amex pay structure!

[Return of the Rev]

At what point do we break the current wage policy? Will a 30,000 capacity be able to fund us to compete with top championship teams or will tb fund it personaly
Are we looking at further investment on the board? Could we ready for an oversea take over

What about keeping to our current budget and hoping we hit lucky!




what do you want for your club?

I would be happy with a minority investor coming on board but would not want to over stretch our resources on a gamble!
I am against an overseas takeover no mattter what was promised

 

[cardboard]

Should this not be Brighton and Hove Albion pay structure

Amex pay quite well

 

[ManxSeagull]

Should this not be Brighton and Hove Albion pay structure

Amex pay quite well

Probably not as well as top premiership football clubs though

 

[kano]

The club should never pay more in wages than it generates from gates, concessions, TV, sponsorship, etc.

No wages should ever have to come from any board members.

 

[LeicesterGull]

The club should never pay more in wages than it generates from gates, concessions, TV, sponsorship, etc.

No wages should ever have to come from any board members.

Agree 100%.

 

[ManxSeagull]

Correct and the sooner they bring in rules to that affect the better.

Although it is easy to circumvent any rules. Wealthy owner of club signs player pays him wage within club's constraints then pays him a wage to represent (ambassador) for his own private company.

 

[Aristotle]

Surely the whole point of investment in infrastructure is so that BHAFC can generate a higher sustainable income, part of which will be translated into wages. Also, with facilities like the training ground, its providing extra incentives for players beyond purely money (I'd take a pay cut to live in Brighton rather than Middlesbrough...). These seem like sensible projects for TB to spend his money on, rather than subsidising unsustainable wages year after year.

As far as increasing budgets go, I'm sure the extra capacity (provided it's filled) will help. There was a suggestion that budgets would rise next year anyway since the sustainability threshold would have risen having been in the Championship for a year (although I'm not quite sure how that would work).

When it comes to competing with other teams, though, even with 30,000 capacity we still won't have the same income as clubs with parachute payments, and we won't pay as much as those who are taking the 'Premiership or bust' gamble. What we will have, it seems to me, is a combination of great business sense (TB) and football sense (GP) and that will count for a lot.

 

[BigGully]

Correct and the sooner they bring in rules to that affect the better.

Although it is easy to circumvent any rules. Wealthy owner of club signs player pays him wage within club's constraints then pays him a wage to represent (ambassador) for his own private company.

Although I kinda share your sentiments, would it not exacerbate the problem where current teams that happen to hold the biggest income streams would never be threatened by any other clubs, predictable results even beyond what we see now ?

 

[ManxSeagull]

Although I kinda share your sentiments, would it not exacerbate the problem where current teams that happen to hold the biggest income streams would never be threatened by any other clubs, predictable results even beyond what we see now ?

Yes the big risk is that the bigger clubs will get bigger and smaller clubs will never be able to get into the Premiership, let alone compete against the big boys.

 

[Aristotle]

Yes the big risk is that the bigger clubs will get bigger and smaller clubs will never be able to get into the Premiership, let alone compete against the big boys.

Although presumably that wouldn't stop a club such as ours investing in infrastructure that would then attract bigger crowds, better players, etc - provided the potential was there (i.e. not Wigan). Not that that would help overcome better TV revenues and sponsorship for clubs already in the top flight.

 

[BigGully]

Although presumably that wouldn't stop a club such as ours investing in infrastructure that would then attract bigger crowds, better players, etc - provided the potential was there (i.e. not Wigan). Not that that would help overcome better TV revenues and sponsorship for clubs already in the top flight.

I have never heard a fan say they support a team due to their infrastructure ......

 

[Aristotle]

I have never heard a fan say they support a team due to their infrastructure ......

That wasn't really the point - if the latent support is there, then a better infrastructure will mean that more of them can (and do) turn out for matches. As our difference in average attendance between last year and this year shows.

And without wanting to start another JCL binfest, I think our stadium has attracted a lot of new supporters this year (and this is a good thing).

 

[gazingdown]

The club should never pay more in wages than it generates from gates, concessions, TV, sponsorship, etc.

No wages should ever have to come from any board members.

This, however a small exception, I think it is OK for a board member/investor/whatever to pay the salary up front.

The problem with many clubs is that their "bankroller" leaves (or runs out of cash) but they STILL have to pay wages that the income can't cover. This wouldn't be a problem if the investor pays the wages for whatever player up front.

Also, most/all clubs should have contracts where the wages are reduced (or contracts re-negotiated etc.) in the event of relegation, this should negate the need for parachute payments that ultimately mean the relegated teams are at an inflated advantage as they have a higher income that they wouldn't have otherwise.

 

[Dirk Gently]

No problems with outside investment (e.g. from a "sugar-daddy" owner) - with the massive caveat that any money must be given outright to the club, not lent or loaned.

You can't make money from a football club - so don't do things that will leave them saddled with debt, even soft debt to you. Much of what Abramovich has "given "Chelsea still sits on their balance sheet as loans, and the same at many other clubs. It might be tax efficient for the owner but that's not what football clubs are for! So give money in a way that it stays given and can be spent.