Another Year Older And Deeper In Debt!

[Armchair Wanderer]

In the US the wage cap is for the club as a whole, so you have a certain amount you can pay out in wages and your stars will obviously earn more than the rest. Part of the reason it's a great idea is that it helps with parity between teams.

Football/soccer has never been about equality, esp not now. The big teams have more fans so they have more money and so are successful. Money = success. If you change that formula you're changing the sport. Fifa would never agree to that.

[FaninOz]

Someday it'll be accepted that players ridiculous salaries are ripping the guts out of football clubs and have been increasingly doing so for years. Someday it'll all come crashing down. Cap the lot at £5000 a week and the debts would soon come back to normality.

Whilst the players debts quickly soar. They'll be forced to sell their homes for much less than they have mortgaged it for as they can't afford to pay their mortgages.

Before you say "But £5000 a week is still a lot" yes, yes it is, but people live lifestyles relative to their salary. Nothing wrong with that, but for some people that's not good enough.

If I earned £100,000 a year and that was reduced to £50,000 a year, I'd be financially fooked, desptire still reeling in a nice salary.

And that's understandable economics. But when the country is in recession, footballers, even the ones we love have to realise that mega wages are not sustainable. Something has to give and it's about time to say it shouldn't be the football clubs

Can't agree more with that, the Club is the important thing that will hopefully last for ever. The players come and go and it is about time that the wages issue was well and truely sorted. Now how about the 10 pound a week that Lofty and the rest of the 1958 team got!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Excuse repetition if it's been mentioned elsewhere, but who are the nine players out of contract next summer?

[Whookam]

Excuse repetition if it's been mentioned elsewhere, but who are the nine players out of contract next summer?

Elmander for one.
Riga.
Samuel
Bogdan
Steinsson
Gardner
Blake
Cohen
the O'Briens

[marshall_42]

Excuse repetition if it's been mentioned elsewhere, but who are the nine players out of contract next summer?

Elmander for one.
Riga.
Samuel
Bogdan
Steinsson
Gardner
Blake
Cohen
the O'Briens

Interesting. All could go and we might not be much worse off for a first 11. I would rather keep Elmo and Steinnerthough. Bogdan is worth keeping, although making some loan moeny from either he or Al-habsi makes sense.

[boltonboris]

Excuse repetition if it's been mentioned elsewhere, but who are the nine players out of contract next summer?

Elmander for one.
Riga.
Samuel
Bogdan
Steinsson
Gardner
Blake
Cohen
the O'Briens

Interesting. All could go and we might not be much worse off for a first 11. I would rather keep Elmo and Steinnerthough. Bogdan is worth keeping, although making some loan moeny from either he or Al-habsi makes sense.

Bogdan will stay once we sell Al-Habsi

[truewhite15]

Excuse repetition if it's been mentioned elsewhere, but who are the nine players out of contract next summer?

Elmander for one.
Riga.
Samuel
Bogdan
Steinsson
Gardner
Blake
Cohen
the O'Briens

I think what I found most interesting in the soundbytes on the SSN web is the last paragraph from Gartside, when discussing the possible sales of players. Having said that the major problem is the extortionate wage bill, he says something along the lines of "there are 9 players out of contract, many of them high earners". Who do we think these high earners are? Elmander, I'd assume. Also Steinsson, considering he's a solid 1st teamer. But from what I've heard on this forum and elsewhere, it's squad players who are nowhere near getting on such as Riga and Samuel who are earning a ridiculous amount of money to do nothing but turn up to training. Once we get rid of them, and if Elmander takes his proposed pay-cut, I think things might start to look a bit better...

[hisroyalgingerness]

Does all this piss on Megson's claims to have reduced the wage bill?

Or is the deficit more due to loss of revenue. I suppose I'm a bit astounded as the spending didn't look out of control in the way Pompey did. Big shit.

[Worthy4England]

Does all this piss on Megson's claims to have reduced the wage bill?

Or is the deficit more due to loss of revenue. I suppose I'm a bit astounded as the spending didn't look out of control in the way Pompey did. Big shit.

Answering in order

1) It appears to piss all over it yes - but it had been pretty much pissed all over last accounts - he'd have had to prune the squad in half to get anywhere near, so all we needed was the confirmation. June 07 Accounts, salaries were 60% of our Revenue - the highest they'd been for 4 years. June 10, Accounts show they're 75% of Revenue.

2) Our revenue has increased Jun 08, 09, 10 - 07 was £51m this year we're at £61.7.

[TKIZ!]

Plus depending on finishing positions we'll get a solid amount of money from that. We've been on TV a fair few times which will be up on the time HWSNBN was in charge (I think we've got a total of 6 games before new year and already a couple on the cards after that)

[Lord Kangana]

I don't care whether it was Megson's fault or not, he's still a talentless, soulless, vacuous nice person.

And I'm still blaming him anyway.

[SonsOfThunder]

Someday it'll be accepted that players ridiculous salaries are ripping the guts out of football clubs and have been increasingly doing so for years. Someday it'll all come crashing down. Cap the lot at £5000 a week and the debts would soon come back to normality.

Whilst the players debts quickly soar. They'll be forced to sell their homes for much less than they have mortgaged it for as they can't afford to pay their mortgages.

Before you say "But £5000 a week is still a lot" yes, yes it is, but people live lifestyles relative to their salary. Nothing wrong with that, but for some people that's not good enough.

If I earned £100,000 a year and that was reduced to £50,000 a year, I'd be financially fooked, desptire still reeling in a nice salary.

And that's understandable economics. But when the country is in recession, footballers, even the ones we love have to realise that mega wages are not sustainable. Something has to give and it's about time to say it shouldn't be the football clubs

Football finance has always been puzzling to me. Even the 'biggest' clubs in the world are neck-deep in debt and it doesn't seem like FIFA is going to step in and do anything about it anytime soon. That's one small part of the reason I really wanted Liverpool to go into administration; maybe it would be some kind of wake-up call to everyone else. In the US we see massive figures that stars are receiving as a contract, their wages. In football we see that kind of money trading hands just on transfers alone and then the club is supposed to pay that player's exorbitant wages as well? The system cannot possibly go on the way it currently is...maybe I'm just a Yank that doesn't get it.

[FaninOz]

Elmander for one.
Riga.
Samuel
Bogdan
Steinsson
Gardner
Blake
Cohen
the O'Briens

The problem is that if we just let these players go at the end of the season it saves us salary cost but does nothing to bring in transfer money. Apart from Anelka and Nolan when did we last make a "killing" on selling a player? Most who have left have either gone on a free or for a pitance, which is not the work of a "selling club" more of a giving club.

[H. Pedersen]

We wanted to shed players in the summer to bring the wages down but we couldn't because the market has died.

Bull. Shit.

You couldn't shed players because you and Megson bought players who were so bad and so overpaid that we quite literally couldn't GIVE them away.

Take some responsibility Gartside.

[BWFC_Insane]

We wanted to shed players in the summer to bring the wages down but we couldn't because the market has died.

Bull. Shit.

You couldn't shed players because you and Megson bought players who were so bad and so overpaid that we quite literally couldn't GIVE them away.

Take some responsibility Gartside.

Open your eyes and look around in the past the likes of Samuel, Shittu, Riga would have been moved on but clubs aren't prepared to pay their wages anymore. Blackburn were desperately trying to flog two or three in the summer as well, Jason Roberts included, a player who in the past would have easily been snapped up by a newly promoted team or a championship side, they couldn't because nobody could/would come anywhere near to meeting his wages, because as Gartside quite rightly points out clubs were being very very cautious and the market therefore was far more quiet than usual.

Fact is it was almost impossible to move on unwanted premiership players up and down the country something that was different to how it was in the past, because there was always someone stupid enough, rich enough or desperate enough to take a punt on a JLloyd Samuel or a Jason Roberts.

Now yes these players are paid too much but thats a problem with the game in general not with Bolton Wanderers.

[CrazyHorse]

We wanted to shed players in the summer to bring the wages down but we couldn't because the market has died.

Bull. Shit.

You couldn't shed players because you and Megson bought players who were so bad and so overpaid that we quite literally couldn't GIVE them away.

Take some responsibility Gartside.

It isn't bullshit. Everyone had a squad size limit imposed on them this season. That's why the market died.

[BWFC_Insane]

We wanted to shed players in the summer to bring the wages down but we couldn't because the market has died.

Bull. Shit.

You couldn't shed players because you and Megson bought players who were so bad and so overpaid that we quite literally couldn't GIVE them away.

Take some responsibility Gartside.

It isn't bullshit. Everyone had a squad size limit imposed on them this season. That's why the market died.

That and the economic climate around football in general.

You have to realise that Pedersen was calling for us to sign Bellamy in the summer so we're hardly likely to get any rational sense out of him. One minute he's complaining that Gartside isn't letting the manager sign anyone then he's moaning that he hasn't intervened to "block" signings.

[as]

We'll have no slating Gartside on this site.

I did it a few times, then he bins ginger and brought in Owen Coyle.

I then realised PG is a legend

[TKIZ!]

Plus Garty also paid out £4.2m of the debt on bring in the manager we currently have and getting rid of that vacuous tit we didn't want

[H. Pedersen]

We wanted to shed players in the summer to bring the wages down but we couldn't because the market has died.

Bull. Shit.

You couldn't shed players because you and Megson bought players who were so bad and so overpaid that we quite literally couldn't GIVE them away.

Take some responsibility Gartside.

It isn't bullshit. Everyone had a squad size limit imposed on them this season. That's why the market died.

That and the economic climate around football in general.

You have to realise that Pedersen was calling for us to sign Bellamy in the summer so we're hardly likely to get any rational sense out of him. One minute he's complaining that Gartside isn't letting the manager sign anyone then he's moaning that he hasn't intervened to "block" signings.

First point is that nobody, in any economic climate, is going to fork out £18,000 a week for Danny Shittu, especially after he only made a dozen sub-par appearances in two years for us.

Second point is that there doesn’t seem to be any inconsistency in saying that if we hadn’t made bad signings like Shittu and Riga, we’d have the money to pay Bellamy’s wages. Your point is quite frankly absurd. “First you don’t want Gartside to sign off on bad transfers. Then you want him to make good transfers! MAKE UP YOUR MIND!”