Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign loads of players, but has to forego his 'consultancy fee'.
Bet Stan's finding it hard to remain silent at the moment.
Do we actually have that restriction or is it rumour?
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Do we actually have that restriction or is it rumour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently it's kosher although if we offload a few which is likely then we'll be fine
comment by The Gin Palace (U21084)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Do we actually have that restriction or is it rumour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently it's kosher although if we offload a few which is likely then we'll be fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. Do you know what the reason is?
Is it to do with having a certain % of wage vs revenue with FFP?
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Do we actually have that restriction or is it rumour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The new TV deal offers a steady stream of revenue that may tempt clubs to overreach themselves in the transfer market. To avoid this, the PL has attached some strings in an attempt to force clubs to spend the bulk of this money on much more wholesome things like infrastructure and such.
As far as I can tell, no more than £7m out of the £120m+ annual FA payment can be spent on wages.
However, any other commercial revenue made by a club can be spent as they please.
Actually never mind, I just read why it's an issue.
Because of missing out on CL revenue we'll struggle with the rules regarding wage increases from the previous season.
Might even have to partly pay off certain players just to get them off the books.
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Do we actually have that restriction or is it rumour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The new TV deal offers a steady stream of revenue that may tempt clubs to overreach themselves in the transfer market. To avoid this, the PL has attached some strings in an attempt to force clubs to spend the bulk of this money on much more wholesome things like infrastructure and such.
As far as I can tell, no more than £7m out of the £120m+ annual FA payment can be spent on wages.
However, any other commercial revenue made by a club can be spent as they please.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't that be restraint of trade? Link please.
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 12 minutes ago
Actually never mind, I just read why it's an issue.
Because of missing out on CL revenue we'll struggle with the rules regarding wage increases from the previous season.
Might even have to partly pay off certain players just to get them off the books.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No need to start bumping players off. The club's money men just have to play the market more.
We've just bought out the £30m p/a Puma contract a year early, and signed a massive £90m p/a short-term two-year deal with Adidas.
I know it smacks of desperation and keeping up with the Joneses, but it will also inject upwards of £150m into our coffers even if we fail to qualify for the CL next season.
Money we can spend on trying to keep up with the big boys.
We are Arsenal PLC after all.
The Champions League money amounts to something like £70m if you win it. That includes all the TV etc. So I am not sure losing out on £50m matters on the balance sheet when Arsenal are now getting more than . What you do lose is brand presence. And as Kroenke relies on that for his loan facilities I suspect that is the reason for the splurge in players.
I still don't understand this £7m figure. So I would like a link.
I think the £7M refers to increase in the wage bill from the previous season rather than the total amount. That is the maximun tolerated.
Maybe this is why the club are waiting on Sanchez and Ozil to know how much increase there would be before more signing (as Ornstein suggested yesterday).
But tolerated by whom and where does this figure come from? I don't see any logic to it.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 6 minutes ago
But tolerated by whom and where does this figure come from? I don't see any logic to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think iI've read somewhere that it's from the FA but don't quote me on this.
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
Does a lower wage but with bonuses not solve that problem?
Our turnover will increase by £100m+. So we aren't running foul of the FFP. Which are almost discounted as a joke with no teeth these days. The corruption probes have put an end to them. So I just don't get this £7m figure. We can increase wages by £100m if we want and in fact wages are expected to up by 20% in the next 2 years.
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 7 minutes ago
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Gill
Yes, that's the article I saw previously.
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 3 minutes ago
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't apply to us and a misunderstanding of the rules to make a story. Very simply our turnover was already over £350m before the TV deal. So we can take any portion of that and say that is commercial income and any new spend is from our present income. The money from the TV deal is reserved for infrastructure spend. Keep in mind Arsenal already have £170m+ in capital reserves. This was the point I was making earlier when discussing if we can afford Mbappe. And in reality we are a part of the very select clubs who can because of the cash reserves.
The rules are geared for clubs like West Ham and Everton who had problems under FFP because their wages were to a high a portion of their turnover.
comment by FFS.. 2 more years... (U10012)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 7 minutes ago
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Gill
Yes, that's the article I saw previously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the lads at the AST look like they're pretty good at this financial stuff.
I loved the video they did at the end of the season.
https://youtu.be/MMh0gVKwslI
Actually I am not surprised that even reputable sites are not doing their homework are worse purposely misleading for click bait.
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 15 minutes ago
Does a lower wage but with bonuses not solve that problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It all adds up in the end. We're probably going to end up with a higher profit margin as a result of not paying Champions League bonuses.
Makes you want to cry at times.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 3 minutes ago
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't apply to us and a misunderstanding of the rules to make a story. Very simply our turnover was already over £350m before the TV deal. So we can take any portion of that and say that is commercial income and any new spend is from our present income. The money from the TV deal is reserved for infrastructure spend. Keep in mind Arsenal already have £170m+ in capital reserves. This was the point I was making earlier when discussing if we can afford Mbappe. And in reality we are a part of the very select clubs who can because of the cash reserves.
The rules are geared for clubs like West Ham and Everton who had problems under FFP because their wages were to a high a portion of their turnover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's one way of looking at it. Mine's a bit more cynical.
The way I see it, the billionaire club owners have managed to land a massive financial whale and then put in a few stipulations to avoid the obvious obligation by the fans to spend it all.
It will all end up as guaranteed ring-fenced profit.
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 3 minutes ago
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't apply to us and a misunderstanding of the rules to make a story. Very simply our turnover was already over £350m before the TV deal. So we can take any portion of that and say that is commercial income and any new spend is from our present income. The money from the TV deal is reserved for infrastructure spend. Keep in mind Arsenal already have £170m+ in capital reserves. This was the point I was making earlier when discussing if we can afford Mbappe. And in reality we are a part of the very select clubs who can because of the cash reserves.
The rules are geared for clubs like West Ham and Everton who had problems under FFP because their wages were to a high a portion of their turnover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's one way of looking at it. Mine's a bit more cynical.
The way I see it, the billionaire club owners have managed to land a massive financial whale and then put in a few stipulations to avoid the obvious obligation by the fans to spend it all.
It will all end up as guaranteed ring-fenced profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust me. Declaring profits is something you do NOT want to do. Apart from the very bad optics, you also have to pay tax. What Kroenke wants is for the value of Arsenal to go up to either borrow against it or to sell it to Usmanov. The rules really don't apply to clubs who already have very good wage to turnover ratios. Its a naughty article aimed at most who do not understand corporate financing.
Sign in if you want to comment
Wages
Page 1 of 2
posted on 5/7/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 5/7/17
Sign loads of players, but has to forego his 'consultancy fee'.
Bet Stan's finding it hard to remain silent at the moment.
posted on 5/7/17
Do we actually have that restriction or is it rumour?
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Do we actually have that restriction or is it rumour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently it's kosher although if we offload a few which is likely then we'll be fine
posted on 5/7/17
comment by The Gin Palace (U21084)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Do we actually have that restriction or is it rumour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently it's kosher although if we offload a few which is likely then we'll be fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. Do you know what the reason is?
Is it to do with having a certain % of wage vs revenue with FFP?
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Do we actually have that restriction or is it rumour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The new TV deal offers a steady stream of revenue that may tempt clubs to overreach themselves in the transfer market. To avoid this, the PL has attached some strings in an attempt to force clubs to spend the bulk of this money on much more wholesome things like infrastructure and such.
As far as I can tell, no more than £7m out of the £120m+ annual FA payment can be spent on wages.
However, any other commercial revenue made by a club can be spent as they please.
posted on 5/7/17
Actually never mind, I just read why it's an issue.
Because of missing out on CL revenue we'll struggle with the rules regarding wage increases from the previous season.
Might even have to partly pay off certain players just to get them off the books.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Do we actually have that restriction or is it rumour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The new TV deal offers a steady stream of revenue that may tempt clubs to overreach themselves in the transfer market. To avoid this, the PL has attached some strings in an attempt to force clubs to spend the bulk of this money on much more wholesome things like infrastructure and such.
As far as I can tell, no more than £7m out of the £120m+ annual FA payment can be spent on wages.
However, any other commercial revenue made by a club can be spent as they please.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 5/7/17
Wouldn't that be restraint of trade? Link please.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 12 minutes ago
Actually never mind, I just read why it's an issue.
Because of missing out on CL revenue we'll struggle with the rules regarding wage increases from the previous season.
Might even have to partly pay off certain players just to get them off the books.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No need to start bumping players off. The club's money men just have to play the market more.
We've just bought out the £30m p/a Puma contract a year early, and signed a massive £90m p/a short-term two-year deal with Adidas.
I know it smacks of desperation and keeping up with the Joneses, but it will also inject upwards of £150m into our coffers even if we fail to qualify for the CL next season.
Money we can spend on trying to keep up with the big boys.
We are Arsenal PLC after all.
posted on 5/7/17
The Champions League money amounts to something like £70m if you win it. That includes all the TV etc. So I am not sure losing out on £50m matters on the balance sheet when Arsenal are now getting more than . What you do lose is brand presence. And as Kroenke relies on that for his loan facilities I suspect that is the reason for the splurge in players.
I still don't understand this £7m figure. So I would like a link.
posted on 5/7/17
I think the £7M refers to increase in the wage bill from the previous season rather than the total amount. That is the maximun tolerated.
Maybe this is why the club are waiting on Sanchez and Ozil to know how much increase there would be before more signing (as Ornstein suggested yesterday).
posted on 5/7/17
But tolerated by whom and where does this figure come from? I don't see any logic to it.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 6 minutes ago
But tolerated by whom and where does this figure come from? I don't see any logic to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think iI've read somewhere that it's from the FA but don't quote me on this.
posted on 5/7/17
PAMS with Mark Aplin
posted on 5/7/17
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
posted on 5/7/17
Does a lower wage but with bonuses not solve that problem?
posted on 5/7/17
Our turnover will increase by £100m+. So we aren't running foul of the FFP. Which are almost discounted as a joke with no teeth these days. The corruption probes have put an end to them. So I just don't get this £7m figure. We can increase wages by £100m if we want and in fact wages are expected to up by 20% in the next 2 years.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 7 minutes ago
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Gill
Yes, that's the article I saw previously.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 3 minutes ago
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't apply to us and a misunderstanding of the rules to make a story. Very simply our turnover was already over £350m before the TV deal. So we can take any portion of that and say that is commercial income and any new spend is from our present income. The money from the TV deal is reserved for infrastructure spend. Keep in mind Arsenal already have £170m+ in capital reserves. This was the point I was making earlier when discussing if we can afford Mbappe. And in reality we are a part of the very select clubs who can because of the cash reserves.
The rules are geared for clubs like West Ham and Everton who had problems under FFP because their wages were to a high a portion of their turnover.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by FFS.. 2 more years... (U10012)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 7 minutes ago
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Gill
Yes, that's the article I saw previously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the lads at the AST look like they're pretty good at this financial stuff.
I loved the video they did at the end of the season.
https://youtu.be/MMh0gVKwslI
posted on 5/7/17
Actually I am not surprised that even reputable sites are not doing their homework are worse purposely misleading for click bait.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 15 minutes ago
Does a lower wage but with bonuses not solve that problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It all adds up in the end. We're probably going to end up with a higher profit margin as a result of not paying Champions League bonuses.
Makes you want to cry at times.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 3 minutes ago
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't apply to us and a misunderstanding of the rules to make a story. Very simply our turnover was already over £350m before the TV deal. So we can take any portion of that and say that is commercial income and any new spend is from our present income. The money from the TV deal is reserved for infrastructure spend. Keep in mind Arsenal already have £170m+ in capital reserves. This was the point I was making earlier when discussing if we can afford Mbappe. And in reality we are a part of the very select clubs who can because of the cash reserves.
The rules are geared for clubs like West Ham and Everton who had problems under FFP because their wages were to a high a portion of their turnover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's one way of looking at it. Mine's a bit more cynical.
The way I see it, the billionaire club owners have managed to land a massive financial whale and then put in a few stipulations to avoid the obvious obligation by the fans to spend it all.
It will all end up as guaranteed ring-fenced profit.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 3 minutes ago
".........The Premier League has new cost control measures, coming into force this summer, which are shaping Arsenal’s thinking. The rules say that a club’s wage bill should not be more than £7m more than it was in 2016-17, or £19m more than from the 2012-13 season. If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds.........."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/arsenal-transfer-news-summer-sell-out-tie-alexis-sanchez-mesut-ozil-new-contract-a7803741.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't apply to us and a misunderstanding of the rules to make a story. Very simply our turnover was already over £350m before the TV deal. So we can take any portion of that and say that is commercial income and any new spend is from our present income. The money from the TV deal is reserved for infrastructure spend. Keep in mind Arsenal already have £170m+ in capital reserves. This was the point I was making earlier when discussing if we can afford Mbappe. And in reality we are a part of the very select clubs who can because of the cash reserves.
The rules are geared for clubs like West Ham and Everton who had problems under FFP because their wages were to a high a portion of their turnover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's one way of looking at it. Mine's a bit more cynical.
The way I see it, the billionaire club owners have managed to land a massive financial whale and then put in a few stipulations to avoid the obvious obligation by the fans to spend it all.
It will all end up as guaranteed ring-fenced profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust me. Declaring profits is something you do NOT want to do. Apart from the very bad optics, you also have to pay tax. What Kroenke wants is for the value of Arsenal to go up to either borrow against it or to sell it to Usmanov. The rules really don't apply to clubs who already have very good wage to turnover ratios. Its a naughty article aimed at most who do not understand corporate financing.
Page 1 of 2