Cant afford em, transfer fee and wagers are too high

[blade67]

I assume that the figure of £20k quoted for mcburnie is his basic pay.
Players will receive various performance related bonuses the biggest of which is the one for surviving in the premiership.

We must take account of monies which will not have been received from TV companies due to coronavirus and this could be as high as £30 million.

Whilst cost of transfers and stadium acquisition can be amortised over future years that only becomes viable if we stay in the premiership for longer than three years subsequently sensible accounting practise will not allow us to extend our debt beyond the three year parachute payments.
We must also assume that every player purchased will at the very least retain his value.

There is a fair bit to respond to there Bertie

I think you are right that Mcburnie and everyone else is probably earning a lot more than quoted and this demonstrates we are probably much more able to complete than many think.

Whilst we have seen a reduction from TV money, I thought it was £9m a season over 3 years. This was factored in to my estimates and obviously is also applied to all other "competitors in the EPL.

Our ability to amortise transfers is exactly the same as our competitors such as Brighton or Burnley or Southampton. The ground cost is probably unique to us when compared to them.

Player values shouldn't affect the amortisation. If we pay £18m for a player with a 3 year contract then he'll get charged at £6m a year so his value at the end is zero. No different to any other premier league club.

The big mystery to me that no-one has yet to answer is how Burnley can pay £80m a year in wages and still make a profit despite spending money in the transfer market and we think we can only afford a £30m wage bill

 

[nopigfansintown]

There is a fair bit to respond to there Bertie

I think you are right that Mcburnie and everyone else is probably earning a lot more than quoted and this demonstrates we are probably much more able to complete than many think.

Whilst we have seen a reduction from TV money, I thought it was £9m a season over 3 years. This was factored in to my estimates and obviously is also applied to all other "competitors in the EPL.

Our ability to amortise transfers is exactly the same as our competitors such as Brighton or Burnley or Southampton. The ground cost is probably unique to us when compared to them.

Player values shouldn't affect the amortisation. If we pay £18m for a player with a 3 year contract then he'll get charged at £6m a year so his value at the end is zero. No different to any other premier league club.

The big mystery to me that no-one has yet to answer is how Burnley can pay £80m a year in wages and still make a profit despite spending money in the transfer market and we think we can only afford a £30m wage bill

Our wage bill in 17/18 was under 20 million. In 18/19 it was 40 million, with promotion bonuses believed to account for most of the uplift. I'd be surprised, given the wages that were revealed for Mcburnie, if the uplift is much more than that.Most of our incomings came from lower down the pyramid, or in Berge's case a country not renowned for paying big money. Wilder has referred to wage cuts if we get relegated, so I don't think relegation holds the same fears for us as it does the likes of Bournemouth. Burnley have a large wage bill but, crucially, they don't compete when it comes to transfer fees. If we don't have the backing of a Bournemouth (large fees and large wage bill) I'd prefer if we continued down the route of splashing most of our cash creatively on fees - whilst keeping the wage bill down. This approach will make it hard to keep players when the big dogs come calling, but will allow us to have a high quality asset base full of players like Berge. If you go down you then have a number of saleable assets, on sensible wages, rather than cash drains.

 

[blade67]

Our wage bill in 17/18 was under 20 million. In 18/19 it was 40 million, with promotion bonuses believed to account for most of the uplift. I'd be surprised, given the wages that were revealed for Mcburnie, if the uplift is much more than that.Most of our incomings came from lower down the pyramid, or in Berge's case a country not renowned for paying big money. Wilder has referred to wage cuts if we get relegated, so I don't think relegation holds the same fears for us as it does the likes of Bournemouth. Burnley have a large wage bill but, crucially, they don't compete when it comes to transfer fees. If we don't have the backing of a Bournemouth (large fees and large wage bill) I'd prefer if we continued down the route of splashing most of our cash creatively on fees - whilst keeping the wage bill down. This approach will make it hard to keep players when the big dogs come calling, but will allow us to have a high quality asset base full of players like Berge. If you go down you then have a number of saleable assets, on sensible wages, rather than cash drains.

If we paid £40m in the championship then we can only be paying more now.

£40m implies an average of £25k a week based on 30 players so plenty of scope to pay the top lads £50k a week.

A number that I keep reading is way out of our league

 

[nopigfansintown]

If we paid £40m in the championship then we can only be paying more now.

£40m implies an average of £25k a week based on 30 players so plenty of scope to pay the top lads £50k a week.

A number that I keep reading is way out of our league

Not if 40-50% was bonus payments. Could be around the same, less bonuses anyway.

 

[blade67]

Not if 40-50% was bonus payments. Could be around the same, less bonuses anyway.

At some point our accounts will be published and we'll all know.unt then we are just guessing o suppose