players we've sold, values etc

[super_pig]

at the game yesterday we were discussing the players we've bought and sold.. the figures have been bugging me

hulse.. sold for (can't remember but more than 1 meg if i remember correctly)
killa..
kyles 10 million
mellis 1 million
beattie 4 million (less what he cost)
tongey 2 million?
jags 3 million

plus parachute payments. tevez monies

if beattie was on 30k per week that's about 1 million for his year and a half
hendrie, naysmith about the same

so where has the rest gone?
strikes me we are propping up macabes property empire just like we did woolhouses retail empire and brearleys jute empire

same owd same owd as pinchy would say??

 

[alcoblade]

I was told since the premiership we'd sold £38M and spent £17M. I can't vouch for the numbers but they wouldn't suprise me.

We had wagebills in excess of £20M wwith gate receipts of around £7M. For me, it's not really a question of where it's gone. It's more a question of how the hell we saw fit to pay the salaries we did to the rank mediocrity that we've been subjected to.

UTB

 

[Tuns]

This was on another site the other day don't know if it is accurate.

Fair to say player wages have significant but so has Sky and gate money and Tevez money....

Transfers since 2007 profit ...


Transfers in:
Billy Sharp - £2m
Gary Naysmith - £1m
David Carney - £47,000
James Beattie - £4m
Gary Speed - £250,000
Darius Henderson - £2m
David Cotterill - £1m+
Brian Howard - £500,000
Lee Williamson - £500,000
Andy Taylor - £250,000+
Ched Evans - £3m
Neill Collins - around £200,000

SPENT: £14.747M

transfers out:
Colin Kazim-Richards - £1.275m
Phil jagielka - £4m
Claude Davis - £3m
Cristian Nade - £400,000
Ahmed fathi - £675,000
Alan Quinn - £600,000
Leigh bromby - sold twice for combined £900,000
Rob Hulse - £1.75m
luton shelton - £1m
Chris Armstrong - £500,000
Michael tonge - £2m
James Beattie - £3.5m
Adam Chapman - £15,000
Kyle naughton and kyle Walker - combined £8m
Brian Howard - £300,000
David Cotterill - £600,000
Matt Kilgallon - £2m
Billy Sharp - £1.15m
Paddy kenny - £750,000

INCOME: £32.415m

Total: £17.668m PROFIT

 

[puppet]

I was told since the premiership we'd sold £38M and spent £17M. I can't vouch for the numbers but they wouldn't suprise me.

We had wagebills in excess of £20M wwith gate receipts of around £7M. For me, it's not really a question of where it's gone. It's more a question of how the hell we saw fit to pay the salaries we did to the rank mediocrity that we've been subjected to.

UTB

well we always say we cant afford to keep XYZ, then claim to shell out massively on the next man... then THEY have to go, cant afford to keep them... then we re-sign Monty on alleged high wages etc etc... if the original premise is we HAVE to sell someone because of their wage, why do we then pay out lavish sums on someone else...only to sell them (repeat to fade)

 

[alcoblade]

To be honest, given the size of the wagebill's we've heid for a number of years, I'm not at all suprised that we're still in the shit despite that profit.

UTB

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 PM ----------

well we always say we cant afford to keep XYZ, then claim to shell out massively on the next man... then THEY have to go, cant afford to keep them... then we re-sign Monty on alleged high wages etc etc... if the original premise is we HAVE to sell someone because of their wage, why do we then pay out lavish sums on someone else...only to sell them (repeat to fade)

Very true. I think when you release a player on £25K per week, it confuses things when you sign the next player, making £15K per week seem cheap. I think Blackwell did a lot of this, mopping up the silly money that was burning from the Robson era, relacing them with poorer players on the same relatively silly money.

UTB

 

[puppet]

To be honest, given the size of the wagebill's we've heid for a number of years, I'm not at all suprised that we're still in the shit despite that profit.

UTB

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 PM ----------



Very true. I think when you release a player on £25K per week, it confuses things when you sign the next player, making £15K per week seem cheap. I think Blackwell did a lot of this, mopping up the silly money that was burning from the Robson era, relacing them with poorer players on the same relatively silly money.

UTB

I personally think this is where we've been taken for a ride. I was told by an ex-player that the Beattie problem stemmed from budgeting to sell a Beattie as KB didnt fancy him but wanted Hendo. He also wanted Halford. Halford's year loan wage to the Blades equated to JB's - £28k - Hendo comes in on £14k, Halford on £28k and the blades sit back and wait for a bid for Beattie which isnt forthcoming. The ridiculous step of selling him in the JTW to save money on wages a manager didnt fancy cost us promotion that season.

Now my other beef if - who does the wage budget calcs and how, on the back of a fucking envelope? If we had a purge on wages, why did we supposedly continue to pay out vast sums.... personally I dont believe we did. We lost nothing on the Kyle's wages in terms of sales because they were on kids contracts either, something which wasnt cited when they left that we wouldnt save a great deal on.

 

[alcoblade]

I personally think this is where we've been taken for a ride. I was told by an ex-player that the Beattie problem stemmed from budgeting to sell a Beattie as KB didnt fancy him but wanted Hendo. He also wanted Halford. Halford's year loan wage to the Blades equated to JB's - £28k - Hendo comes in on £14k, Halford on £28k and the blades sit back and wait for a bid for Beattie which isnt forthcoming. The ridiculous step of selling him in the JTW to save money on wages a manager didnt fancy cost us promotion that season.

Now my other beef if - who does the wage budget calcs and how, on the back of a fucking envelope? If we had a purge on wages, why did we supposedly continue to pay out vast sums.... personally I dont believe we did. We lost nothing on the Kyle's wages in terms of sales because they were on kids contracts either, something which wasnt cited when they left that we wouldnt save a great deal on.

Well, the accounts cover things like wages. It'd be a really serious issue if they weren't a true reflection.

Personally, I think we lost the plot. It's (gu)estimated that Naysmith was earning over £20K per week. Now even on a good day he was nothing more than a solid fullback - yet the stupidity of his signing was lost on most - these signings had become the norm. Same with Speed and Hendrie. And so it went on.

UTB

 

[lenners]

All wages are crackers but disagree about Nayso.
Got better and better and was an integral part of a team, founded on good defence, that almost went up.

 

[sheffielder]

To be honest, given the size of the wagebill's we've heid for a number of years, I'm not at all suprised that we're still in the shit despite that profit.

UTB

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 PM ----------



Very true. I think when you release a player on £25K per week, it confuses things when you sign the next player, making £15K per week seem cheap. I think Blackwell did a lot of this, mopping up the silly money that was burning from the Robson era, relacing them with poorer players on the same relatively silly money.

UTB

My biggest gripe with Blackwell (apart from not being able to take any responsibility for defeat) are his signings. personally this loan thing got out of hand because of Blackwell's ability to sniff an inury prone player from 100 miles. Henderson, Williamson, France and Jordan to name just a few. When these players get injured we had to loan some players and it just became a ride of slow death. I would like to point out that I don't personally blame loanees for where United have gone wrong. Cresswell was a different man when he was on loan to the man on a juicy fat 3 year contract (not bad for a 32 year old). The problem has been the quality of signing. Nosworthy wasn't exactly a huge success yet we pay between £12-20k for him a week depending on who you listen to. I can understand why people don't like McCabe and Birch but I am sure the signings were not their choice and Blamewell has to take some responsbility for this (which he doesn't).

Loans for me should be Bartley style loans but we always got stop gaps. If Blackwell had been any good he would have had a relationship with Arsene Wenger where we could have had Bartley, Lansbury (Norwich) and Thomas (cardiff) at the begining of the season. I remember Birmingham were very successful when I think they loaned bendnter and another lad (at Bolton now) and they built from that.

Whether the money has propped up McCabe's businesses or not the fact remains we could have still done alot better and the walls didn't have to cave in like they have

 

[S64 Blade]

I agree. The whole loan situation has screwed us over both financially and on the pitch. There seems to be somebody making his debut each time we have a game, which is no good for a team - whether it be last season when we were pushing for the play-offs, or now down at the bottom fighting for survival. I thought after last season's affairs, this one would be different - particularly after McCabe admitted the loans did us over last season. But, at the start of the season it was obvious we didn't have enough depth, or quality in certain areas.

 

[alcoblade]

All wages are crackers but disagree about Nayso.
Got better and better and was an integral part of a team, founded on good defence, that almost went up.

But Len - a million pounds a year for one fullback - seriously? Was he that good? Is anyone that important, at this level?

Think about it in the context of £5M gate receipts and a few million income from elsewhere - spending 20% of your income on a fullback of Naysmith's ability (I agree he was OK in the end) is pure madness.

UTB

 

[Worksop II]

spending 20% of your income on a fullback of Naysmith's ability (I agree he was OK in the end) is pure madness.

UTB

We have a board that is willing to pay high wages to an average player (loans included), but not able to resist selling good players on average wages.

 

[lenners]

Bet Len - a million pounds a year for one fullback - seriously? Was he that good? Is anyone that important, at this level?

Think about it in the context of £5M gate receipts and a few million income from elsewhere - spending 20% of your income on a fullback of Naysmith's ability (I agree he was OK in the end) is pure madness.

UTB

Our income was way in excess of £5m when he was left back, probably at least four times that amount.
If we'd gone up, yes it would have been worth it and we weren't far away.
The biggest crime was chucking away the first year of parachute payments with an inadequate manager.

 

[alcoblade]

Our income was way in excess of £5m when he was left back, probably at least four times that amount.
If we'd gone up, yes it would have been worth it and we weren't far away.
The biggest crime was chucking away the first year of parachute payments with an inadequate manager.

The income you refer to was a smokescreen - as we've found - income from other businesses that had at least equal outgoings. In footballing terms it was much less, plus the one off parachutre money.

For me we should have been banking some of that excess (parachute money) to give us more years to go at it - rather than the shit or bust approach we took. Clearly giving Robson the resource was added disaster. We didn't go up that season despite huge resources. The sale of Beattie will be blamed by many the year after, but the evidence doesn't back that. We were more successful without him than with him.

If we hadn't been burning cash at the rate we were, we could have had a very good go at it for many years running. Paying players of the quality of Naysmith 1 million per year was pure insanity. When the market was re tested, he was rated at the level of Huddersfield Town - which sums up how far from the plot we'd strayed.

UTB

 

[gavtheblade]

The income you refer to was a smokescreen - as we've found - income from other businesses that had at least equal outgoings. In footballing terms it was much less, plus the one off parachutre money.

For me we should have been banking some of that excess (parachute money) to give us more years to go at it - rather than the shit or bust approach we took. Clearly giving Robson the resource was added disaster. We didn't go up that season despite huge resources. The sale of Beattie will be blamed by many the year after, but the evidence doesn't back that. We were more successful without him than with him.

If we hadn't been burning cash at the rate we were, we could have had a very good go at it for many years running. Paying players of the quality of Naysmith 1 million per year was pure insanity. When the market was re tested, he was rated at the level of Huddersfield Town - which sums up how far from the plot we'd strayed.

UTB

would you not take beattie back given the chance?

 

[alcoblade]

would you not take beattie back given the chance?

Not even at half what we were paying him. It only more likey results in us having to watch the likes of Collins a few years later.

UTB

 

[lenners]

Can't see how income fully accounted for is a smokescreen.
It was received and appeared in the accounts.
Nayso's efforts in the play-off season were fine. The wages were too high but in the context of wages generally, not a great surprise.
Now, spending £5m to £6m on a centre forward who hasn't done his job remotely as well, that's turned out to be a real turkey.

 

[alcoblade]

Can't see how income fully accounted for is a smokescreen.
It was received and appeared in the accounts.

It was a smokescreen is so much as for every "£10M" we had coming in from these businesses, we had "£11M" going out - so it wasn't income that we should be spending more against.

Future poor signings don't justify earlier wastful spending. £1M per year on championship fullbacks is very wasteful spending.

UTB

 

[super_pig]

>This was on another site the other day don't know if it is accurate
cheers tuns.. yeah i think it was off 606, i've got my bearings now.. it was probably that that set me off.. props to the original poster btw

 

[Sothall_Blade]

The income you refer to was a smokescreen - as we've found - income from other businesses that had at least equal outgoings. In footballing terms it was much less, plus the one off parachutre money.

For me we should have been banking some of that excess (parachute money) to give us more years to go at it - rather than the shit or bust approach we took. Clearly giving Robson the resource was added disaster. We didn't go up that season despite huge resources. The sale of Beattie will be blamed by many the year after, but the evidence doesn't back that. We were more successful without him than with him.

If we hadn't been burning cash at the rate we were, we could have had a very good go at it for many years running. Paying players of the quality of Naysmith 1 million per year was pure insanity. When the market was re tested, he was rated at the level of Huddersfield Town - which sums up how far from the plot we'd strayed.

UTB

I've just been looking at the accounts for the season you're talking about 2007-2008. The wage bill was £20.9M which the club stated was similar to that of the Premier League season. Gate receipts were £6.8M (including cups), so slightly higher than the £5M you mentioned. Income from sponsorship, royalties, merchandising and advertising was £5.9M. On top of that, there would be the TV income and the parachute payment. That's before you include any income from other parts of the business (e.g. property, leisure, hotel, business centre). In fact, the football segment of the business lost £5.5M and the other segments combined made a profit of about £2M making the overall loss for the year about £3.5M.

So, personally I think it was worth one year of "extravagant" spending and a loss of just £3.5M in order to try and bounce straight back. The problem was in the way that Robson managed the team and critically in the way that he chose to spend the "Premiership Budget". He recruited certain players on Premiership wages who would clearly either decline in value or have no resale value at all (i.e. Beattie, Naysmith, Speed, Ehiogu, Hendrie).

What he should have done (and the board should have insisted on this!) is to bring in players with the potential to increase in value (i.e. 22-25 year olds). Players who may have cost a fee initially but on more manageable wages, who would have formed the basis of the squad for the next 3 seasons and still been affordable when the parachute payments stopped.

http://www.sufc.co.uk/staticFiles/3a/24/0,,10418~140346,00.pdf