Sent from my iPhone
On 10 Jun 2011, at 17:19, [email protected] wrote: > >>> Noone said anything about 'caving in' to anyone's demands. Say the agent > was at 11k, and we're at 4k. If you can negotiate there is a deal to be > done between 5-8k. Simply saying take our starting offer or fck off is a > ridiculous state of affairs. << > > > The player was on £4k. We offered £7k. Player/agent demanded £11k. We said > no. Player/agent turned down £7k. We did exactly what you advocated. > Clearly there was no "deal to be done between 5-8k". £7k is between 5-8k, > no? So > what should we have done? Tried to do a deal between £7k and £11k? That > would surely be caving in to the demands? > No - it would be negotiating. Making an initial offer of a new contract, rejecting a counter offer and then saying 'fuck off that's it' is not negotiating. > >>> As for journeymen - both players have been with us for a number of > years, improved and given good service in that time. I don't have their > wikipedias open in front of me but I'll bet given their age they will have > had > fewer than 3 clubs. Do you know what journeymen means?<< > > > > They're both prepeared to ply their trade elsewhere if more money is > forthcoming. Perhaps "journeyman" was the wrong term. How about "mercenary"? > > Yes, I agree they have improved. That is why one of them was offered a 75% > pay rise. Which was turned down. We're all mercenaries. The reason they turned it down is because the club would not pay Market rate, and it can, it just won't. As I say, pretty myopic in my view. > > >>> I suggest you do likewise re turnover to wages and the rules. The clubs > in our division have agreed to 'work towards' the introduction of new > regulations by the beginning of 2012/13. At the moment, the turnover:wages > ratio limit at LEAGUE 2 level is 60% reducing to 55% next year. Deloitte say > 60% in football is sustainable. If your figures are right and we pay our > players 11k a week (allowing for youth team and reserve players) we have at > least 30% room for manoeuvre on an aspirational target for two divisions > below us. This is why our good young players are walking for free. This is > short termism - they walk for nowt. We have the option of either replacing > them > with better or equivalent players (which costs Market rate wages + > transfer fee) or grabbing short term loans and hasbeens to plug the gap. Ken > chooses the latter option which is why we will be relegated within the next 5 > > years without investment in the current squad and better players too. Mark my > > words.<< > > > > This is nonsense. You're advocating we run up a £15 million players' wage > bill. Nobody offers long contracts in the championship. You sign players on > a free for two years, and risk them going on a free if you don't get out. > And everyone uses loan players. > > If someone like Johnson can get £15k a week from a lowly prem team he'll > take it - it's a 400% pay rise and his mum gets to see him on the telly. > > And paying top dollar doesn't guarantee promotion - look at Cardiff, run > near to bankruptcy and failing every year to gain promotion. No I'm not, you said paying all the first team squad 11k a week equated to 7 mill a year or 25% of turnover. I was saying we could pay that over the full squad. Like I say, deloitte say that 60% ratio is sustainable in football. It gives us a lot of wriggle room to invest in the squad sustainably, which I am assuming you want. If you don't, what are you doing here? I also said that that was on the assumption the figures you quote are right. Which I doubt, not because you haven't looked at the accounts, just that you can bet your bottom dollar lots of our cash is spirited away offshore. > > > >>> For the record I never said we should be paying Johnson and Kilkenny > £11,000.00 a week. Obviously we should negotiate a deal which suits all > parties.<< > > > We tried to. They turned it down. See above. Making one offer and saying fuck off to a counter offer is not negotiating. It's arrogant, short sighted and is cutting your nose off to spite your face. > > >>> As for holding Coventry up as some shining example, I note that they > posted a loss last year of £3,000,000.00. The only way a football club > seriously makes money is through football. I'm glad you enjoyed your trade > fair > but you havent got a clue, have you?<< > > > I'm not holding it up as a shining example, you numpty. Just using it to > illustrate the point that football clubs need to develop other revenue > streams, like banqueting, conferences, exhibitions, concerts etc. It was > used to > dismiss your remark that somehow expanding the hospitality facilities at ER > would compromise the team. It won't - it will generate revenue. Which may > or may not be spent on the team. > > Coventry is a shite team with a low attendance. I'd guess that's the > reason for their losses, wouldn't you? > Well, maybe they're a shite team with low attendances because they choose to invest in non-football income streams rather than the playing squad. Hey at least we can get a whole load of Mondeo men to come to Elland Road trying to sell bridal wear or whatever. You really don't get it. It is a football club. It's business is football. That's why we are here. I > M > > > _______________________________________________ > Leedslist mailing list > Info and options: > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > To unsubscribe, email [email protected] > > MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) > _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
