Chez Posted 4 September, 2014 Share Posted 4 September, 2014 I hope Osvaldo's wages are covered by Inter.My guess it they are not. we are. The ease in which we could cancel the Taider season long loan suggests that Inter were paying Taider's wages (therefore little difference to them if he was in Soton on Milan - just another training kit to wash), which would mean we are paying Osvaldo's wages. Just a guess of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 4 September, 2014 Share Posted 4 September, 2014 All players will get pay increments each year I would have thought. I think the wage bill will be slightly higher. I dont know how their contacts work but surely if you sign for say £5m over 4 years that is what you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 4 September, 2014 Share Posted 4 September, 2014 Yep, how did that work for Borrini? Do you really think he would have even been approached after 6 months into a contract if the Saints board didn't know he was unsettled? Do you really think Long wouldn't take a small wage cut...happy wife, happy life? Negotiations work two ways. The truth of the matter is we may well never know the facts, so I'm going to bow out of the debate gracefully and agree to disagree. Out of curiousity, does anyone know what' Morgan is on? A work colleague (Arse supporter) reckons he's only on 9k per week. How did what work for Borrini? He didn't seem to want to move. Shane Long did. There are shades of grey in all negotiations. I'd find it highly unlikely Long moved for twelve million quid and then happily took a pay cut. At absolute worst, he's on the same money. You make it sound like all he wanted to do was move South with his wife and Saints were the only option. There are countless different ways Long could have left Hull. Being a twelve million pound transfer - 40/50% increase in fee in six months - and taking a pay cut is unlikely to be one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 4 September, 2014 Share Posted 4 September, 2014 Cant see much point to loanning out a player if we then pay all of the wages? Surely the point (apart from them getting games) is to get them off the wage bill? Even if we supplement some of the wages - there has to be a saving for the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiggy Posted 4 September, 2014 Share Posted 4 September, 2014 My guess it they are not. we are. The ease in which we could cancel the Taider season long loan suggests that Inter were paying Taider's wages (therefore little difference to them if he was in Soton on Milan - just another training kit to wash), which would mean we are paying Osvaldo's wages. Just a guess of course. I'm not so sure... If I remember correctly (probably not *cue MLG*) there was the option to buy Osvaldo for £3m at the end of the loan? This is a relatively nominal figure in the terms of the fees being paid this window. Granted hes a flight risk and a nutcase but hes still a decent player (maybe). So £3m is small... Now if the agreement was say: "You can buy Osvaldo for £3m at the end of the loan period if you pay 100% of his wages during the loan" Makes sort of sense... Just my opinion though... Probably wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 4 September, 2014 Share Posted 4 September, 2014 Juventus paid 100% of his wages when he was on loan there last season, with no loan fee involved. I would fully expect it to be the same with Inter this season, especially with the relatively small 7m Euro option-to-buy fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 4 September, 2014 Share Posted 4 September, 2014 Last year total £52m, max increase £4m to £56m, however £92m ish transfer income, £60m ish outlay allows £30m ish to be used to cover salaries etc and raise next years FFP calculation. In addition TV money up around £80m plus attendance and commercial income gives us a very healthy position. The sales this year have really strengthened the finances because of the inflated fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 4 September, 2014 Share Posted 4 September, 2014 (edited) Last year total £52m, max increase £4m to £56m, however £92m ish transfer income, £60m ish outlay allows £30m ish to be used to cover salaries etc and raise next years FFP calculation. In addition TV money up around £80m plus attendance and commercial income gives us a very healthy position. The sales this year have really strengthened the finances because of the inflated fees. We already had significant leeway under FFP The figures bandied about on here refer to the total club wage bill -everything from Gareth Rodgers to the chief steward. Only the player wage bill counts towards FPP and that is well within the cap. Edited 4 September, 2014 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 September, 2014 Share Posted 4 September, 2014 Last year total £52m, max increase £4m to £56m, however £92m ish transfer income, £60m ish outlay allows £30m ish to be used to cover salaries etc and raise next years FFP calculation. In addition TV money up around £80m plus attendance and commercial income gives us a very healthy position. The sales this year have really strengthened the finances because of the inflated fees. The net amount available to spend us a bit reduced on that. There are 10% agents' fees on top of the purchases and no matter how hard the club tries I would expect some Corporation Tax to be liable because they won't be able to hide all the profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now