Wages

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Yogi said:
This shouldn’t be being done on Twitter I know we all moan about not knowing but some things are better done behind closed doors. This is starting to turn into a bit of an embarrassing episode now.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's more or less irrelevant anyway - it's the overall wage bill we're interested in not a couple of headline players. What would be useful to know is what the wage bills in 19/20 and 20/21 were (pre bonuses). The best source I've found is £56 million for 19/20 in Forbes magazine. Presumably the journalist didn't just make that number up:

www.forbes.com

Sheffield United's Saudi Boss On Soccer's Future

Prince Abdullah bin Mosaad opens up about the future of the game and his ownership at both Sheffield United and Beerschot.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
Last edited:
i'm sure i remember the pundits on sky discussing our wages before the match v villa after last lockdown.
The question went along the lines of how come villa can afford a much larger wage bill than the blades and the answer was basically that we were still suffering from low turnover from our time in the first div and the turnover sets how much the club can spend on wages with financial fair play.
As villa had a large wage bill and turn over in the championship, it was easier for them to increase the wage bill in the premiership and they said it would take us some time with increased turnover before we could start to increase the wage bill to compete with the middle of the road teams.

Not sure if anyone else remembers this?
 
nopigfansintown said:
Agreed. It's more or less irrelevant anyway - it's the overall wage bill we're interested in not a couple of headline players. What would be useful to know is what the wage bills in 19/20 and 20/21 were (pre bonuses). The best source I've found is £56 million for 19/20 in Forbes magazine. Presumably the journalist didn't just make that number up:

www.forbes.com

Sheffield United's Saudi Boss On Soccer's Future

Prince Abdullah bin Mosaad opens up about the future of the game and his ownership at both Sheffield United and Beerschot.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
In all honesty I don’t know who is being paid what and as long as they are being paid and the club fulfils it’s obligations it doesn’t really matter like you say. What does matter is there is a fit and proper way of discussing any issues the club has in house. We the fans should not be privy to any of this until it comes out in the accounts. It’s starting to feel a little bit like the fans are being used like a child in a divorce emotionally manipulated one way or the other. The club needs to do whatever it’s going to do quietly and respectfully in house then inform the fans through the proper channels and leave the fans to make their judgements on whatever the outcome is.
 
dsr-burnley said:
As a guide to the accuracy of that website, it says that Burnley's players get paid £35m per year. The club accounts last year showed total salaries aid of £87m. We didn't pay £52m to Sean Dyche and the tea ladies.
Click to expand...

So the kitman has been pocketing the cash? 😄
 
Told thee 😉.

UTB

PS also told thee that wages disparity in the squad, especially those newly bought in on PL wages that are the highest salaries at the club is causing problems !!!!
 
DronnieBlade said:
Told thee 😉.

UTB

PS also told thee that wages disparity in the squad, especially those newly bought in on PL wages that are the highest salaries at the club is causing problems !!!!
Click to expand...

That happens at nearly every promoted side though.
You're buying players in the PL to play in the PL, whilst you also have PL finances, so of course wages will be significantly higher.

What it screams of, is ageing Championship players in this squad wanting a big 4 year contract with PL wages, because they know they're not getting a PL contract anywhere else.
 
CentralQuay said:
That happens at nearly every promoted side though.
You're buying players in the PL to play in the PL, whilst you also have PL finances, so of course wages will be significantly higher.

What it screams of, is ageing Championship players in this squad wanting a big 4 year contract with PL wages, because they know they're not getting a PL contract anywhere else.
Click to expand...
What it screams of is pissed off players that are more than a tad ticked off that the underperforming newly introduced players are bagging shitloads more every two weeks !!

Also that at least a couple of them appear to be more interested in their pay packets and generally acting like cocks, than actually working on improving as footballers !!

UTB
 
DronnieBlade said:
What it screams of is pissed off players that are more than a tad ticked off that the underperforming newly introduced players are bagging shitloads more every two weeks !!

Also that at least a couple of them appear to be more interested in their pay packets and generally acting like cocks, than actually working on improving as footballers !!

UTB
Click to expand...

Not really true is it?
Every team Wilder has selected this season has contained more players that were here last season, than not.

The experienced players have been the most disappointing.
 
Very unprofessional of the Prince to get involved in this. First of all he shouldn't be allowing JimPhipps to tweet confidential information regarding salaries and he definitely shouldn't be re-tweeting it himself. I'd expect condemnation from the Chairman of Phipps' tweets rather than agreement with them. He gave the players these contracts when it was going well, he shouldn't now try to shame them because the wheels have come off.
 
Is he suggesting £40k to mid £50k is the range?

Can't see more than a couple on over £40k.
 
CentralQuay said:
Is he suggesting £40k to mid £50k is the range?

Can't see more than a couple on over £40k.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have thought so either, given that we know McBurnie is on £20k per week. He came in as our record signing at the time, so will have had a salary in-line with that.

The only ones on near that would be Berge, Brewster, Mousset, Jags and possibly Norwood, IMO.

Even then Berge may be stretching it, as I can't see the wages paid in Belgium being near PL level.
 
Its clear what is going on here . The owners are getting increasingly passed off at the prevailing 'view' that we wont pay premiership wages and that is being used to excuse our piss poor performances this year. If these tweets are correct. ...and Phipps is more ITK than anyone on here...it puts those rumours to bed . He is saying a good portion of our starters are on 40-50k per week...not top premier league wages but a lot more than any of us thought.

Agsin assuming its true it would also mean if Wilder had wanted he could have paid that to the Wigan left back and Matty Cash but may have chosen to up Stevens and Baldocks wages instead. Just like paying Norwood and Fleck similar amounts would come at the expense of bringing in new midfielders.

Its all becoming a little bit unsavoury and I really hope this isn't the end of CWAK
 

FriethBlade said:
Its clear what is going on here . The owners are getting increasingly passed off at the prevailing 'view' that we wont pay premiership wages and that is being used to excuse our piss poor performances this year. If these tweets are correct. ...and Phipps is more ITK than anyone on here...it puts those rumours to bed . He is saying a good portion of our starters are on 40-50k per week...not top premier league wages but a lot more than any of us thought.

Agsin assuming its true it would also mean if Wilder had wanted he could have paid that to the Wigan left back and Matty Cash but may have chosen to up Stevens and Baldocks wages instead. Just like paying Norwood and Fleck similar amounts would come at the expense of bringing in new midfielders.

Its all becoming a little bit unsavoury and I really hope this isn't the end of CWAK
Click to expand...

Appreciate there will be appearance money, bonuses etc but, as S64 Blade says, we know for a fact that McBurnie is on £20k a week. Is he really on less than half of what other starters are on? Don't see it personally.
 
cooperblade said:
Appreciate there will be appearance money, bonuses etc but, as S64 Blade says, we know for a fact that McBurnie is on £20k a week. Is he really on less than half of what other starters are on? Don't see it personally.
Click to expand...
Maybe there was some sort of clause in his contract that his wage would rise if we stayed up last season. His court case where the wage was made public was before the end of the season right?

Does seem strange though, not sure how we’re suddenly paying everyone 40k+.

Seems like a “don’t look at me it’s not my fault” move. Admittedly it’s not PA’s fault at all. Just need everyone at the club to stick together and stop pointing fingers. If the Norwoods and Flecks are actually getting paid that much now then they have really let us down tbh
 
cooperblade said:
Appreciate there will be appearance money, bonuses etc but, as S64 Blade says, we know for a fact that McBurnie is on £20k a week. Is he really on less than half of what other starters are on? Don't see it personally.
Click to expand...
I dont see it either Cooper. What I'm really worried about is that the board are trying to get the fans inside as CW has handed his notice in. This would be the worse case scenario, hes the one factor keeping the club together at the minute and the best man to bring us back up next season.
 
S64 Blade said:
I wouldn't have thought so either, given that we know McBurnie is on £20k per week. He came in as our record signing at the time, so will have had a salary in-line with that.

The only ones on near that would be Berge, Brewster, Mousset, Jags and possibly Norwood, IMO.

Even then Berge may be stretching it, as I can't see the wages paid in Belgium being near PL level.
Click to expand...

I suspect those figures include bonuses. I think we work a lot with bonuses bumping wages up. There was probably also a wage rise for staying up.

I doubt McBurnie is amongst the highest paid. We paid a lot for him but he was only a Championship player. The higher earners are likely those who were already with us (JOC/Egan/Fleck etc) had been successful at this level and signed a new contract. Transfer fees don't necessarily equate with wages.
 
robbiez666 said:
I suspect those figures include bonuses. I think we work a lot with bonuses bumping wages up. There was probably also a wage rise for staying up.

I doubt McBurnie is amongst the highest paid. We paid a lot for him but he was only a Championship player. The higher earners are likely those who were already with us (JOC/Egan/Fleck etc) had been successful at this level and signed a new contract. Transfer fees don't necessarily equate with wages.
Click to expand...
You're right, fees don't. But we signed JOC and Egan from Brentford - who don't pay a great deal either. Egan had only recently moved there from Gillingham too. Fleck had been at Coventry before us, so again, won't have been on that much (he was only living in a pretty modest house at Catcliffe, until last summer). Swansea gave McBurnie his contract when they were in the Premier League.

Agree on bonuses though. I suspect we have tried to incentivise and top-up wages a lot in this way. Nobody can have a goal bonus in their contract though! 😂
 
cooperblade said:
Appreciate there will be appearance money, bonuses etc but, as S64 Blade says, we know for a fact that McBurnie is on £20k a week. Is he really on less than half of what other starters are on? Don't see it personally.
Click to expand...
We don't know that about McBurnie's salary, in fact. I've seen people argue pretty convincingly that the information from his court case has been misinterpreted and he's on quite a lot more than that.
 
dc_blade said:
We don't know that about McBurnie's salary, in fact. I've seen people argue pretty convincingly that the information from his court case has been misinterpreted and he's on quite a lot more than that.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, haven't seen that. Are people arguing that the fine being 150% of his weekly wage is incorrect or that bonuses etc make it a much higher figure (or something else)?
 
cooperblade said:
That's interesting, haven't seen that. Are people arguing that the fine being 150% of his weekly wage is incorrect or that bonuses etc make it a much higher figure (or something else)?
Click to expand...
I think that it was 150% after tax. I'll ask the person in question to clarify and get back to you.

Separately, I also think it's worth considering the possibility raised earlier that players got an automatic bump in the their basic wage based on staying in the PL.
 
nopigfansintown said:
Agreed. It's more or less irrelevant anyway - it's the overall wage bill we're interested in not a couple of headline players. What would be useful to know is what the wage bills in 19/20 and 20/21 were (pre bonuses). The best source I've found is £56 million for 19/20 in Forbes magazine. Presumably the journalist didn't just make that number up:

www.forbes.com

Sheffield United's Saudi Boss On Soccer's Future

Prince Abdullah bin Mosaad opens up about the future of the game and his ownership at both Sheffield United and Beerschot.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
The last available figure is for 18/19: £40.6m including promotion bonuses. The season before that (10th in the Championship) the reported wagebill was £19m; in 2016/17 (League One 100 points) it was £10m.

£56m for last season is probably not a million miles off, even if I've no idea where Forbes has got that figure from as the 19/20 accounts haven't been released yet. It'll include some hefty bonuses for staying up.

Fraggle Blade said:
i'm sure i remember the pundits on sky discussing our wages before the match v villa after last lockdown.
The question went along the lines of how come villa can afford a much larger wage bill than the blades and the answer was basically that we were still suffering from low turnover from our time in the first div and the turnover sets how much the club can spend on wages with financial fair play.
As villa had a large wage bill and turn over in the championship, it was easier for them to increase the wage bill in the premiership and they said it would take us some time with increased turnover before we could start to increase the wage bill to compete with the middle of the road teams.

Not sure if anyone else remembers this?
Click to expand...

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.

cooperblade said:
Appreciate there will be appearance money, bonuses etc but, as S64 Blade says, we know for a fact that McBurnie is on £20k a week. Is he really on less than half of what other starters are on? Don't see it personally.
Click to expand...
dc_blade said:
We don't know that about McBurnie's salary, in fact. I've seen people argue pretty convincingly that the information from his court case has been misinterpreted and he's on quite a lot more than that.
Click to expand...
McBurnie was fined a week's wages. His post-tax salary was reported at £20,000 per week. At £20k per week after tax, McBurnie is effectively paying 45% tax so his pre-tax salary is somewhere around the £34k mark - £1.75m per year.

1609857379475.png
 
Last edited:
S64 Blade said:
You're right, fees don't. But we signed JOC and Egan from Brentford - who don't pay a great deal either. Egan had only recently moved there from Gillingham too. Fleck had been at Coventry before us, so again, won't have been on that much (he was only living in a pretty modest house at Catcliffe, until last summer). Swansea gave McBurnie his contract when they were in the Premier League.

Agree on bonuses though. I suspect we have tried to incentivise and top-up wages a lot in this way. Nobody can have a goal bonus in their contract though! 😂
Click to expand...

But didn't those players get a payrise when we got promoted to the Championship and new contracts, and some again in the promotion year and then again in the Premier League? Whilst McBurnie was on loan at Barnsley a year before we signed him so unlikely to be on mega wages for them, although he did then sign a new contract.

As someone pointed out on another post, that 150% of wages could be net earnings which would put him on something like £38k pw.
 
derekacorah said:
Very unprofessional of the Prince to get involved in this. First of all he shouldn't be allowing JimPhipps to tweet confidential information regarding salaries and he definitely shouldn't be re-tweeting it himself. I'd expect condemnation from the Chairman of Phipps' tweets rather than agreement with them. He gave the players these contracts when it was going well, he shouldn't now try to shame them because the wheels have come off.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It pisses me off more that he's retweeted what amounts to an enigmatic politicians answer. No figure for the whole squad, so we can compare directly with other teams - just the "fact" that we have players on 40-50k. The tweet ultimately tells us nothing, but will have the hard of thinking thinking that we now have cast iron proof that we're competitive on wages.
 

Balham Blade said:
Villa's wagebill was astronomical because their owners could afford to underwrite losses of nearly £70m in 2018/19.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom