[Archived] Big Fat Sam's Shopping List

[mckenny16]

The reason we have to reduce the wage bill has two priorities.

Firstly, while using 85% of our turnover on wages seems fine, it doesn't leave any room for new players, building up a transfer fund, repairs or upgrades to the facilities etc.

Secondly, there has been problems occurring due to the new budget. Everyone that receives over £150,000 per annum gets taxed 50%. With footballers, their contract is not based on what their are paid, but what they receive post-tax.

So while Player X wasreceiving £20,000 per week after tax, the club is now paying out £30,000 per week to make sure that they keep their end of the contract. While the tax for wages over £150,000 per annum was already high (I think it was over 40%), there is still a considerable jump in cost.

Therefore there needs to be less outgoings from the wage bill.

[T4E]

Is that really true? Footballers are given a "post-tax" salary in their contracts?

[Amo]

How about Ali Karimi? Former Bayern Munich midfielder playing in Iran. 30 years old (but then so was Tugay when he joined), and the type of player Sam might be able to rejuvenate.

[LeChuck]

Is that really true? Footballers are given a "post-tax" salary in their contracts?

I am almost certain that is not the case. Reports of salaries always make a point of explicitly pointing out the 'tax free' part if that's what a player is receiving, I've seen it mentioned in relation people in Russia. Also, I read an article after the 50% tax rate was introduced stating that the Premier League might suffer because foreign players will naturally be paying more tax and therefore receiving less wages.

I'll be gob smacked if football clubs are actually pay 30-40% on top of the wage figures we read...but I don't believe it is the case. Philipl will probably give a better answer...

[Majiball]

Riise's Liverpool wage slip???

T4E here you go, Riise would appear if its real, to be getting a salary and then taxed. I remember seeing crespo's when it came out he also paid tax after, but you have to question the reliability of the photo's.

I don't believe this they get 40K then tax is sorted out on top. RSC on 50K a week would be almost half again, so about 74K a week or almost 4M a year, we spend 40M on wages and 10% alone goes on RSC, so how do we afford the rest of them????? Reid on 30 would be almost 45, so 2.3M. two players in and we're at 15% of our wages total and how many pro's do we have??

[67splitscreen]

And the debt is £16.9m The cost of servicing that debt will have risen massively from £1.6m this season and next, and it is likely that the banks have told the Trustees it has to come down.

Why will the servicing of debt have increased, have rates on borrowings not reduced.

[T4E]

Riise's Liverpool wage slip???

T4E here you go, Riise would appear if its real, to be getting a salary and then taxed. I remember seeing crespo's when it came out he also paid tax after, but you have to question the reliability of the photo's.

I don't believe this they get 40K then tax is sorted out on top. RSC on 50K a week would be almost half again, so about 74K a week or almost 4M a year, we spend 40M on wages and 10% alone goes on RSC, so how do we afford the rest of them????? Reid on 30 would be almost 45, so 2.3M. two players in and we're at 15% of our wages total and how many pro's do we have??

I had seen that before but always thought it was a monthly slip. Having read that thread it appears its a weekly one. Riise was on £120k per week?!

[Majiball]

thats why I think its a fake, no way Riise was on 120K a week.

I just can't believe that we pay there tax on top, so went looking for that photo but I'm not convinced by it TBH. Christ what would city's bill for Kaka have been per week if clubs paid tax on top of wages, 500K would be nearer 750K, thats our whole wage budget.

[EwoodGlory]

I think it was £30,000 a week. £120,000 was over the month

[T4E]

EG - the slip ways Week 24.

[Craigman]

I would imagine it would be a 4 weekly payroll, and he was on £30,000. a week.

[nicko]

It's a monthly total...week 24 is the week in the month it was paid.

If you look at the running totals at the bottom they would suggest that is about five months worth of wages.

£1.44m a year sounds about right as a basic for a player of his ability and standing at the time.

[bennyboyt11]

There is no way that Riise was on £120,000 a week so it's definately monthly

[DanLad]

EG - the slip ways Week 24.

It also has a date on it, but it's not one days pay!

I suspect that it ways week 24 pure for admin purposes. He probably received wage slips each month saying weeks 4, 8, 12, 16 etc. In other words the week it was issued.

Looking at the gross sums already paid and dividing by the 24 weeks stated you get approx £32K a week.

Edit - Looks like lots of other people jumped on this before I posted!

[Hughesy]

I remember at the time the paper said it was a monthly slip.

[Billy Castell]

So who is this star player people were eluding to a page or two ago?

Or will it have to wait until Sunday?

[T4E]

It also has a date on it, but it's not one days pay!

Edit - Looks like lots of other people jumped on this before I posted!

Yes they did - and they managed to get decent points across in a far less pompous manner than you managed!

[Guest benmaxwell]

Some interesting articles floating about for anyone who fancies a read:

Manchester City look to compromise over Roque summer bid http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport...overs/4381466./

Five clubs target Blackburn Rovers striker (Gally) http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport...overs/4382187./

Olympiakos set to offer Blackburn Rovers £3m for Derbyshire http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/sport/4381465./

[Majiball]

It's a monthly total...week 24 is the week in the month it was paid.

If you look at the running totals at the bottom they would suggest that is about five months worth of wages.

£1.44m a year sounds about right as a basic for a player of his ability and standing at the time.

Surely as its written out monthly it should say month 6 not week 24????? I don't question the amount 30K for Riise sounds fair enough, his bonuses seem a little low points bonus £250.00, it also says he's been deducted 65.00 for his food as well, clubs don't charge for food, do they???

But I thought monthly pay had to be done in months, not weeks perhaps they pay four weekly so 13 pay dates a year???

Who knows, but I wish it was my pay-check!!

[deryck guyler's spoon]

I'll be amazed if both Dunn and Reid are still here when the window shuts. I don't see how we can have two injury prone midfielders in a reduced squad.

I remember when Reid was at the peak of his powers and attracting a lot of attention. The press were playing their usual games and who else but Tottingham were supposed to be signing him. Reid responded by going public in his commitment to us, throwing the tabloid's guff about him wanting to move back to London in their bloated faces and signing a new contract.

There aren't many like him and, for that, I believe we owe him.

[TimmyJimmy]

Turnover 56.4

Wages 39.7

Other exp 10.1

GROSS profit £6.6m....

Interest on debt £1.6m

Player trading loss £2.0m

NET profit. £3.0m

And the debt is £16.9m The cost of servicing that debt will have risen massively from £1.6m this season and next, and it is likely that the banks have told the Trustees it has to come down. So, bearing in mind that 08/09 the £56.4m drops - Philip reckons to £50m, Rovers would have to find that £6.4m plus the cost of the loan (and possibly to pay some of it off) just to stand still, and come in at a profit of around £3m. I presume this is where the Bentley money is going. The debt will probably have to halve.

Nicko's £5m wage bill reduction looks spot on against these figures and the projected £10m worsening of Rovers' finances in 08/09 (turnover down £6m and wages up £4m). Sam will therefore have around £2m net again, plus the money from Santa Cruz. But that will be money in wages and fees.

Didn't know accounting could be such fun.

Question 1

67splitscreen beat me to it but why will the costs of servicing the 16.9 m have increased when rates have reduced

Question 2

Why will turnover go down to 50m, is that based purely on league table finishing position? If it does go down, and assuming we don't have any player trading losses we still have net 5m profit (6.6 - 1.6) which covers any guesstimate of decreasing turnover.

Question 3

Who says the banks will want to reduce the borrowings? Why? We are a solid enough club and as you point out we are profitable, so what's the problem. Its speculation anyway.

That means to my non numerical brain that we can stay the same except we make zero profit.

Last Question

Who said we have to make a profit? The Trustees? When Jack said 'washing our face' he probably meant paying our own interest charges, which we are doing, not putting cash into the Trust coffers.

The Trustees will be only too glad to sell.

I agree but the stumbling block is for how much! If the market decides on somethings value and nobody has bought us at the asking price then they are asking too much. Stubbornly sitting there demanding what they can't get is stupid, further compounded by starving their investment (us) of funds so that it will perish (eventually). We are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Unfortunately there is no one around as Rovers mad, insanely rich and uninterested in a return as Jack Walker was. And there never will be. Get over it.

It's tough to get over the fact that our owners don't want anything to do with us, don't see me ever getting over that one. Besides I'm not discussing further investment I'm asking for the rationale for reducing the wages bill, which I still don't get. Then I'm no accountant obviously.

[Inta Beaver]

I remember when Reid was at the peak of his powers and attracting a lot of attention. The press were playing their usual games and who else but Tottingham were supposed to be signing him. Reid responded by going public in his commitment to us, throwing the tabloid's guff about him wanting to move back to London in their bloated faces and signing a new contract.

There aren't many like him and, for that, I believe we owe him.

I don't think we owe him anything! He owes the club for sticking him through months/yrs of rehab! The club are not going to sell him, he will have to prove his fitness and try to get some mins under his belt, its his last chance in my eyes, if he breaks down again he will be gone this time next year.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

I remember when Reid was at the peak of his powers and attracting a lot of attention. The press were playing their usual games and who else but Tottingham were supposed to be signing him. Reid responded by going public in his commitment to us, throwing the tabloid's guff about him wanting to move back to London in their bloated faces and signing a new contract.

There aren't many like him and, for that, I believe we owe him.

That loyalty is commendable, but there is a limit to what we owe him and, after 3 seasons where he has barely featured due to injury, that boundary is being severely tested. In my opinion, we don't owe him anything now because we've already tried sticking by him through these fitness issues and it still hasn't worked out.

If you want to look at it from the club's point of view, there's a major restriction on our resources in this situation (i.e. time and money), and there are plenty of players who could replace Reid. There's no space for people who think we owe the player anything in the board room; we've paid his wages for all the time he's been injured and when he has played he was richly rewarded for it. The relationship between a player and a club only works for as long as it is mutually beneficial, and that is no longer the case for Rovers and Reid. Time for him to go, I'm afraid.

[DanLad]

Yes they did - and they managed to get decent points across in a far less pompous manner than you managed!

Well done them.

Apologies for my rampant pomposity!

[joey_big_nose]

I don't think we owe him anything! He owes the club for sticking him through months/yrs of rehab! The club are not going to sell him, he will have to prove his fitness and try to get some mins under his belt, its his last chance in my eyes, if he breaks down again he will be gone this time next year.

I am nsure why anybody thinks we can get rid of him? THe only way to move him on is if someone buys him. WHich they won't unless he is fit.

I think Dunn and Reid will still be here.