Wages!

[Xàbia Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Beefy @ July 27 2005,23:30)]Jesus.

As I said though, it makes you realise why some players don't jump at the chance to sign every contract.

Indeed.

WS

 

[matt_billericay]

although that is the basic wage the true amount of money taken home can vary greatly. The people i know in the game, also take home average wages but get an apperance bonus, a bonus for playing 90 mins, a bonus for the team winning, a bonus for the team not conceding a goal etc etc. This results it the players gettin payed more if the team is successful, and is therefore a method which im sure must be employed by most clubs.

 

[Alex]

Quote[/b] (matt_billericay @ July 27 2005,23:07)]although that is the basic wage the true amount of money taken home can vary greatly. The people  i know in the game, also take home average wages but get an apperance bonus, a bonus for playing 90 mins, a bonus for the team winning, a bonus for the team not conceding a goal etc etc. This results it the players gettin payed more if the team is successful, and is therefore a method which im sure must be employed by most clubs.

only problem is that bonus are not guaranteed. just say jay smith is on 200 a week, say he gets a bonus for playing, scoring, winning the game and this happens all in one game, he could say earn an extra 300 (and thats being generous) to make a nice wage of 500 per week. this would have to happen every single game of the season for him to earn a good wage. now what happens if he wrongfully gets sent off and serves a suspension or he gets injured and spends 18 months on the sidelines which happened to him last season. he will not be able to earn his bonus and becomes skint through no fault of his own.

signing on fees are not as much as you think. also if our players were on decent wages then wilson and petts wouldnt be so skint that they have to share a flat together. they are not the only southend players to have to share houses or flats. it might be a case of they dont want to live alone but more likely its a case of they cant afford to live alone

 

[shrimper4life]

I remember hearing leon constantine was on £500 a week and was only offered a £50 increase after finishing as top scorer

 

[TerryintheWest]

A bonus for the club being in the top 7. A bonus for the crowd being over 5000. There can more bonuses than basic!!

 

[Kenny]

The £300 figure quoted by Mike sounds familiar as Connie claimed this was how much he was on, and then was offered a very minimal rise last summer.

 

[shrimper magic]

If these wages are correct then like someone said earlier, it's easy to see why many players look for a better deal else where, with signing on fees playing a big factor.
I remember reading a articule about Steve Claridge and he was quoted as saying the reason he had so many clubs was because thats where the money was in the lower leagues.

It also makes sense then why as in the lower leagues not many players make the north/south switch as it doesn't seem worth uprooting your family and moving for an extra 100-200 a week.

 

[Firestorm]

Quote[/b] (shrimper4life @ July 27 2005,23:47)]I remember hearing leon constantine was on £500 a week and was only offered a £50 increase after finishing as top scorer

I Thought Connie was offer a 50% increase (but fat Baz trebled his wages)

 

[Firestorm]

Its the wage cap

2003-2004 Turnover was 3.18M
Wages capped at 60% means maximum total wages for this season must not exceed 1.91M (36,730 PW)
Squad of 22 means an average of 1670 PW
Now this is the absolute maximum the league will allow and does not take into account wether they club can keep all other operating costs below 40 % in order to make a profit.

In last years accounts Staff costs (Players, office staff etc) was 1.63M (51%) with other expenses 895k (28%)
There does not appear to be a lot of room to increase wages or bonuses without making an operating loss.

The bottom line is , its down to the supporters, not those who go to every home game, but those who attend infrequently or not at all, to get along to RH, swell the coffers and give the opportunity for the club to spend that bit more.
Mind you 2004-2005 Turnover should be well up so next years salary limit should be higher.
If we maintain the gates of last season, consolidate in mid table, I reckon we could well be able to sustain a good push in 2006-2007

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ July 28 2005,10:07)]Mind you 2004-2005 Turnover should be well up so next years salary limit should be higher.

The thing is we need to offer key players contracts for longer than 1 year. This means the club cannot adjust wages for players on yearly fluctuations of increased turnover one year, reduced turnover the next.

That is surely a reason why some players have to be on considerably less, so that the club has some manoeuvrability in paying key players more with the danger of turnover fluctuations during contract periods.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ July 28 2005,09:07)]Its the wage cap

2003-2004 Turnover was 3.18M
Wages capped at 60% means maximum total wages for this season must not exceed 1.91M (36,730 PW)
Squad of 22 means an average of 1670 PW
Now this is the absolute maximum the league will allow and does not take into account wether they club can keep all other operating costs below 40 % in order to make a profit.

In last years accounts Staff costs (Players, office staff etc) was 1.63M (51%) with other expenses 895k (28%)
There does not appear to be a lot of room to increase wages or bonuses without making an operating loss.

The bottom line is , its down to the supporters, not those who go to every home game, but those who attend infrequently or not at all, to get along to RH, swell the coffers  and give the opportunity for the club to spend that bit more.
Mind you 2004-2005 Turnover should be well up so next years salary limit should be higher.
If we maintain the gates of last season, consolidate in mid table, I reckon we could well be able to sustain a good push in 2006-2007

Good post Firestorm

There should hopefully be an increase in the operating profit for 2004/5, as gates increased, we had 5 televised games 2 trips to Cardiff plus the pay out for league position and winning the play off final. Which funds has and will help Tilly make some forays into the transfer market. If we have offered 200k for Beckett then there is obviously a bit of a pot there for him.

However it has been reported that we paid out over 40k to Agents last year. If the earlier posts speculating about salaries are correct then the figure paid out to agents is twice some plaeyrs annual wage.

I note that some speculation has put top earners at Blues on £1500 per week, now I do not know, but i am willing to bet that Spinner & Maher are on more than this. Based on Priors experience & Mahers length of service.

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (canveyshrimper @ July 28 2005,10:37)]... we had 5 televised games...

Of those 5 televised games, we earnt nowt from the LDV final or any of the play off matches televised. We only earnt any revenue from the Luton FA Cup match.

This season, we already have more televised games from which we get a fee from.

 

[Firestorm]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ July 28 2005,09:37)]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ July 28 2005,10:07)]Mind you 2004-2005 Turnover should be well up so next years salary limit should be higher.

The thing is we need to offer key players contracts for longer than 1 year. This means the club cannot adjust wages for players on yearly fluctuations of increased turnover one year, reduced turnover the next.

That is surely a reason why some players have to be on considerably less, so that the club has some manoeuvrability in paying key players more with the danger of turnover fluctuations during contract periods.

A few years ago we were only offering 1 year contracts as we were unsure of the future.

We do seem to be tying in our better players for a bit longer now. There are a couple of benefits relevant to this thread

The longer contract offers security to the player so he may take a lower wage than he would want for a 1 year deal

An element of future expenses are now ringfenced and it therefore becomes easier to budget.

Basically things appear to be on the up due to very prudent financial management which did, unfortunately , cause a few dire years on the playing front. I would be reluctant to undermine that by making a rash attempt to get out of league 1 too quickly. We have got where we are by Tilly/Brush unearthing fairly cheap young gems (Spinner excepted) and, although it will be harder to do this the higher the standard gets, I am happy with the way things are going

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Quote[/b] (canveyshrimper @ July 28 2005,09:37)]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ July 28 2005,09:07)]Its the wage cap

2003-2004 Turnover was 3.18M
Wages capped at 60% means maximum total wages for this season must not exceed 1.91M (36,730 PW)
Squad of 22 means an average of 1670 PW
Now this is the absolute maximum the league will allow and does not take into account wether they club can keep all other operating costs below 40 % in order to make a profit.

In last years accounts Staff costs (Players, office staff etc) was 1.63M (51%) with other expenses 895k (28%)
There does not appear to be a lot of room to increase wages or bonuses without making an operating loss.

The bottom line is , its down to the supporters, not those who go to every home game, but those who attend infrequently or not at all, to get along to RH, swell the coffers  and give the opportunity for the club to spend that bit more.
Mind you 2004-2005 Turnover should be well up so next years salary limit should be higher.
If we maintain the gates of last season, consolidate in mid table, I reckon we could well be able to sustain a good push in 2006-2007

Good post Firestorm

There should hopefully be an increase in the operating profit for 2004/5, as gates increased, we had 5 televised games 2 trips to Cardiff plus the pay out for league position and winning the play off final. Which funds has and will help Tilly make some forays into the transfer market. If we have offered 200k for Beckett then there is obviously a bit of a pot there for him.

However it has been reported that we paid out over 40k to Agents last year. If the earlier posts speculating about salaries are correct then the figure paid out to agents is twice some plaeyrs annual wage.

I note that some speculation has put top earners at Blues on £1500 per week, now I do not know, but i am willing to bet that Spinner & Maher are on more than this. Based on Priors experience & Mahers length of service.

Yes, last season's success should mean increased turn-over for that year's accounts but I don't think it necessarily follows that this allows the club to increase salaries.

The much criticised policy of only giving one year contracts has been dropped in favour of longer term planning. This means that players will be on a minimum of two year contracts on renewal and you are therefore having to work on the basis of what the salary cap will be in two years' time.

I for one, would be very concerned if the club started budgeting on the assumption that we will be successful, because that is how clubs get into financial difficulty.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ July 28 2005,09:41)]

Quote[/b] (canveyshrimper @ July 28 2005,10:37)]... we had 5 televised games...

Of those 5 televised games, we earnt nowt from the LDV final or any of the play off matches televised. We only earnt any revenue from the Luton FA Cup match.

This season, we already have more televised games from which we get a fee from.

How do you know or work that one out OS, what is the point of any game being televised if the clubs do not make any revenue from them??

The only one i can logically see that we would not get any money from is the Northampton away leg based on the premise that the home club keeps the revenue.

Figures have already been publicised about revenue for the Southampton & Forest game which will be on SKY.

 

[Firestorm]

Quote[/b] (canveyshrimper @ July 28 2005,10:42)]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ July 28 2005,09:41)]

Quote[/b] (canveyshrimper @ July 28 2005,10:37)]... we had 5 televised games...

Of those 5 televised games, we earnt nowt from the LDV final or any of the play off matches televised. We only earnt any revenue from the Luton FA Cup match.

This season, we already have more televised games from which we get a fee from.

How do you know or work that one out OS, what is the point of any game being televised if the clubs do not make any revenue from them??

The only one i can logically see that we would not get any money from is the Northampton away leg based on the premise that the home club keeps the revenue.

Figures have already been publicised about revenue for the Southampton & Forest game which will be on SKY.

LDV Television revenue went into the "pot" for distribution amongst the participating clubs so, whilst we did not technically get a fee for appearing on TV, we did benefit financially (It may appear in the Accounts as play off revenue (or something similar) as opposed to TV revenue)

 

[canveyshrimper]

Thanks for clarifying that, what is the point of getting to a cup final if you earn "nowt" from it??

Similarly the play off final.

 

[Shrimper2thecore]

Quote[/b] (canveyshrimper @ July 28 2005,09:37)]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ July 28 2005,09:07)]Its the wage cap

2003-2004 Turnover was 3.18M
Wages capped at 60% means maximum total wages for this season must not exceed 1.91M (36,730 PW)
Squad of 22 means an average of 1670 PW
Now this is the absolute maximum the league will allow and does not take into account wether they club can keep all other operating costs below 40 % in order to make a profit.

In last years accounts Staff costs (Players, office staff etc) was 1.63M (51%) with other expenses 895k (28%)
There does not appear to be a lot of room to increase wages or bonuses without making an operating loss.

The bottom line is , its down to the supporters, not those who go to every home game, but those who attend infrequently or not at all, to get along to RH, swell the coffers  and give the opportunity for the club to spend that bit more.
Mind you 2004-2005 Turnover should be well up so next years salary limit should be higher.
If we maintain the gates of last season, consolidate in mid table, I reckon we could well be able to sustain a good push in 2006-2007

Good post Firestorm

There should hopefully be an increase in the operating profit for 2004/5, as gates increased, we had 5 televised games 2 trips to Cardiff plus the pay out for league position and winning the play off final. Which funds has and will help Tilly make some forays into the transfer market. If we have offered 200k for Beckett then there is obviously a bit of a pot there for him.

However it has been reported that we paid out over 40k to Agents last year. If the earlier posts speculating about salaries are correct then the figure paid out to agents is twice some plaeyrs annual wage.

I note that some speculation has put top earners at Blues on £1500 per week, now I do not know, but i am willing to bet that Spinner & Maher are on more than this. Based on Priors experience & Mahers length of service.

I can confirm Maher is, i would also assume you are correct with Spinner aswell.

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ July 28 2005,11:47)]

Quote[/b] (canveyshrimper @ July 28 2005,10:42)]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ July 28 2005,09:41)]

Quote[/b] (canveyshrimper @ July 28 2005,10:37)]... we had 5 televised games...

Of those 5 televised games, we earnt nowt from the LDV final or any of the play off matches televised. We only earnt any revenue from the Luton FA Cup match.

This season, we already have more televised games from which we get a fee from.

How do you know or work that one out OS, what is the point of any game being televised if the clubs do not make any revenue from them??

The only one i can logically see that we would not get any money from is the Northampton away leg based on the premise that the home club keeps the revenue.

Figures have already been publicised about revenue for the Southampton & Forest game which will be on SKY.

LDV Television revenue went into the "pot" for distribution amongst the participating clubs so, whilst we did not technically get a fee for appearing on TV, we did benefit financially (It may appear in the Accounts as play off revenue (or something similar) as opposed to TV revenue)

From what I understood, the 4 play-off clubs share the gate revenue, but no... revenue from TV rights does not go to the clubs.

I also understood the situation to be the same regarding the LDV final. I doidn't think we got anything from that (for TV rights) either.

Can anybody clear this up?

 

[canveyshrimper]

I can understand all the monies from the LDV games going into the pot, but surely the lions share should go to the winner, losing finalist and down the line accordingly.

However i cannot see how or why that the clubs who have not qualified for the play offs should benefit in anyway from the 4 clubs who have.