Latest club accounts

[M-U-R-T-Y]

It's little wonder we take punts on players like Sheppard, then.

[Bandini]

Paying wages which are appropriate to the players' worth is an alternative strategy, and its a strategy the club has been attempting to execute since, at least, the second season in the premiership when Coppell opted, as far as possible, to keep the squad together.

It’s fine if you have stars in place, but you don’t turn average footballers into stars simply by paying them more. And what do clubs pay transferred players? Chocolate coins?

It isn’t an alternative strategy. It’s just another factor in running a club. There is no point have the ability to pay players competitively, if they are all shite.

PS - I'm not suggesting the Reading players are shite...

No, but what do you do when your "average" footballers do turn into stars, as a fair number of our players seem to do.

[Extended-Phenotype]

You sell them.

[Bandini]

And it the period before that?

[Extended-Phenotype]

They are average.

[Bandini]

It's surprising that we manage to sell them then.

[Extended-Phenotype]

We don't sell them when they are average. Keep up.

[Bandini]

In that case it's especially clever of Hammond to convince the purchasers of the players that they are no longer average, despite them having done nothing other than turn out average performances for us.

[Royal Rother]

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

[melonhead]

What the accounts confirm is that even after we have sold most of our recognised quality players we are still paying MASSIVELY over the odds on wages, which is frankly quite worrying. Who negotiates these contracts...good grief.

No qualms as to where the money has actually gone...we keep having to sell our best players to...well...pay for all the average ones.

but the article says 89 % of league position is based on ho much you pay in wages.so surely its a sensible way of doing things
make your minds up- do you want us to spend more, or less money.

as it stands our best players get payed well for this league, the rest get much less, until they prove themselves.
if we pay less in wages- we wont attract the liegertwoods or gorkss of this world, we wont keep our best players as long as we do, and we'll plummet like a stone.

[Extended-Phenotype]

In that case it's especially clever of Hammond to convince the purchasers of the players that they are no longer average, despite them having done nothing other than turn out average performances for us.

That's right. Because we have a hi-tech payment system which sees salaries instantaneously increase with performance quality.

Jesus, it not hard to see what I am saying. They are average, they get good, we sell them.

Try sniffing less glue.

[Bandini]

In that case it's especially clever of Hammond to convince the purchasers of the players that they are no longer average, despite them having done nothing other than turn out average performances for us.

That's right. Because we have a hi-tech payment system which sees salaries instantaneously increase with performance quality.

Jesus, it not hard to see what I am saying. They are average, they get good, we sell them.

Try sniffing less glue.

And between the time that they start getting good but before the time that we sell them, we negotiate new contracts with them and pay them more.

[melonhead]

You don’t “assemble” a good team by paying them more wages. You assemble a good squad through your academy and by transfers. Paying higher wages is not an alternative strategy unless you already have players worth paying highly for already.

you do though- in most transfers the actual fee is irrelevant to the player- the only financial element they are interested in is wages and possible signing on fees.
we dont pay silly wages to shitplayers- the best/most experienced/proven players get wages that are above average for this league- the rest dont, until they prove themselves.
also youll find it impossible to build any kind of squad if most of the other teams pay more than you, cos the players will be offski quite sharpish if they arent rewarded for good performances

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

The last point of the article is rather spurious – surely higher wages are being spent on better players? The author can’t be seriously suggesting just paying your players more money will improve your position! Here Jem Karacan, here’s another 100k a year. Now be a creative midfielder.

I'm sure there's no suggestion like that being made. It's more that clubs in a position to offer higher wages are able to attract better players, and therefore they'll do better.

With Bosman deals and the differing transfer policy of clubs, the amount spent is less reliable. For a start it depends on where you start from before spending. A team spending £8 million on three players can still easily be worse than a club that's spent nothing, if the club that spent nothing had a better team to begin with.

[Ian Royal]

The last point of the article is rather spurious – surely higher wages are being spent on better players? The author can’t be seriously suggesting just paying your players more money will improve your position! Here Jem Karacan, here’s another 100k a year. Now be a creative midfielder.

If, of course, he's a £100K better this season than the previous season, paying him a higher wage to reflect that improvement and to tie him to a longer term contact isn't spurious at all.

It IS spurious when the statistic is being used to make the point that wages are more significant than signings in terms of table position. Wages simply aren’t the factor, which even you stress in your point – to correct his argument, quality/performing footballers are more significant than transfers in table position. Which is a silly point to make, really.

If you don’t HAVE the quality footballers whom deserve more wages, then transfers are your option – not wage increases - the two factors are incomparible.

Wages are the best indicator of the factor. Quantifying who is a quality player and to what degree is a nightmarish way to try and work anything out. And it's why there's not a 100% correlation / causation with position over an extended period. Because some duffers do end up earning barrow fulls and you get the occasional surprise.

You'd have to be retarded to a degree 10 million times worse than even the thickest footballer to think that just paying the HobNob XI plus hangers on £10m a year each would give a team a 90% chance of getting promoted over a 5 year period.

[melonhead]

The last point of the article is rather spurious – surely higher wages are being spent on better players? The author can’t be seriously suggesting just paying your players more money will improve your position! Here Jem Karacan, here’s another 100k a year. Now be a creative midfielder.

I'm sure there's no suggestion like that being made. It's more that clubs in a position to offer higher wages are able to attract better players, and therefore they'll do better.

With Bosman deals and the differing transfer policy of clubs, the amount spent is less reliable. For a start it depends on where you start from before spending. A team spending £8 million on three players can still easily be worse than a club that's spent nothing, if the club that spent nothing had a better team to begin with.

thats why the article is clear that you can only apply this over a long period of time- over a single season or two it doesnt always correlate

[Extended-Phenotype]

None of what any of you say alters the fact that PAYING HIGHER WAGES is an equal, alternative, comparable strategy to spending money in the transfer market.

They are TWO independent factors in a financial strategy, one is NOT a substitute for the other.

You pay good wages to good players. Yes, you can put a bit extra aside for better wages and reduce your transfer chest, but the fact remains that, without good players in the first place, it’s not an alternative strategy to buying good players.

The article is saying that higher wages is a bigger factor in success than transfer spend, and it’s nonsensical. If you are paying higher wages, you already have good players and the likelihood is a big transfer will be on high wages! The point couldn’t be more saturated in bullshit if you staked it to the field floor and put Exlax in the trough.

PS. I'm not trying to insist on more being spent on transfers. I'm just fed up with these "independent" articles being soaked in clumsy logic excusing policy. Explain the accounts, and leave it there.

[Hoop Blah]

I think what they mean is that there's a closer relationship to wages and success than their is transfer spending and success.

Obviously, like most of this kind of analysis, it's far too simplistic to give a full picture of how to build a successful football club, let alone a successful team on the pitch.

[Bandini]

One is not a substitute for the other, but neither are they independent. As the more that is spent on transfers the less can be spent on wages and vice versa.

[Hoop Blah]

One is not a substitute for the other, but neither are they independent. As the more that is spent on transfers the less can be spent on wages and vice versa.

Depending on how you want to run the club that is....