[moondog]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 October 2016 - 10:48 PM, said:

I'm sorry but I don't have to answer to you - I know you wish we all could and would but it ain't gonna happen.
You may be a milk monitor / sorry moderator and have the ear of a random board member but trust me on this one (I'm right).

Whilst I've asked the question it's on behalf of everyone reading what your telling us.

[azul]

60s 70s Spireite, on 26 October 2016 - 03:45 PM, said:

And he looked to be hobbling on his feet by the end of the match on Saturday- but certain people wouldn't know that as they don't attend.

Please don't say that

[azul]

moondog, on 26 October 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

Where do you get this from ? don't avoid the question as stating this as though its fact is not on.

There are the figures provided to me

"We do not pay any player more than £3,000 a week. This is a ceiling.

We have:

£2,000 Or Over £2,000 10 Players
Over £1,000 to £2,000 7 Players
Under £1,000 9 Players"

I hope you you asked them why that sort of information isn't in the accounts. Not the individual stuff, but things like the breakdown of players, coaches and senior management, including bonuses.

Then we could decide for ourselves as shareholders, where there is waste.

[azul]

moondog, on 26 October 2016 - 10:56 PM, said:

Whilst I've asked the question it's on behalf of everyone reading what your telling us.

Agreed, I'd be interested, then I could decide for myself whether to trust it or not

[Tylerdurdencfc]

moondog, on 26 October 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

Where do you get this from ? don't avoid the question as stating this as though its fact is not on.

There are the figures provided to me

"We do not pay any player more than £3,000 a week. This is a ceiling.

We have:

£2,000 Or Over £2,000 10 Players
Over £1,000 to £2,000 7 Players
Under £1,000 9 Players"

So basically every player is at the very top end of those scales then as if you max then out at £3k, 2k and 1k then the total comes to £2,756,000. If the players wages are £2.3million then you do £2,756,000 - £2,300,000 it gives £456,000 extra, divide that by 52 gives £8,769.23 a week less less or an average of £337.27 per player less than the max.

So an average would be per player in each bracket

£2,700
£1,700
£700

We have roughly ten players on £2,700 a week which in that current team is absolutely diabolical, if agreed by the CEO, he wants sacking just for that alone.

So 17 players on average £1,700 a week or more, unreal. No wonder the clubs twaddled.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

moondog, on 26 October 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

Where do you get this from ? don't avoid the question as stating this as though its fact is not on.

There are the figures provided to me

"We do not pay any player more than £3,000 a week. This is a ceiling.

We have:

£2,000 Or Over £2,000 10 Players
Over £1,000 to £2,000 7 Players
Under £1,000 9 Players"

Isn't it then possible that Shrewsbury are paying SEB 2k a week and that we were paying him 5k beforehand?

[moondog]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 27 October 2016 - 01:01 AM, said:

Isn't it then possible that Shrewsbury are paying SEB 2k a week and that we were paying him 5k beforehand?

Not given his £3k ceiling quote, the full pm is below


Sent Yesterday, 12:21 PM
SE Blake

Mark we do not pay any player more than £3,000 a week. This is a ceiling.

We have:

£2,000 Or Over £2,000 10 Players
Over £1,000 to £2,000 7 Players
Under £1,000 9 Players


Followed by

Sent Yesterday, 12:24 PM
Wagers Currently

£2.3 Million + Appearance Money (Approx £150,000) per annum

We are not even half way up the wages league with this either!

[moondog]

Mr Mercury, on 26 October 2016 - 09:55 PM, said:

I agree, along with the 5% for Turner, which will also be denied.

The 5% has not been denied yet and its been discussed on here enough for the club to quash it

[moondog]

Forever a Spireite, on 26 October 2016 - 10:43 PM, said:

Mark ask Ashley what the plan going forward is. If he doesn't answer tell him to go away politely. Your a Spireite and a top lad but the Deedahs are making you look stupid. Carson can post on here whenever he is sober sorry whenever he wants

I expect he'd say that's covered in his report to shareholders.

I'm happy to look stupid in your eyes if it means fans on here being more informed.

Whilst I'd prefer him to post directly I can understand why he doesn't

[Guest_freelander2_*]

moondog, on 27 October 2016 - 05:30 AM, said:

The 5% has not been denied yet and its been discussed on here enough for the club to quash it

If Turner receives 5%, what does the first team manager and coaching staff receive who are directly involved in a player's development? What happens when a player doesn't work out, such as SEB and many others like him, is a penalty applied to Turner's salary relative to the liability of the player's contract?

Like I said, if it's true, paying such bonuses to the head of a business whose balance sheet has deteriorated by circa 43% over the past 4 years demonstrates just how screwed up our club currently is.

This post has been edited by freelander2: 27 October 2016 - 06:03 AM

[moondog]

freelander2, on 27 October 2016 - 05:51 AM, said:

If Turner receives 5%, what does the first team manager and coaching staff receive who are directly involved in a player's development? What happens when a player doesn't work out, such as SEB and many others like him, is a penalty applied to Turner's salary relative to the liability of the player's contract?

Like I said, if it's true, paying such bonuses to the head of a business whose balance sheet has deteriorated by circa 42% over the past 4 years demonstrates just how screwed up our club currently is.

Fully agree, if It the line at the AGM is we don't discuss an individuals contract we can assume its true given the very damaging impact this has on fans and sponsors perceptions and the balance sheet

[Jbspire]

freelander2, on 26 October 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

image upload no resize

Thanks. We don't hold much cash for a business of this size do we! Wonder what the debtors are? Unpaid transfer fee receipts?

[brianclose]

moondog, on 27 October 2016 - 05:25 AM, said:

Not given his £3k ceiling quote, the full pm is below


Sent Yesterday, 12:21 PM
SE Blake

Mark we do not pay any player more than £3,000 a week. This is a ceiling.

We have:

£2,000 Or Over £2,000 10 Players
Over £1,000 to £2,000 7 Players
Under £1,000 9 Players


Followed by

Sent Yesterday, 12:24 PM
Wagers Currently

£2.3 Million + Appearance Money (Approx £150,000) per annum

We are not even half way up the wages league with this either!

If we're so careful not to pay the players too much, why the **** are we haemorrhaging money year on year!

We cant have it all ways and blame players wages/bonuses on the one hand, then pretend we are frugal with them on the other.

And despite what others say, if the figures from Ashley are true, I would think that was a pretty typical breakdown of playing wages for L1 club.

This post has been edited by brianclose: 27 October 2016 - 09:19 AM

[Stockholm Spireite]

brianclose, on 27 October 2016 - 09:13 AM, said:

If we're so careful not to pay the players too much, why the **** are we haemorrhaging money year on year!

We cant have it all ways and blame players wages/bonuses on the one hand, then pretend we are frugal with them on the other.

Exactly. Rather than a response that closes the lid on a particular issue, this raises more questions.

The answers to those questions may be unpalatable to those who are asked.

If I could ask one thing of posters on this thread, it would be to keep some powder dry for the AGM. Too many points raised on here may make it an easier ride for those who will answer.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

Stockholm Spireite, on 27 October 2016 - 10:10 AM, said:

If I could ask one thing of posters on this thread, it would be to keep some powder dry for the AGM. Too many points raised on here may make it an easier ride for those who will answer.

I agree to an extent.

However, some of the questions will require prior research and authorisation. It would be impractical to expect the Auditor to have every piece of historic data available on the night to answer questions.

[60s 70s Spireite]

freelander2, on 27 October 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

I agree to an extent.

However, some of the questions will require prior research and authorisation. It would be impractical to expect the Auditor to have every piece of historic data available on the night to answer questions.

A lot of auditors will deliberately not bring their file, so that can't answer searching questions.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

moondog, on 26 October 2016 - 08:15 PM, said:

Remember the £2.3m is the current playing wage bill not at year ending 30/6/16 but I agree with the point you make.

The average number of employee during the reporting year is reported as follows (last year's figures in brackets)


Number of management players and coaches 77 (71)
Number of administration, commercial, conference & banqueting and community staff 102 (94)
Number of matchday staff 79 (83)

Total 258 (248)


Apart from matchday staff the numbers appear extraordinarily high to me

Given that the wage bill appears to have spiraled out of control in recent years and is certainly unsustainable for a club of our size, I would like to see AC breakdown the total salary costs by department for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, and also show a separate cost relating to severance pay.

This post has been edited by freelander2: 27 October 2016 - 11:13 AM

[moondog]

I've asked AC to confirm if the 5% commision payments on player sales to the CEO is true or not given our concerns. his response "I will clarify this point at the AGM in the meeting. I will be honest and confirm the true position"

[calvin plummers socks]

I think you should step down as moderator like Dalekpete did.
Too much of a conflict of interest

[clarevoyant.]

calvin plummers socks, on 27 October 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

I think you should step down as moderator like Dalekpete did.
Too much of a conflict of interest

We've had a few disagreements over the years, mainly instigated by me taking the "p" over your ill inconceived posts, this one however takes the biscuit. New depths of idiocy achieved, well done