Oh its one of those referees ......
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
El-Abd is urged to sign Albion deal
- Thread starter buller89
- Start date
Oh its one of those referees ......
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,781
I have to say that i am stunned that you haven't focused your business and financial acumen around this minor issue.
You do have me beaten though - i really can't make up my mind whether you are one of the best wind-ups we have had lately or completely away with the fairies
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,781
Haven't you missed out 'in my opinion' ? (as anyone who didn't know may think you had 'inside' information)
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
Cannot argue with you because I do not have the 'from the horses mouth information ' that is needed to prove or disprove this theory.
NMH
Banned
Go outside and look at the trees and flowers. They are nice aren't they?
Are they....saying anything to you? ...... listen, you can hear them if you get close.
(Owsley has a LOT to answer for)
Your kinda being kind, because I cant possibly qualify my view without breaking confidence.
Look ...... there are many people that know the story, the press and radio but its difficult to address I guess without some fall out.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
Wow. I've just spend my lunch hour reading this thread from the start, and can I just say WHAT A f***ing WASTE OF AN HOUR. Jesus.
However, given that I'm new to the argument, and can't be bothered to do any work, I'll happily take up the 'debate'.
BigGully, I was going to quote one of your big posts but it's just too much effort. So instead I have a couple of questions for you.
1. Have you ever been involved in the financial management of a business? Do you understand the work involved to secure funding from financial institutions? I haven't, but I have at least a vague idea how they work. Firms become insolvent when they cannot secure funds (whether actual credit or more overdraft facilities, etc) to cover their losses. Running at a loss does not make a firm insolvent. This club is run at a loss; but the directors put up funds (either directly or as guarantees) to allow us to secure funding to continue to run. Clubs such as Bournemouth are solvent until the point at which they can no longer secure funds to cover their losses.
2. Do you understand the idea of a wage structure? It seems that you don't. I am not talking about a total pot of money from which all wages must come (although that is part of it, despite what you may think). I am talking about the different levels of wages within a structure. I am one of the lackeys at my work; above me there are managers, and above them directors. If I, as a lackey, asked for £50k a year at my next job (especially if I used the local press to carry out high-profile negotiations), then my co-lackeys would find out, and would start demanding a similar salary. The managers, who were on £50k, would then ask for £75k. The directors, who were on £75k, would ask for £100k. Either the MD would get rid of everyone, or alternatively, he would not give me the money I asked. This is what happened with Hammond and Savage. Savage was a lackey, but wanted to be paid a directors salary. Hammond was a director, but wanted to be paid a massive hike. Murray came on, and is on (I've got no idea, so I'm making it up) a reasonable managers salary. Therefore DK does not have to worry about upsetting other players on managers salaries. I think I've taken this metaphor far too far already, so I'll call it a day there.
However, given that I'm new to the argument, and can't be bothered to do any work, I'll happily take up the 'debate'.
BigGully, I was going to quote one of your big posts but it's just too much effort. So instead I have a couple of questions for you.
1. Have you ever been involved in the financial management of a business? Do you understand the work involved to secure funding from financial institutions? I haven't, but I have at least a vague idea how they work. Firms become insolvent when they cannot secure funds (whether actual credit or more overdraft facilities, etc) to cover their losses. Running at a loss does not make a firm insolvent. This club is run at a loss; but the directors put up funds (either directly or as guarantees) to allow us to secure funding to continue to run. Clubs such as Bournemouth are solvent until the point at which they can no longer secure funds to cover their losses.
2. Do you understand the idea of a wage structure? It seems that you don't. I am not talking about a total pot of money from which all wages must come (although that is part of it, despite what you may think). I am talking about the different levels of wages within a structure. I am one of the lackeys at my work; above me there are managers, and above them directors. If I, as a lackey, asked for £50k a year at my next job (especially if I used the local press to carry out high-profile negotiations), then my co-lackeys would find out, and would start demanding a similar salary. The managers, who were on £50k, would then ask for £75k. The directors, who were on £75k, would ask for £100k. Either the MD would get rid of everyone, or alternatively, he would not give me the money I asked. This is what happened with Hammond and Savage. Savage was a lackey, but wanted to be paid a directors salary. Hammond was a director, but wanted to be paid a massive hike. Murray came on, and is on (I've got no idea, so I'm making it up) a reasonable managers salary. Therefore DK does not have to worry about upsetting other players on managers salaries. I think I've taken this metaphor far too far already, so I'll call it a day there.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
:thud:
BigGully. There is absolutely nothing theoretical about a debt-ridden company having budgets and wage structures.
Sod it. You are absolutely impervious to reason. I give up too.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I'll save BigGully the effort:
*clears throat*
"Yes but we still spent £300k on Murray which was money we could have used on Savage and Hammonds salary demands and that wouldn't have cost the club any more outlay than the Murray fee and then we would have kept Savage and Hammond and everything would be perfect and we're running at a loss and are insolvent anyway so what if we spend a bit more it wouldn't make any difference because the directors always come up with the money because if they didn't then we would be technically insolvent or is that actually solvent oh hang on I think I've dropped my Babybel but its ok I havn't peeled it yet so it won't be dirty if I can just oh no its gone under the cooker I'll have to get back to you oops there goes the phone it could be some more inside information for me or is it those indians trying to sell insurance again because if it is then I'll tell them I don't own the house anyway so theres no point but then what if they ask about my mother I'm not giving out maiden names because I've seen what happens and"
Perry Milkins
Just a quiet guy.
What do you know though, Buzzer? You're only a counter of beans!
Lets be correct super sten..
Your first point, yes I have.
And I agree with your first point to a degree, I called in bankrolling you havent.
I am not 100% sure whether Bournemouth were solvent prior to becoming insolvent. I would guess that Bournemouth going into Administration was prompted more by a main creditor rather than someone actually acknowledging whether they were solvent or not, otherwise administration might of happened alot earlier.
I think what your saying is how business's survive, rather than how solvent they are.
As for your 2nd point, you think you wasted an hour reading all the posts on this thread, well I reckon I wasted about 2 minutes reading your second point and 15 mins, trying to work out whats worth responding to !!!
Look if DK could not retain 3 players because that would break the wage structure in Dec 2007, lets say the overall financial package would of meant £100,000 out of players budget for those players ( for argument sake )
Then if DK then signed 3 players in Jan 2008 with a financial package out of the players budget of the same amount £100,000
Whats happened ??
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Priceless.
I'm not 100% sure whether my toast had butter on it prior to me buttering it. I suppose it was technically butterless prior to being buttered, but once I buttered it, it had butter on. So technically, its buttered. But I'm not sure about whether it was buttered before. Anyway, its only buttered because I buttered it. If no-one buttered it, then it would technically be butterless.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Oohh I know, I know !
He added to the squad, whilst maintaining the clubs wage structure, and therefore avoided a queue of players in the summer all asking for THEIR salaries to be increased in line with what would have been a broken wage structure.
Do I win £5 ?
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
:thud:
I am not talking about the overall budget. As I said, the amount spend may well be the same. The difference is the players positions within the wage heirarchy of the club. I'm going to make up some numbers to make my point, so bear with me. Bas Savage wants £2k a week; DK says 'okay we can afford that from our overall playing budget in the next two years, DEAL'. Andy Whing, who feels he is just as important to the club as Savage, but is only paid £1k a week, goes banging on DKs door. 'DK, I want to be paid the same as Savage, I'm worth just as much to the club'. DK: 'OK Andy, that's fair enough, I'll give you £2k a week as well'. Repeat ad infinum throughout pretty much the entire squad, because everyone thinks they are worth the same as Savage (or are worth 2/3 of what Savage is, or 1/2, or whatever). Then the wage bill has suddenly spiralled out of control.
That is the idea of a wage structure, and that is precisely why you can only break it for very specific players; because that players wage, and his role in the squad, has to be unquestionable to the rest of the players.
Thank goodness that's all cleared up then. Well done EASY. Thread CLOSED.