Comparing the budget and players

[FarmdogSUFC]

I was just having a thought about the size of our squad compared to last season and it got me thinking. I'd say we're probably about 8 players off of the size of the squad we had last season, maybe even more (can't be bothered to count). In the RM and SK Q&A, RM actually said we are paying more on wages this season than we were last season. Now am I the only person on here who is generally shocked by this? I would happily swap this seasons squad with last. We've signed Cresswell, Hurst, Eastwood, Smith, Straker, Spicer and Tomlin. I can't really imagine Tomlin being on much but are we seriously paying more for these 6 players than we were the ones we released last year? If true then it's quite ridiculous IMO. I think we could have done a lot better in the window if that was the case.

Please discuss as I'm really puzzled as to whether we are generally on a bigger playing budget this year or whether it's another one of RM's play with words.

 

[WESTY_SUFC]

The answer is in your own post.

"Ron said"

.....I certainly don't believe it.

Ron has already spouted rubbish about our wage budget before in our last season in league 1 being top 6. The same season Norwich, Leeds, Millwall, Charlton, Hudds, Southampton were in our league

 

[BluesMike61]

I suspect that Mr Eastwood is the main reason for this season's higher wage bill .

 

[mattytheshrimper]

Put in down as another one of Ron's lies.

 

[Beefy]

Most of the players who were let go were fringe players or kids. I'm sure Granty was on a few quid but I doubt many of the others were.

According to Tara Brady we had a £1.3m wage budget in 2010/11 which was reduced last season to around £1m. This year is probably in the same ballpark but fractionally more. Eastwood will be on a decent wage. Weren't Gillingham in for Tomlin? If so then he won't be on a pittance. Straker moved from another L2 club and relocated here. Cresswell & Hurst have also moved from other parts of the country and I doubt they did it to satisfy their life-long dream of playing for Southend United.

 

[mattytheshrimper]

and then theres poor old Ryan Hall who couldn't move to Blackpool because he couldnt afford it. Poor little might!

 

[Neil_F]

Ron has already spouted rubbish about our wage budget before in our last season in league 1 being top 6. The same season Norwich, Leeds, Millwall, Charlton, Hudds, Southampton were in our league

He certainly did. It is a point I still find amusing today since he wasn't actually paying the players in the second half of the season.

Our budget might as well have been the GDP of Chile; no money was actually being paid.

 

[londonblue]

That simply can't be true. Given that the wage cap is based on a % of budgeted turnover, and our budgeted turnover must be lower than last year, that can't be true.

However, if we weren't at the abolute limit of our wage cap last season, we may actually be paying a higher percentage of turnover than last year.

 

[FarmdogSUFC]

That simply can't be true. Given that the wage cap is based on a % of budgeted turnover, and our budgeted turnover must be lower than last year, that can't be true.

However, if we weren't at the abolute limit of our wage cap last season, we may actually be paying a higher percentage of turnover than last year.

If that's the case then it's probably how RM dodged it.

 

[Beefy]

That simply can't be true. Given that the wage cap is based on a % of budgeted turnover, and our budgeted turnover must be lower than last year, that can't be true.

However, if we weren't at the abolute limit of our wage cap last season, we may actually be paying a higher percentage of turnover than last year.

Isn't the wage cap based on the previous season's turnover? I seem to recall that it is and then adjusted for promotions and relegations.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

That simply can't be true. Given that the wage cap is based on a % of budgeted turnover, and our budgeted turnover must be lower than last year, that can't be true.

However, if we weren't at the abolute limit of our wage cap last season, we may actually be paying a higher percentage of turnover than last year.

Why must our budgeted turnover be lower than last year?

Anyway, the factor that everyone is forgetting is that the players who were here last season and likely to be on more this season.

Deals are going to be structured that salary goes up rather than down over the life time of the contract. An example of this would be Dickinson, whose deal was going to be worth substantially more this season.

 

[londonblue]

Why must our budgeted turnover be lower than last year?

Anyway, the factor that everyone is forgetting is that the players who were here last season and likely to be on more this season.

Deals are going to be structured that salary goes up rather than down over the life time of the contract. An example of this would be Dickinson, whose deal was going to be worth substantially more this season.

Our budget must be lower because it will be based on an ever dwindling turnover which is based on lower attendances.

You're making an assumption about wages. Increases are usually based on performance, e.g. promotion. Since we didn't go anywhere I suspect most players are earning the same as last year. The players who were here last season also include Hall, Mohsni, Grant so I suspect that overall our salary payments have gone down.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Our budget must be lower because it will be based on an ever dwindling turnover which is based on lower attendances.

You're making an assumption about wages. Increases are usually based on performance, e.g. promotion. Since we didn't go anywhere I suspect most players are earning the same as last year. The players who were here last season also include Hall, Mohsni, Grant so I suspect that overall our salary payments have gone down.

Increases can be based on many things. Promotion is just one example.

Contracts are likely to be structured so that you get paid more at the end of the contract than at the start. This will be in part to counter inflation, in part to incentivise players to stay for the duration by back-loading the contract, and in part because a player is usually more valuable to you as he gains experience.

I don't know whether our overall salary has gone up or down, but it's safe to say some salaries will have increased, which is a factor nobody had accounted for.

 

[jtsouthend]

the worrying thing for me (if our performances are not good enough this seasn) is the players we will still have on the books next season

Paul Smith
Mark Phillips
Anthony Straker
Ryan Cresswell
Kevan Hurst
Neil Harris
Freddy Eastwood

heaven knows what they are going to be like in say 14 months time...bit older, slower and injury prone. With the exception of Cresswell and possibly Hurst, you would struggle to see any of the others as "starters" in a team looking for promotion. And I imagine they are not cheap either so building a squad next season within budget will not be easy.

Let's hope they pull their finger out this season as I have a funny feeling that 2013/14 could be more of the same...these players are not going to get any better with age.

 

[mattytheshrimper]

If the wages to the players this season is more than last season then we have been mugged right off. I wouldn't say we've really improved in any posistion apart from Cresswell but in fact I think we have down-graded.

 

[WESTY_SUFC]

Contracts are likely to be structured so that you get paid more at the end of the contract than at the start. This will be in part to counter inflation, in part to incentivise players to stay for the duration by back-loading the contract, and in part because a player is usually more valuable to you as he gains experience.

Not suggesting you are wrong but can you tell me what you base this on? Steve Sidwell, James Harper and Simon Francis have never been offered deals like this before.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Not suggesting you are wrong but can you tell me what you base this on? Steve Sidwell, James Harper and Simon Francis have never been offered deals like this before.

Firstly logic.

If you sign a three year deal with the same money in the first year as in the third year, you'll be earning less in real terms in the third year due to inflation.

People like pay rises, they don't like going three years without a pay-rise.

Secondly, this seems entirely consistent with everything I've read or heard about sports contracts. One such example was Liam Dickinson. His second year would be at a much higher wage. The US is more transparent about these deals and they'll report how much players will get each year. It's always a stepped increase.

From a business perspective it is easier to structure deals in this type of way, particularly if you're a cash strapped one such as SUFC Ltd. You have more budgetary freedom further down the line in a year or two's time once certain players have come off the books.

I know football's appallingly badly run, but they'd be complete mugs if they didn't do this. We'll offer you X in year 1, rising to Y in year 2.