which was his choice and that's fair enough.

But there is nothing in the SCMP rules to say that the Prince can't make donations to the club to pay the wages of let's say Brayford and a quality striker.
At the end of the day, he could maybe buy a racehorse or a new yacht or promotion for Sheffield United (as Brentford and Bournemouth Chairman have both done recently).

Exactly right Sothall and also the profits from a strong cup run may be included in projections and the Football League should sanction an overspend.

In actual fact owners in L1 and L2 can introduce funds in a way owners in the Championship and Prem cannot. Up there spending thresholds are based on profit.

As for the "Wolves scenario" of last season, relegated teams can exclude the wages of players signed on 3 year contracts before the start of the previous season so if they can afford to keep them it is the equivalent of a "parachute advantage" or "honeymoon period". I suspect that will not apply so much with last season's relegated clubs.

As Sothall says though, there is nothing to stop the prince injecting capital to buy our way to promotion if he was so minded. More so than next season in actual fact when he will have his hands tied to a degree. Signings to date and Clough's transfer strategy do not suggest his budget is that much more than last season. However loan signings during the season, if needed, should be no problem whatsoever and that could be crucial.

 

[davidpinder]

Exactly right Sothall and also the profits from a strong cup run may be included in projections and the Football League should sanction an overspend.

In actual fact owners in L1 and L2 can introduce funds in a way owners in the Championship and Prem cannot. Up there spending thresholds are based on profit.

As for the "Wolves scenario" of last season, relegated teams can exclude the wages of players signed on 3 year contracts before the start of the previous season so if they can afford to keep them it is the equivalent of a "parachute advantage" or "honeymoon period". I suspect that will not apply so much with last season's relegated clubs.

As Sothall says though, there is nothing to stop the prince injecting capital to buy our way to promotion if he was so minded. More so than next season in actual fact when he will have his hands tied to a degree. Signings to date and Clough's transfer strategy do not suggest his budget is that much more than last season. However loan signings during the season, if needed, should be no problem whatsoever and that could be crucial.

I don't agree i think he has a bigger budget, we all know we need a good striker or two and Nigel has been out and got the rest of the squad pretty much sorted got rid of dead wood and offered some existing players (porter) less wages to allow him the maximum possible to not only keep Harry but all bring these strikers in on big money. I don't expect a load of money thrown in but i do expect all the cup money is available to NC to assemble a league winning side with more available in January if needed. Don't be at all surprised if we end up with 2 good strikers and good wages.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/what-s-on/...-should-be-next-big-summer-business-1-6694446

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

I don't agree i think he has a bigger budget, we all know we need a good striker or two and Nigel has been out and got the rest of the squad pretty much sorted got rid of dead wood and offered some existing players (porter) less wages to allow him the maximum possible to not only keep Harry but all bring these strikers in on big money. I don't expect a load of money thrown in but i do expect all the cup money is available to NC to assemble a league winning side with more available in January if needed. Don't be at all surprised if we end up with 2 good strikers and good wages.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/what-s-on/...-should-be-next-big-summer-business-1-6694446

As I said in the original post DP, on a player for player basis I don't think we're much different to last season based on wages guesswork. What we should have is a 'Brayford' wage and money for a similar wage for a decent striker. As woodwardfan says, our advantage may well be the odd key loan during the season and if we've got leeway to make changes in January for a final push, we'd be in a position to do so.

 

[davidpinder]

As I said in the original post DP, on a player for player basis I don't think we're much different to last season based on wages guesswork.

And based on NC's other signings we will have better players on the same money.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

And based on NC's other signings we will have better players on the same money.

Potentially, yep. It'll be interesting to see how we line up pre-season given his comments on Basham seemingly guaranteed a start.

I think he's probably got 7 or 8 sorted, he's got a decision to make at Centre Back although his hand may of course be forced and then it's just RB and CF as has been said;

Howard
RB (Freeman), Maguire/Butler, Collins/Butler, Harris
Flynn, Wallace, Basham, Murphy
Scoogs, CF (McNulty/Baxter)

Subs: Campbell-Ryce, Davies, Porter, Academy back-ups

Question marks: Doyle, Cuvelier, McGinn​

 

[Woodwardfan]

I think we all agree that the remaining striker will be the most expensive signing ( Clough mentioned a strike force of four and also intimated Baxter was one of those four) . Whether it takes our breath away is unlikely.

I think we all see that we have an abundance of midfield players so any other signings will be in defence , and we would all be happy if it was Brayford on loan or signed up. "The Beard" plus a young Gary Cahill would be fantastic.

Personally I wish for Billy Sharp up front but I'm already getting tense mentioning him. It appears too many fans seemingly would be hoping for him to fail and that is not healthy for player or club; unnecessary baggage one might say. If there are other options, and surely there are, maybe that would be for the best. However, pound for pound I reckon Sharp would be real value because I suspect he would take a big pay cut to make it happen. In fact I suspect "The Beard" would take a pay cut to go from being an anonymous also-ran at Cardiff back to cult hero at Bramall Lane.

 

[Chicken with no head]

Just been down and renewed daughters season ticket and Mcabe was showing some Asian people about,or rather walking across the car park from the hotel to the reception showing off the south stand.
Can we have multiple investors?
Presume they must be important visitors.
Or is it part of Mcabes day to day duties

 

[wizadry]

I think we all agree that the remaining striker will be the most expensive signing ( Clough mentioned a strike force of four and also intimated Baxter was one of those four) . Whether it takes our breath away is unlikely.

I think we all see that we have an abundance of midfield players so any other signings will be in defence , and we would all be happy if it was Brayford on loan or signed up. "The Beard" plus a young Gary Cahill would be fantastic.

Personally I wish for Billy Sharp up front but I'm already getting tense mentioning him. It appears too many fans seemingly would be hoping for him to fail and that is not healthy for player or club; unnecessary baggage one might say. If there are other options, and surely there are, maybe that would be for the best. However, pound for pound I reckon Sharp would be real value because I suspect he would take a big pay cut to make it happen. In fact I suspect "The Beard" would take a pay cut to go from being an anonymous also-ran at Cardiff back to cult hero at Bramall Lane.

Nobody,i repeat nobody, would want Billy to fail,even if they have allready said that they don't want us to sign him,that is a bizarre statement to say the least.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Nobody,i repeat nobody, would want Billy to fail,even if they have allready said that they don't want us to sign him,that is a bizarre statement to say the least.

Fair point Wizadry, let me amend it to: " would volubly express their impatience with him if he did not score regularly", yes that is exactly what I would be nervous about.