Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Player contracts.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hitman34
    started a topic Player contracts.

    Player contracts.

    Would loike to know who is responsible for reviewing and offering new contracts to the players.

    we have upto 11 players now entering the last year of their contracts.

    surely, as a club, we need to be proactive and tie these kids down to longer term deals and not allow their contracts to run down.

    The past ineptitude of allowing austin to go so cheaply and to watch robinson run down his last year should surely focus minds at the club.

    Now we find the likes of eze, oteh and woslek, along with others walking into this coming season with only a few months left on their contracts.

    Who the fark is responsible for this nonsense?

  • Jonny
    replied
    One further point to note is that, if as expected, we make a profit this coming season (and do not spend it on transfers), we can use such money to cover the expected loss in season 19/20.

    Meaning, no burning need to sell any players at all which puts us in a strong negotiating position.

    And during season 19/20, we are likely to reduce the wage bill even further, perhaps zoning in on break-even for season 20:21 - without any player sales. Which would be the very definition of self-sustainability.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonny
    replied
    Originally posted by SheepRanger View Post
    Jonny you state that £9.36m is well within our budget.

    What do you expect our turnover to be this year based on our last season of receiving sky money? Also, for season 19/20 when sky money to be removed in full.

    Are you expecting us to be at breakeven financially this season and in debt the next?
    Expecting an operating loss for last season 17/18 of circa 4m, which might explain why the club accepted the Smithies money to cover this (rather than another shareholder loan), and expecting an operating profit for this coming season 18/19, circa 3m.

    Post Parachute Payments I.e. season after this one (19/20) Anticipating operating loss of circa 6m, which needs resolving, either through player sales, or through additional sponsorship income. But we have time to work it out.

    Income in the post-parachute era will be around 20m per annum, we will still get near on 10m in TV money We need 10m for running of the club in general (which is currently fixed and almost impossible to reduce, other than when we can move to Warren Farm), and we are left with 10m for salary budget. This enables break-even. But I am expecting a 6m loss because I am modeling our wages at such time as approx 16-18m, so way over the 10m break-even allowance, which would cause the operating loss, and therefore, need to be covered by additional income (sponsorship or player sales).

    Ps my numbers may be out by approx 2m which is good news because I did not expect Robinson (25k a week) and Smithies (15k a week) to leave. Both will not be replaced in a wages sense, and therefore we save a further 2m on the annual wage bill, which likely reduces our loss in 19/20 from circa 6m to 4m, so is increasingly manageable.




    Leave a comment:


  • SheepRanger
    replied
    Jonny you state that £9.36m is well within our budget.

    What do you expect our turnover to be this year based on our last season of receiving sky money? Also, for season 19/20 when sky money to be removed in full.

    Are you expecting us to be at breakeven financially this season and in debt the next?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tarbie
    replied
    Originally posted by Jonny View Post

    This make sense for expensive players, such as Robinson and Onouha, but the same logic cannot be applied to u23 graduates who are probably on 1-2k a week max.

    Whilst we are in a weak position retaining players such as Robinson and Onouha because there wages were already at, or outside, of our upper limit (15k - 20k max), we are alternatively in a strong position with u23 graduates, because the starting point is from the ground-up.

    A 4 x increase on 2k a week u23 base, for example, puts a salary at 10k per week, a figure and salary multiple which I feel is absolutely at the upper limit for a new contract for the likes of Smyth and Eze - they have started well, but must demonstrate similar performances in the next 10 games, which is perhaps what the club is waiting to find out before laying down the contract.

    In any case, over 3 years, this costs the club 1.5m. The risk of player default is more than offset by a potential valuation of 5-10m per player, which is what we are likely aiming for in such a vibrant market, awash with cash, and one which places a premium on home-grown talent. And in Eze, we likely have a special case, given the direct comparisons to James Madison who went for 24m (21 years old, only 1 full season in the championship) and Jack Grealish also likely to command the same figure. (22 years old, earlier Prem appearances, + renewed promise in the champs last year),

    Further context is that if you cannot offer a “ first 18” player 10k per week in the championship, then you might as well go home- it is almost the norm and the baseline. 18 x 10k a week average = 9.36m per annum for wages, is well within our income structure. The rest of the numbers are made up of u23s on a small cost basis.

    In addition, I feel this topic is a moot point because the club are simply not that stupid. I expect contract extensions for Smyth and Eze in the near future. Lastly, I also anticipate that both may even have 1 year extension options, which seems to be a new contact policy for youth teamers.
    Fair shout mate.

    Who knows what anyone is getting or looking for in terms of a salary, but your numbers do look pretty sound. I suppose we just need to wait and see who gets tied up and when.

    Leave a comment:


  • Undecided
    replied
    Originally posted by Jonny View Post

    This make sense for expensive players, such as Robinson and Onouha, but the same logic cannot be applied to u23 graduates who are probably on 1-2k a week max.

    Whilst we are in a weak position retaining players such as Robinson and Onouha because there wages were already at, or outside, of our upper limit (15k - 20k max), we are alternatively in a strong position with u23 graduates, because the starting point is from the ground-up.

    A 4 x increase on 2k a week u23 base, for example, puts a salary at 10k per week, a figure and salary multiple which I feel is absolutely at the upper limit for a new contract for the likes of Smyth and Eze - they have started well, but must demonstrate similar performances in the next 10 games, which is perhaps what the club is waiting to find out before laying down the contract.

    In any case, over 3 years, this costs the club 1.5m. The risk of player default is more than offset by a potential valuation of 5-10m per player, which is what we are likely aiming for in such a vibrant market, awash with cash, and one which places a premium on home-grown talent. And in Eze, we likely have a special case, given the direct comparisons to James Madison who went for 24m (21 years old, only 1 full season in the championship) and Jack Grealish also likely to command the same figure. (22 years old, earlier Prem appearances, + renewed promise in the champs last year),

    Further context is that if you cannot offer a “ first 18” player 10k per week in the championship, then you might as well go home- it is almost the norm and the baseline. 18 x 10k a week average = 9.36m per annum for wages, is well within our income structure. The rest of the numbers are made up of u23s on a small cost basis.

    In addition, I feel this topic is a moot point because the club are simply not that stupid. I expect contract extensions for Smyth and Eze in the near future. Lastly, I also anticipate that both may even have 1 year extension options, which seems to be a new contact policy for youth teamers.
    Nice post!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonny
    replied
    Originally posted by Tarbie View Post

    You're looking at it the wrong way mate.

    We are in a situation where the club doesn't have the financial security to plan long term. Instead, we need to have a relatively short term view and work with what we have from season to season. As I said above, this unfortunately means our position when it comes to retaining our best players is relatively weak. But that's where we are.

    Let's at least try and look at the positives. The supply line of good young players looks as strong as it ever has in the 30 years I've been supporting QPR.
    This make sense for expensive players, such as Robinson and Onouha, but the same logic cannot be applied to u23 graduates who are probably on 1-2k a week max.

    Whilst we are in a weak position retaining players such as Robinson and Onouha because there wages were already at, or outside, of our upper limit (15k - 20k max), we are alternatively in a strong position with u23 graduates, because the starting point is from the ground-up.

    A 4 x increase on 2k a week u23 base, for example, puts a salary at 10k per week, a figure and salary multiple which I feel is absolutely at the upper limit for a new contract for the likes of Smyth and Eze - they have started well, but must demonstrate similar performances in the next 10 games, which is perhaps what the club is waiting to find out before laying down the contract.

    In any case, over 3 years, this costs the club 1.5m. The risk of player default is more than offset by a potential valuation of 5-10m per player, which is what we are likely aiming for in such a vibrant market, awash with cash, and one which places a premium on home-grown talent. And in Eze, we likely have a special case, given the direct comparisons to James Madison who went for 24m (21 years old, only 1 full season in the championship) and Jack Grealish also likely to command the same figure. (22 years old, earlier Prem appearances, + renewed promise in the champs last year),

    Further context is that if you cannot offer a “ first 18” player 10k per week in the championship, then you might as well go home- it is almost the norm and the baseline. 18 x 10k a week average = 9.36m per annum for wages, is well within our income structure. The rest of the numbers are made up of u23s on a small cost basis.

    In addition, I feel this topic is a moot point because the club are simply not that stupid. I expect contract extensions for Smyth and Eze in the near future. Lastly, I also anticipate that both may even have 1 year extension options, which seems to be a new contact policy for youth teamers.

    Leave a comment:


  • SheepRanger
    replied
    Originally posted by Rebel R's View Post

    I tend to agree,still can't understand why holloway was sacked,they say "to move forward" ?!?,but how are we moving forward exactly with our best young players not being offered new contracts and our best player sold,and only one out of contract 2nd division German player brought in. Put whatever positive spin you want on it but we aint moving forward,sideways at best
    How do you know the young lads haven't been offered new contracts? You seem to assume incompetence if every action isn't followed up by an update on the website.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Awin
    replied
    Originally posted by Rebel R's View Post

    I tend to agree,still can't understand why holloway was sacked,they say "to move forward" ?!?,but how are we moving forward exactly with our best young players not being offered new contracts and our best player sold,and only one out of contract 2nd division German player brought in. Put whatever positive spin you want on it but we aint moving forward,sideways at best
    Impossible to say until half way through the season.

    this team might be up to speed and standard, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rebel R's
    replied
    Originally posted by Hitman34 View Post
    If we cannot afford to offer the players we already have, new contracts, then what's the point.
    I tend to agree,still can't understand why holloway was sacked,they say "to move forward" ?!?,but how are we moving forward exactly with our best young players not being offered new contracts and our best player sold,and only one out of contract 2nd division German player brought in. Put whatever positive spin you want on it but we aint moving forward,sideways at best

    Leave a comment:


  • Tarbie
    replied
    Originally posted by Hitman34 View Post
    If we cannot afford to offer the players we already have, new contracts, then what's the point.
    You're looking at it the wrong way mate.

    We are in a situation where the club doesn't have the financial security to plan long term. Instead, we need to have a relatively short term view and work with what we have from season to season. As I said above, this unfortunately means our position when it comes to retaining our best players is relatively weak. But that's where we are.

    Let's at least try and look at the positives. The supply line of good young players looks as strong as it ever has in the 30 years I've been supporting QPR.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hitman34
    replied
    If we cannot afford to offer the players we already have, new contracts, then what's the point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tarbie
    replied
    Originally posted by Stanley View Post

    Which kind of cuts your nose to spite your face, but if the cash simply isn't there (for the club to remain sustainable and to remain within FFP) then it's not there.
    Catch 22 ain't it though mate? Nobody has a crystal ball.

    Nobody thought when we were dishing out 4 years contracts to Stephen Caulker, Sandro and Shaun Wright-Phillips that they's end up so costly to the club. Even before that, remember Rowan Vine? And what about Rob Hulse? All players that were offered long deals that seemed like good business, but ended costing us millions.

    Regardless of how good Smyth, Eze, Chair etc. look, the club isn't in a position to be taking too many chances at the moment. Unfortunately this means we will most likely lose a few players for less than we'd like, but that is the situation which we are in and no amount of complaining by the fans will change it!

    Leave a comment:


  • CroydonCaptainJack
    replied
    Originally posted by Rebel R's View Post

    For what reason exactly,because you (still)think the manager will be given the funds??!!,smithies was sold and nothing has been spent yet,we have to move away from that train of taught ,sell a player to fund new players,because that doesn't happen here at this club any more
    I never knew you were Irish Rebs

    Leave a comment:


  • Stanley
    replied
    Originally posted by Tarbie View Post
    Unfortunately this is the nature of operating under budgetary constraints. Long term contracts are less appealing to those that monitor the purse strings. They cost too much to get out of if a player loses form, struggles with injuries or does a Caulker and farks off on the lash for 2 years.

    Look at any club with financial problems. Mainly 1 and 2 year deals. 3 years absolute maximum.
    Which kind of cuts your nose to spite your face, but if the cash simply isn't there (for the club to remain sustainable and to remain within FFP) then it's not there.

    Originally posted by Awin View Post
    I would like to see us sell Washington and Sylla and buy a striker and one more central defender.
    Sylla needs a chance under McClaren IMO. Be interesting to see what he can bring out of him.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X