Net spend means little without wages and loan fees tbh or any concept of overall profit and loss. And he's a gobshite far more often than needed so not sure I'd envy it.
You envy Mr.McAnthony? Next you’ll be telling us you’re a big fan of the journalistic skills of Mr.Swann!
I have never understood the obsession with knowing what players cost or what they earn.
Considering the money they received for Toney and other sales, sell on fees, that to me is a low spend.
They will be about third/fourth lowest wage budget in the Championship above Blackpool, Coventry and possibly Hull and Barnsley.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I am genuinely curious to know why is it important to know what a player costs and how much he is paid? No other business reveals this kind of information apart from what can be gleaned from their annual accounts.
I think it is due to the prevalence of this information in certain newspapers and on channels like Sky Sports.
People see figures banded around and constantly flashed up on screen on endless rotation (for PL clubs at least). This, together with the dramatic deadline countdown clocks / music it makes people seek the information for their own clubs / players.
It’s an interesting question though when comparing to other industries.
So much of what the media publishes about fees and salaries is sheer guesswork, often fed to them by agents with vested interests or by club ‘insiders’ who have no real knowledge of the actual figures involved. Dare I say that some of it is also downright invention, hence the oft used phrase ‘According to a club source…’
Unless we spend a million quid on 'The Player' who will secure promotion as long as we have a team competing I do not care what anyone costs or earns. There seem to be a lot of Sgt Wilsons about on the transfer thread.
'Really? I hope that's wise...'
@glasshalffull i don’t really expect to know how much they’re paid, that doesn’t seem fair. But it’s quite important for any number of reasons to know whether we spent £1M on a player or £100K on a player. Not least because the Trust has to keep pace with 25% of the Couhigs investment.
But the Trust has representation on the board of directors who will, I assume, know exactly what we have spent on players. I don’t see why that information needs to become public knowledge.
We’re all curious, of course, but that doesn’t give us a right to know.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I am genuinely curious to know why is it important to know what a player costs and how much he is paid? No other business reveals this kind of information apart from what can be gleaned from their annual accounts.
Because people like to have a frame of reference to compare whether the club is competing above or below expectations. Without this sort of information, you start wondering what’s so amiss at Rochdale that they have never qualified for the Champions League.
I don’t understand your point. You don’t have to know what we’ve spent on players to realise that clubs like Sunderland, Ipswich, Wigan, Charlton etc have bigger budgets than Wycombe. I doubt that anyone has ever wondered why Rochdale have never qualified for the Champions League.
@eric_plant I agree about injuries as that affects our team set up and play and can derail a good run etc. and that i what the fans are surely most invested in.
As for transfer fees the media fueled pissing contest is just that,
Like other well run clubs we set a budget and operate within it (as confirmed by the Couhigs, GA & the Trust Board) and we do not pay beyond our means (which also includes players wages). Continued and sustained success both on and off the field of play will afford us larger budgets over time and allow us to buy in better talent.
As @glasshalffull has rightly pointed out no other industry publishes the salaries of their staff other than senior execs (via the annual accounts) though I note due to politics the BBC has had to publish the salaries of talent above a certain level, perhaps this is something football as a whole might consider as part of future governance reviews, but I would expect stiff opposition from the PFA.
I think it's a strange position to take up to simultaneously argue that we have no need to know transfer fees/wages and yet consistently highlight our lower wage bill and transfer expenditure vs our rivals
How can you argue the latter without knowing the former?
@glasshalffull said:
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I am genuinely curious to know why is it important to know what a player costs and how much he is paid? No other business reveals this kind of information apart from what can be gleaned from their annual accounts.
Some big corporations with PLCs do this with their chief execs.
And your NHS and such organisations have very definite pay scales.
But yes, generally there's no real benefit from knowing wages, it can only lead to upset!
@eric_plant said:
I think it's a strange position to take up to simultaneously argue that we have no need to know transfer fees/wages and yet consistently highlight our lower wage bill and transfer expenditure vs our rivals
How can you argue the latter without knowing the former?
@eric_plant said:
We're fans, and we're interested in our club. Not just the big picture but the tiny details and everything in between.
Why wouldn't we want to know the transfer fees we've paid and received for players?
Same as which players are injured, what the injury is and how long they're expected to be out for
Baffles me that fans are happy to toe the party line and aren't bothered by that if I'm honest
I am a fan and I’m interested in our club. I’m not interested in how much people earn or what we paid to acquire them. It can fuel unrest from those who want to complain that ‘We paid all that money for X and he’s done nothing’ etc.
Regarding injuries, I see no harm in keeping the nature and extent of injuries secret from the opposition and it’s something that most managers do, although I will admit that we often take the secrecy to extremes.
What I never understand with all the injury secrecy is what difference does it really make?
Fundamentally we play the same way regardless of who’s on the pitch, our style is probably the most well known in the lower echelons of the league.
Apart from an obvious difference like 6ft5 Taffazolli playing instead of Stewart for instance, I think we could probably be more honest with the fans and still not give away too much detail to the opposition.
Personally knowing that player x costs £xxx and is paid £xx is just creating a big stick to batter them when they are off form. I like the story of Stockdale taking a huge cut to come to us but why should others. If Lavelle's agent could get him a fiver more in South London good luck to him.
I remember when the Flying Postman signed for us for a huge (record?) fee and then was largely disappointing pretty much every criticism was based around the fee.
@Vincey said:
What I never understand with all the injury secrecy is what difference does it really make?
Fundamentally we play the same way regardless of who’s on the pitch, our style is probably the most well known in the lower echelons of the league.
Apart from an obvious difference like 6ft5 Taffazolli playing instead of Stewart for instance, I think we could probably be more honest with the fans and still not give away too much detail to the opposition.
Don’t agree. Managers spend most of the week working on team shapes and ways of exploiting opposition weaknesses. If, for example, our next opponents Oxford know that we’ll be without, say, Tafazolli/Stewart and/or Vokes, that would be a major factor in helping them with their preparations. Also, if you speak to physios they will tell you that estimating the period needed for players to return from injury is not an exact science and there can be many setbacks along the way.
More transparency around injuries would probably stop the sort of frenzied rumours that we’ve seen re Anthony Stewart in recent days. I don’t see the point of the intense secrecy but it doesn’t bother me that much either.
It’s not a recent thing here though. See also, Sean Devine’s knee and Gavin Grant’s cold.
As for transfer fees and wages. None of my business.
The reason we do not reveal injuries is the same reason why we don't reveal fees (n.b. Posh Co-owner) i.e. in order to gain a competitive advantage.
Would you want to walk in and play a hand of poker when the house knows exactly what you've got in your pocket?
In both instances, they are a game of bluff, look at the agent-leaked puff over the transfer window.
A small, competitive advantage may, or may not, deliver a new player which may, or may not, deliver the club's entire P+L for a year.
We have examples with Ibe, Philipps etc. developed by himself, Richard Dobson.
We used to be known as " The Crewe Of The South" before it wasn't seen as an entirely great thing to recruit, or for that matter, retain, ahem, youngsters.
@arnos_grove said:
More transparency around injuries would probably stop the sort of frenzied rumours that we’ve seen re Anthony Stewart in recent days. I don’t see the point of the intense secrecy but it doesn’t bother me that much either.
It’s not a recent thing here though. See also, Sean Devine’s knee and Gavin Grant’s cold.
As for transfer fees and wages. None of my business.
You've rather neatly chosen perhaps the two examples where keeping the information private was justified!
Two out of absolutely loads you haven't mentioned. Dominic Gape for example, he's been out for absolutely ages and we haven't heard a thing
@glasshalffull said:
I don’t understand your point. You don’t have to know what we’ve spent on players to realise that clubs like Sunderland, Ipswich, Wigan, Charlton etc have bigger budgets than Wycombe. I doubt that anyone has ever wondered why Rochdale have never qualified for the Champions League.
Clearly you do understand my point, else you would not have posited that people are somehow going to instinctively know that certain clubs have bigger budgets than Wycombe. Funnily enough, all those clubs currently have their fans baffled as without any knowledge of the transfer fees and wages that they have been paying over the last couple of decades, they have quite unaccountably been plummeting through the leagues.
@NiceCarrots said:
The reason we do not reveal injuries is the same reason why we don't reveal fees (n.b. Posh Co-owner) i.e. in order to gain a competitive advantage.
Would you want to walk in and play a hand of poker when the house knows exactly what you've got in your pocket?
In both instances, they are a game of bluff, look at the agent-leaked puff over the transfer window.
A small, competitive advantage may, or may not, deliver a new player which may, or may not, deliver the club's entire P+L for a year.
We have examples with Ibe, Philipps etc. developed by himself, Richard Dobson.
We used to be known as " The Crewe Of The South" before it wasn't seen as an entirely great thing to recruit, or for that matter, retain, ahem, youngsters.
Not sure being known as "The Crewe of the South" is a fantastic PR exercise to persuade parents to bring their youngsters to Wycombe these days.
We could really scare them off, and have an initial meet and greet with 70's radio 1 DJ's at the training ground.
Not disclosing fees is completely normal practice in football at our level, is it not? Or am I missing something? It would be nice to know, sure, but that's not how it works.
@arnos_grove said:
More transparency around injuries would probably stop the sort of frenzied rumours that we’ve seen re Anthony Stewart in recent days. I don’t see the point of the intense secrecy but it doesn’t bother me that much either.
It’s not a recent thing here though. See also, Sean Devine’s knee and Gavin Grant’s cold.
As for transfer fees and wages. None of my business.
Frenzied?
Bit strong for a couple of posters oddly thinking a team are suddenly going to swoop in for Stewart having seen him play a couple of league 1 games when they've had all summer?
Add in Junior Morais's ever so slightly sudden exit from the club, days after signing a new contract to your list of wycombe folklore by the way.
Comments
Net spend means little without wages and loan fees tbh or any concept of overall profit and loss. And he's a gobshite far more often than needed so not sure I'd envy it.
Of course it’s not a complete picture, but it’s more than we’re told.
It would also stop people saying that Vokes is on £10k a week and that we paid £300k for Hanlon.
Imagine envying having a berk like that in charge.
Or trusting it!
You envy Mr.McAnthony? Next you’ll be telling us you’re a big fan of the journalistic skills of Mr.Swann!
I have never understood the obsession with knowing what players cost or what they earn.
Considering the money they received for Toney and other sales, sell on fees, that to me is a low spend.
They will be about third/fourth lowest wage budget in the Championship above Blackpool, Coventry and possibly Hull and Barnsley.
I wouldn’t swap the Couhigs for MacAnthony, but I’d like a bit more information than we’re given.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I am genuinely curious to know why is it important to know what a player costs and how much he is paid? No other business reveals this kind of information apart from what can be gleaned from their annual accounts.
@glasshalffull
I think it is due to the prevalence of this information in certain newspapers and on channels like Sky Sports.
People see figures banded around and constantly flashed up on screen on endless rotation (for PL clubs at least). This, together with the dramatic deadline countdown clocks / music it makes people seek the information for their own clubs / players.
It’s an interesting question though when comparing to other industries.
So much of what the media publishes about fees and salaries is sheer guesswork, often fed to them by agents with vested interests or by club ‘insiders’ who have no real knowledge of the actual figures involved. Dare I say that some of it is also downright invention, hence the oft used phrase ‘According to a club source…’
Unless we spend a million quid on 'The Player' who will secure promotion as long as we have a team competing I do not care what anyone costs or earns. There seem to be a lot of Sgt Wilsons about on the transfer thread.
'Really? I hope that's wise...'
@glasshalffull i don’t really expect to know how much they’re paid, that doesn’t seem fair. But it’s quite important for any number of reasons to know whether we spent £1M on a player or £100K on a player. Not least because the Trust has to keep pace with 25% of the Couhigs investment.
But the Trust has representation on the board of directors who will, I assume, know exactly what we have spent on players. I don’t see why that information needs to become public knowledge.
We’re all curious, of course, but that doesn’t give us a right to know.
…> @glasshalffull said:
Because people like to have a frame of reference to compare whether the club is competing above or below expectations. Without this sort of information, you start wondering what’s so amiss at Rochdale that they have never qualified for the Champions League.
I don’t understand your point. You don’t have to know what we’ve spent on players to realise that clubs like Sunderland, Ipswich, Wigan, Charlton etc have bigger budgets than Wycombe. I doubt that anyone has ever wondered why Rochdale have never qualified for the Champions League.
We're fans, and we're interested in our club. Not just the big picture but the tiny details and everything in between.
Why wouldn't we want to know the transfer fees we've paid and received for players?
Same as which players are injured, what the injury is and how long they're expected to be out for
Baffles me that fans are happy to toe the party line and aren't bothered by that if I'm honest
@eric_plant I agree about injuries as that affects our team set up and play and can derail a good run etc. and that i what the fans are surely most invested in.
As for transfer fees the media fueled pissing contest is just that,
Like other well run clubs we set a budget and operate within it (as confirmed by the Couhigs, GA & the Trust Board) and we do not pay beyond our means (which also includes players wages). Continued and sustained success both on and off the field of play will afford us larger budgets over time and allow us to buy in better talent.
As @glasshalffull has rightly pointed out no other industry publishes the salaries of their staff other than senior execs (via the annual accounts) though I note due to politics the BBC has had to publish the salaries of talent above a certain level, perhaps this is something football as a whole might consider as part of future governance reviews, but I would expect stiff opposition from the PFA.
I think it's a strange position to take up to simultaneously argue that we have no need to know transfer fees/wages and yet consistently highlight our lower wage bill and transfer expenditure vs our rivals
How can you argue the latter without knowing the former?
Some big corporations with PLCs do this with their chief execs.
And your NHS and such organisations have very definite pay scales.
But yes, generally there's no real benefit from knowing wages, it can only lead to upset!
Spot on.
I am a fan and I’m interested in our club. I’m not interested in how much people earn or what we paid to acquire them. It can fuel unrest from those who want to complain that ‘We paid all that money for X and he’s done nothing’ etc.
Regarding injuries, I see no harm in keeping the nature and extent of injuries secret from the opposition and it’s something that most managers do, although I will admit that we often take the secrecy to extremes.
What I never understand with all the injury secrecy is what difference does it really make?
Fundamentally we play the same way regardless of who’s on the pitch, our style is probably the most well known in the lower echelons of the league.
Apart from an obvious difference like 6ft5 Taffazolli playing instead of Stewart for instance, I think we could probably be more honest with the fans and still not give away too much detail to the opposition.
Personally knowing that player x costs £xxx and is paid £xx is just creating a big stick to batter them when they are off form. I like the story of Stockdale taking a huge cut to come to us but why should others. If Lavelle's agent could get him a fiver more in South London good luck to him.
I remember when the Flying Postman signed for us for a huge (record?) fee and then was largely disappointing pretty much every criticism was based around the fee.
Don’t agree. Managers spend most of the week working on team shapes and ways of exploiting opposition weaknesses. If, for example, our next opponents Oxford know that we’ll be without, say, Tafazolli/Stewart and/or Vokes, that would be a major factor in helping them with their preparations. Also, if you speak to physios they will tell you that estimating the period needed for players to return from injury is not an exact science and there can be many setbacks along the way.
More transparency around injuries would probably stop the sort of frenzied rumours that we’ve seen re Anthony Stewart in recent days. I don’t see the point of the intense secrecy but it doesn’t bother me that much either.
It’s not a recent thing here though. See also, Sean Devine’s knee and Gavin Grant’s cold.
As for transfer fees and wages. None of my business.
The reason we do not reveal injuries is the same reason why we don't reveal fees (n.b. Posh Co-owner) i.e. in order to gain a competitive advantage.
Would you want to walk in and play a hand of poker when the house knows exactly what you've got in your pocket?
In both instances, they are a game of bluff, look at the agent-leaked puff over the transfer window.
A small, competitive advantage may, or may not, deliver a new player which may, or may not, deliver the club's entire P+L for a year.
We have examples with Ibe, Philipps etc. developed by himself, Richard Dobson.
We used to be known as " The Crewe Of The South" before it wasn't seen as an entirely great thing to recruit, or for that matter, retain, ahem, youngsters.
You've rather neatly chosen perhaps the two examples where keeping the information private was justified!
Two out of absolutely loads you haven't mentioned. Dominic Gape for example, he's been out for absolutely ages and we haven't heard a thing
Clearly you do understand my point, else you would not have posited that people are somehow going to instinctively know that certain clubs have bigger budgets than Wycombe. Funnily enough, all those clubs currently have their fans baffled as without any knowledge of the transfer fees and wages that they have been paying over the last couple of decades, they have quite unaccountably been plummeting through the leagues.
Not sure being known as "The Crewe of the South" is a fantastic PR exercise to persuade parents to bring their youngsters to Wycombe these days.
We could really scare them off, and have an initial meet and greet with 70's radio 1 DJ's at the training ground.
Not disclosing fees is completely normal practice in football at our level, is it not? Or am I missing something? It would be nice to know, sure, but that's not how it works.
Frenzied?
Bit strong for a couple of posters oddly thinking a team are suddenly going to swoop in for Stewart having seen him play a couple of league 1 games when they've had all summer?
Add in Junior Morais's ever so slightly sudden exit from the club, days after signing a new contract to your list of wycombe folklore by the way.