I've been thinking about this idea that we can halve our wage bill with this scheme. Don't get me wrong the scheme seems a pretty simple but effective idea. But i think they are being a bit ambitious thinking we could cut £4m a year from the wage bill whilst bringing in players at £2k a week.

So if Billy is supposed to be by far our biggest earner on ~£10k a week? I can't see them selling Billy (unless he asks to leave). How many players apart from him can we have on wages that would make a worthwhile saving? #26, Oster, Stock, Brown and possibly Hayts, Friend, Barnes and Naylor have to be the next tier of wages.

So say they are on an average of £6k a week, which is probably over estimating if anything. We'd need to get rid of like 13 players. That's before taking off the £2k a week they would have to pay any replacements, which they would need to do as the squad is small as it is. Considering we can only have a certain amount of loanees at one time surely the max they can really get rid of is 7 or 8?

I don't know if i'm being stupid but where are they going to save £4m?

I like Fuzzy's argument as it is , as always, well researched , logical and well presented but I also like Newyankees positive and emotional spin. What is in no doubt is it is novel and risky but probably what Rovers needed. If it does spread and effectively moderates player remuneration then I'm all for it. For all the talk of the immorality of bankers bonuses and CEO salaries, little is said of the ridiculous pay of most professional footballers.

When i say "they are on an average..." i meant the senior players, the squad avergage is nearer £1.5-2k

The board of directors could do a lot worse than taking note of the observations which they are getting here. I hope that it will assist them in tailoring their approach to the management of this very challenging situation. There is the financial case about which some of the above comments seem to require answers and there is the man management which I find equally interesting and problematical.

NewYankee: Borrowing young developing players like JET and Mutch is not what this is about. The terms under which all of those who have been with us for development have included selection on merit which is not implicit in the current arrangement.

You are an ideas man, keen to promote entrepreneurial initiatives. Whether they would ALL work is questionable. We do not constantly challenge what you suggest, but this is important and we are questioning it. Rather than accusing those who want to examine the scheme's potential problems of being negative, it would be useful to hear how you think these problems might be overcome. It is not our role to actually run this, but we all surely recognise that if you want to develop a successful enterprise it is crucial to distinguish between what will work and what carries an unmanageable degree of risk.

The risk here is (for me) almost frightening, but it does not seem to worry you nearly as much so it would be interesting if you gave your views on how it might be managed.

I am not sure that I could, or for that matter, anyone could manage this on their own. It actually needs a group of like minded people to think of and argue through the good and bad. This is what we are doing at the moment. I am sure the Board does so as well.

What we can do is look at the alternatives. Some points will not be liked by some of you.

1) this was to stay as we were under a manager who had lost all confidence in himself, had lost the confidence of most of the Board and passed the lack of such to his players. His answer was to take the club down and come back.

It turns out that the Board did not want to go that way as nothing could be certain that we would come straight back. Those putting in the money were not prepared to carry on feeding the drain.

2) Secondly we could have gone out and looked for more investment. I actually think this was an alternative which was considered. It did not progress because, in my opinion the club does not have a CEO with the ability to sell the club to other investors. The Board has been made up over the years from people known to JR.

3) The final and most upsetting for the fans would have been to put the club up for sale to the highest bidder. Anyone could have come in and we may have got a Manderic, Bates or even worse a Ridsdale come in. At least, for the time being we have averted that.

Let's look at the outgoings in wages which we are told is 8 mill. I tend to believe that Billy is actually on 15 grand not 10 which takes up 750,000 a year, almost 10%. We have a squad of 25 players on an average of 4,000 per week which is 5.2 mill. This is before paying the manager, his assistant , traing and physio staff and other coaches including those for the Academy. You then have all the Academy players who, although not paid much individually, add up to a large sum overall. Then you come to the longer loans, paying them what they were on at their parent clubs ie younger players on lower than average Premier contracts. You then get the added loanees coming in on much larger incomes, Healy and the centre half from Sunderland (name escapes me) who sat on a bench most of the time.

Bearing in mind we have had the enormous number of long term injuries, these players are also paid when injured.

It's not difficult to come up with how the wage bill is 8 million. Can they cut it in half, I doubt it, because we will always need the nucleus of a team ( squad). Where we can save is by having that squad at around 20 and not 25 with the others being part of the flexible McKay scheme, coming and going.

I don't know for sure if I have covered all the points or even given answers to all the points, but I do feel we have to give this a chance to work. If we don't we could be looking at the other alternatives mentioned, or the even worse scenario that we go down, the Board jacks in, no one with money takes over and we go down and down back into oblivion.

For that reason we have to give this a try, the FA seem to think it is workable and not against their rules.

Why am I way off with Wilson?

I just said he's disillusioned with his lot at Rovers and now sees his future elsewhere. I did not give a reason for this nor did I say that it wouldn't have happened anyway under SOD.

The point I'm making is where I'd agree Wilson was a fringe player, our transfer policy could well disillusion players who are more important to the Rovers than Mark Wilson (with all due respect to him).

It would be a shame for high potential players to become demotivated / disillusioned while a shop-window player is getting games.

Thanks Newyankee: It is undoubtedly challenging; if we do survive in the nPC I will be delighted. Given the complexities of the management task, a good outcome would almost certainly owe something to luck as well as skillful manipulation of resources to obtain success on the field.

What we all agree is that if this is the case, it will be a model that will attract others, but it is equally true that wherever it operates it will be frought with risk.

Great debate guys n gals. Really nothing we can do about it but stand back , b*tch, watch ,and hope! Roll on Saturday.

By the way, I think we worry too much about the players. James Chambers has come out saying he is all for the scheme as it brings competition for places.

In his words, " Obviously, the position we were in, something needed to change".

They are all big boys and can look after themselves. When they are gone and the short termers are gone, the club (hopefully) will still be here, that, at the end of the day is all that matters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15755659.stm
"Agent Willie McKay's plan to keep Doncaster in the Championship" is a just-published BBC article on this very subject.

The more I see some of these reports the more I am convinced there is jealousy at the fact that " little Donny" has had the nerve to come up with this plan. I can see other teams trying to do similar deals with the bigger Prem sides.

If Man U Chelsea, in this country and others abroad can have players keeping fit, in shop windows and playing meaningful games, instead of paying them to do nothing I think they will.

In years to come this could be a blueprint to keep the Championship alive especially if we get a European league which takes out the top four English teams from the Premier League.

EWe shall have to wait and see what happens, it's going to be an interesting ride.

I think the answer to halving the wage bill is not necessarily to halve the wage bill. I think this has not been clearly explained by WM or the club. I think the answer is that there may be some reduction in the wage bill but that it is intended that another chunk of the wage bill will be offset by the additional revenue stream of the sell on fee for players - hence not totally a reduction in cost - some reduction in cost plus some additional revenue.

I go back to my earlier point. This can work but only if DS is strong and picks the best team for each particular match and does not favour "shop window" players because he feels obliged to. If WM's policy is only to bring in players that would improve the team, then the potential problem of player disillusionment is massively reduced.

PS - re the comments on players' salaries - take a look at ET Spike's article on this. It makes interesting reading. Premiership players are clearly paid a massive amount on average - Championship players are well paid but League's One and Two far closer to the man in the street - much more perhaps than most earn, but at least it's in the same ballpark.

Crazy

You have to look at the wages being paid in the Championship by the likes of Southampton, Leicester, West Ham, Ipswich and the like to see the disparity in our division as as the case in the Premiership.

There, the likes of Bolton, Blackburn, Stoke, Everton etc cannot match the likes of Man DC, Man U, Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool.

There has already been mention of a European Super League, which would probably reduce our Prem by four teams.

The remaining 16 with possibly 2 extra from the present Championship would form a new Premiership and the remaining 18 being either the Championship or Premiership One.

If this were to happen sometime in the next five years or so, it would, I think be the death knell for the lower divisions One and Two. These would become an extended semi-pro non league set up.

This is why Doncaster Rovers as a team needs to do everything possible (and legal) to stay in the position we are in at present. This is possibly one reason why the Board were not prepared to back O'Driscoll's let's go down, regroup, and come back up again.

Money will be the mainstay of the big clubs and the noose to all the smaller clubs in the future. TV revenue will only go so far and the big boys will want bigger and bigger share.

NY, I understand that potential changes to the structure of football are a risk. Question is, if a European Super League was created, then what would happen to the Champions League? How would this impact the TV monies being pumped (mainly) into the Premier League and the sums available to be cascaded into the lower leagues? I can certainly imagine the scenario where the European "Super League" teams would try to create a situation for themselves where nobody ever got relegated. However, could this split happen under current PL rules? Would the PL and other leagues have to vote on this? Would UEFA support a European Super Leaguge? Lots of unknowns here and I think there would be a huge backlash against such a move by both other clubs and leagues (including the remaining PL teams) and by fans alike. How likely is it really, that such a league will be created?

I can see the reasons behind this new Rovers approach with the ideal (and very optimistic) outcome being promotion to the PL and access to £90m that could secure the club for a period of years. It is daring and innovative and I hope it works. All some of us are saying is that there are big risks associated with this approach. If the riske are managed then this scheme could just work. If the risks are not identified and managed by the club, then we could be in big trouble.

Finally on finding new investors - I'm not sure that is Mr Morris's job. I see a difference with say, Hull, where you have a very capable (probably expensive) and public figure in Adam Pearson - I can absolutely imagine that Adam was instrumental in securing the investment from Hull's owners. Rovers have taken a different approach, with John Ryan being the front man and (seemingly) strategy lead. I am sure that he and maybe Mr Watson are leading the search for additional investment. I see Mr Morris as more an Administrator which is also a critically important role, but it's not really a CEO role. Whether the club should structure its Senior Management roles differently (bearing in mind cost impact) is another question - but at this stage, it's probably a question to be asked of Messrs Ryan and Watson rather than of Mr Morris.

The point about Morris is that he is paid as and has the title of CEO and also has a position on the Board if you check the club site. In that case he should, like other CEO's be responsible for runnuing the club. The problem is he doesn't have the ability to do that.

JR now spends a lot of time in South Africa and so does not have the hands on approach he had a few years ago, and why should he. This is why he should have a capapble CEO to do this.

In that case I agree with you NY - if JR is no longer performing that role, then somebody should be brought in who does. To get the right person, the club would have to pay big money probably with a performance related equity stake. However, if the CEO is good enough and is given the backing and budget to define and implement the strategy and operating plan, then the investment would be well worth it - and I also agree with you that revenue generation would be a key part of the role.

Crazy,
NY knows better than most the workings of the Board and in particular Mr Morris having met him last year. I can only think that Mr Morris is still there because JR is very loyal to his friends which could be a sign of weakness. NY is spot on when he says that JR does spend more time away from running the club now and is therefore dependant on Morris.

Yes, a good debate.

To push it a little further, try and consider it as a long term strategy.

Scenario 1: The concept fails and we get relegated this season.

- McKay will surely move on (League 1 is no shop-window)
- The loan and short-term players will move on

Depending on how many of our permanent squad we have let go, we could be up a certain creek.

Scenario 2: We just avoid relegation this season

- The concept has neither failed nor is it a success
- McKay stays on and continues to work

In the second season of the concept it could fail. (See sceanario 1 on relegation with the additional point that more of the permanent players are likely to have been moved on so there would likely to be more rebuilding necessary)

Alternatively, the second season could be successful. In this case, you have to ask how many clients can McKay work with as his services are going to be in demand. If we lose him, we lose his players and again, the future doesn't look good.

Scenario 3 - We finish mid-table or above this season.

The concept has proved successful and again McKay will be in demand. Once again, if we lose him, we could be in trouble.

Now, I hope you see my problem with the strategy in the longer term. If it works, we have to somehow maintain the services of a man who could be in considerable demand otherwise we could be in big trouble.

If it doesn't work, McKay moves on and we could be short of players and in big trouble.

Money solves everything of course so lets hope McKay's confidence that his concept could get us into the premier league is not misplaced!

Simple solution Fuzzy

Find a shop that sells glasses which are half full. I think they sell them in the shop where Alex got his rose coloured spctacles.

Fuzzy, you won't be able to do this now! Shame
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15785219

So with the McKay plan we could be in trouble - agreed . Without the Mckay plan would we be in trouble? Seem to recall your plan b Fuzzy that answers this but perhaps it's worth repeating but you would have to admit far less interesting at least.

Fuzzy, NY, my assumption is that during this period, JR and DW will be looking for (an) additional investor(s). The WM scheme is necessary because of the withdrawal of TB and the fact that club revenues have not increased. Hence, in Fuzzy's worst case scenarios, things may still be ok IF additional investment is secured in the meantime.

Yes Crazy, and I have heard rumours that Bramhall may soon be back in the fold ending the uncertainty.

I understand that the retiring Chairman from QPR has stated he would like to get involved with another Championship club.
You never know someone at our club may also see this, and with WM's connections with QPR, there maybe a possibility.

More investment? Sure. I guess McKay's involvement makes the running of the club cheaper short-term which may make it more attractive.

Let's hope there's more millionaires out there who can't think strategically.