The relevance is, you cannot judge someone's 6th year with your 1st year. It's gets more expensive, do you think Dunk will be on the same money he is now in five years time?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Palace] #cpfc
- Thread starter gripper stebson
- Start date
The relevance is, you cannot judge someone's 6th year with your 1st year. It's gets more expensive, do you think Dunk will be on the same money he is now in five years time?
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
But the whole point of this is, please reply honestly, do you believe Palace are spending their money wisely? Do you see a future whereby your sustainability is viable? Do you have a vision of an up to date stadium, training facility, youth set up and is it all realistic?
Certainly does...any business allowing wage costs to spiral like that in such a short space of time needs to think very carefully about sustainability of such an approach......
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
As has been outlined, we have a wage structure, that may increase as we bag the cash, however we do have a structure. Palace seem to just throw money at panic buys.
It does get more expensive, and it's then up to the club owners to decide on the wage structure. Steve Parish has gone for a variable one and Tony Bloom a level one. That makes them different, it doesn't mean one is better than the other or vice versa. I can understand why SP is paying Benteke, Zaha, Meyer and Sako £100k a week plus just as I can understand why TB takes a different approach. I was talking to a club CEO earlier this week and he said that you decide the policy and that then determines the nature of players you recruit.
I think the problem for Palace is that by taking such an approach to wages it results in losses being made on a day to day basis, which can only be offset by increasing revenue, which is challenging given broadcast income flatlining and stadium capacity constraints for a few years at least, selling players or owner contributions.
Losing £500,000 a week is a consequence of the wage policy.
Losing £500,000 a week is a consequence of the wage policy.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
That equates to £26 million a year... wow!
So we are roughly two million in debt?
Did you see how much you spent in wages in your first season in this league?
Are you taking into account the increased income for Premier League clubs, between both first seasons?
Judging by the silence I guess not.
How do you work that out?
Yes, 56% of income.
I read the 7.7 on the graph as a profit. So roughly 15 million in debt.
As opposed too?
Will it still be only 56% this year though or in your sixth year, that's the golden question. You will not be able to stick to that and keep Dunk if he's as good as you lot say he is.
Weststander
Well-known member
That’s some contrast to the largest in the football business, CP at 78%.
What extra exactly have they got for it? Nothing. They’ve simply enriched journeymen players and hanger-on’s.
No, debt is £27 million and there’s a further £45 million owed to other clubs for transfers.
I was going by your graph, but read the 7.7million as profit.
So I'm your opinion are we screwed or not, seriously? People keep saying our wages will go down this year as we have got rid of a lot?
I have to be honest, since football got so far up its own backside I'm not concerned anymore. When you watch a bloke running around for and hour and a half and know he's earning the same in a week as you will that year, then why should I let it worry me sort of thing.