Jump to content

Eye watering salaries in leaked figures


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, modboy said:

L1 is probably where the salaries in football should be, L2 is almost underpaid

Really ?   Over £100,000 a year for playing in the fourth division ?  OK, thats the highest, but even £52,000 a year is unsustainable.  I really hope the current situation blows football apart and it has to reset at reasonable levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, flo said:

It thought it would be Rooney for highest player but Derby are not a southern club. So maybe Derby were one of the teams to not respond. 

rooney is on 100k a week it was wildly touted some of it is paid through sponsorship . but he didn't start playing till jan 1st so that's when 100k kicked in . I doubt he was getting 100k a week from nov 1st to just train and sit on bench. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

Well you do plenty


 

Fans can't moan about what their clubs spend if they have Sky TV and keep going to the matches.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, handworth52 said:

rooney is on 100k a week it was wildly touted some of it is paid through sponsorship . but he didn't start playing till jan 1st so that's when 100k kicked in . I doubt he was getting 100k a week from nov 1st to just train and sit on bench. 

yeah youre right - 100k a year to play at a level thats one up from Park football.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, simpark said:

Figures that clubs - including SWFC - have reported to EFL for 2019-20 season that have been leaked to Daily Mail

 

Bearing in mind these are averages it's pretty frightening across all leagues

 

 

27716166-8262315-image-a-3_1588061928960.jpg

 

More proof the game is fooooked 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 


 

Fans can't moan about what their clubs spend if they have Sky TV and keep going to the matches.

Hardly. 
We go matches ad/hoc when we feel like it. 
I have sky but not sky sports, occasionally paying for sport (never football) when I feel like it.

Although I’d be tempted to spend more on both if we weren’t such a train wreck of a club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, handworth52 said:

rooney is on 100k a week it was wildly touted some of it is paid through sponsorship . but he didn't start playing till jan 1st so that's when 100k kicked in . I doubt he was getting 100k a week from nov 1st to just train and sit on bench. 

No he's not, Derby matched his salary at DC United, which was never £100,000 a week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BARMYARMY2010 said:

No he's not, Derby matched his salary at DC United, which was never £100,000 a week. 

derby aint paying all his salary ,sponsors are paying a percentage . I don't know what he was on at dc united ,a hell of a lot that's for sure. I read 100k don't mean that's true though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mark1948 said:

Not entirely true. Clubs are getting into difficulty because of the rules in some cases. Our own club is in difficulties entirely because of the EFL rules. If we were any other kind of business the owner would be able to invest whatever he likes. The restriction of the amount that an owner can lose per season is at the core of our problems. Our owner has plenty of money, for now at least, to cover any losses. We are not looking at administration or any business ending issues.

 

No, clubs are getting in to difficulty purely and simply because they cannot balance the books. Any other business, where the outgoings far outweighed the income would eventually go bust. And that is what the problem is. Until such times as football clubs are run on a sound financial footing, there will be problems within the game. Pure and simple.

 

It's got nothing to do with FFP and P&S, or EFL rules, but greedy footballers and even more greedy agents who want a massive salary for no other reason that other greedy footballers and their agent got one too.

 

If our Chairman left, then what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

 

 

It's got nothing to do with FFP and P&S, or EFL rules, but greedy footballers and even more greedy agents who want a massive salary for no other reason that other greedy footballers and their agent got one too.

 

 

Players & agents are not blameless but I think most of the responsiblity falls on the club chairman. They the ones who say yes to the daft wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

Players & agents are not blameless but I think most of the responsiblity falls on the club chairman. They the ones who say yes to the daft wages.

 

It depends which way you look at it. It was most likely started by mega-rich clubs so yes, a Chairman or someone in a similar position is initially to blame. Now, enormous wages have become the norm and to get a bang average player, it costs the club a fortune. The only way clubs can compete on the pitch is to pay over-the-top salaries, whilst the owner is having to prop up the club financially. When that Chairman goes.......pop. And the club is in Administration.

 

I don't totally disagree with what you are saying, but it would take every owner of every club to say "no, we aren't paying that" and that will never happen in the capitalist world of football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

No, clubs are getting in to difficulty purely and simply because they cannot balance the books. Any other business, where the outgoings far outweighed the income would eventually go bust. And that is what the problem is. Until such times as football clubs are run on a sound financial footing, there will be problems within the game. Pure and simple.

 

It's got nothing to do with FFP and P&S, or EFL rules, but greedy footballers and even more greedy agents who want a massive salary for no other reason that other greedy footballers and their agent got one too.

 

If our Chairman left, then what?

It has a great deal to do with the rules and the fact that the earnings of the Premier League are so far out of Kilter with the other leagues. In any other business as you say, you would go bust. The Championship is so investable to extremely wealthy individuals because of the potential to get promoted to the riches of the Premier League. These wealthy people can have a few shots at it. If they succeed either cash in and sell for big money or enjoy the ride. If you fail sell up to another extremely wealthy individual or consortium accept your losses and move on. In this regard it is not like a normal business it is more like the football club is your poker chip and the league the poker table for which there is a steep buy in to play the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mark1948 said:

It has a great deal to do with the rules and the fact that the earnings of the Premier League are so far out of Kilter with the other leagues. In any other business as you say, you would go bust. The Championship is so investable to extremely wealthy individuals because of the potential to get promoted to the riches of the Premier League. These wealthy people can have a few shots at it. If they succeed either cash in and sell for big money or enjoy the ride. If you fail sell up to another extremely wealthy individual or consortium accept your losses and move on. In this regard it is not like a normal business it is more like the football club is your poker chip and the league the poker table for which there is a steep buy in to play the game.

 

I've highlighted many of the words you used in your reply. So a gamble then? Where is the due diligence? Having a speculative "punt" and hoping for the best is no way to run, or succeed in, business. Football is no different, and until that attitude is changed, the problems we have with the vast majority of football clubs far exceeding their expenditure versus their income, will continue. Bury F.C. will sadly be the start of many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NeonLeon said:

Who’s got a kit man on 52k!?

 

How unstable is that job. If that club goes pop, that kit man is realistically looking at a huge drop in earnings should he need to find another job. 

 

I think it's Fulham. But I might be wrong. They certainly have the 68k a week player.

Edited by ChapSmurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...