Mike Ashley Quotes

[Warmir Pouchov]

Wages are completely seperate to transfer fees.
On that point we will see some big earners go this summer like Colback, Haidara etc... so hopefully that will free up more to play with.

How have you come to this conclusion? Clubs always talk about a transfer budget and how you have to factor in fees and wages. I think it’s all one budget. It’s just that each years salary is apportioned to the correct year. Those wages have to be paid from somewhere. We will have a pot for wages with an overall cap as a percentage of our turnover. We will then have a fees limit. Combined that will be our transfer budget. The money we generate has to service both. As you say sales will see not only the fee but also the wages coming off boost our coffers.

 

[General Lee Speaking]

How have you come to this conclusion? Clubs always talk about a transfer budget and how you have to factor in fees and wages. I think it’s all one budget. It’s just that each years salary is apportioned to the correct year. Those wages have to be paid from somewhere. We will have a pot for wages with an overall cap as a percentage of our turnover. We will then have a fees limit. Combined that will be our transfer budget. The money we generate has to service both. As you say sales will see not only the fee but also the wages coming off boost our coffers.

You have a wage budget for the whole squad and then you have a pot of money for buying players. A club will probably look at the total cost of bringing a player in for comparison but ultimately it doesn't mean a great deal because you don't know how long they will be there, sell on value, contract extensions, etc. What we really want Ashley to do this year is increase the wage budget which I think he'll be reluctant to do because it will decrease profits and he wants the club to be as profitable as possible for sale. It would be the wrong move if he didn't since we make vast profits at the moment and can afford to loosen the purse strings to allow the club to progress.

 

[Sheikh_of_Araby]

Benitez will see out his contract.

Transfers - As above, Dubravka is done. Kenedy will probably be too expensive for this window. Go back for a loan deal with an option to buy at the end of next season. That means we can prioritise a striker and number 10. Spend big on those two positions. Next year, assuming we stay up, sign Kenedy and bolster the squad with the tv/ prize money.

 

[JakartaToon]

Benitez will see out his contract.

Transfers - As above, Dubravka is done. Kenedy will probably be too expensive for this window. Go back for a loan deal with an option to buy at the end of next season. That means we can prioritise a striker and number 10. Spend big on those two positions. Next year, assuming we stay up, bolster the squad with the tv/ prize money.

You do know some of us can remember back as far as last Summer's transfer window don't you?

 

[Sheikh_of_Araby]

You do know some of us can remember back as far as last Summer's transfer window don't you?

Of course. He will stay next season though. Convinced of it. The man loves the club, the area and the people.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

Of course. He will stay next season though. Convinced of it. The man loves the club, the area and the people.

The only spanner in the works would be if a really big club came knocking who can offer him a budget we can't. Managers can be pretty ruthless in this regard. Interesting though he said he is only talking to Newcastle which intimates he believes a deal can be struck and whatever we've generated is enough to keep him interested.

 

[haslam]

It's slightly pointless arguing whether salaries come from the transfer budget or not but what does have to be factored in is that if they are organised in this way then you would need to classify each sale by also factoring in salaries saved eg: Sell Colback for £2m but factor in his wages in the sale as well. Otherwise you are very much skewing the figures to make it look like we've spend more than we have - I appreciate Free-dor would not be seeking to do this as he has been vociferous on the Sunderland board about the advantages of looking at nett spend rather than gross.

 

[Dorty Dogbreath]

It's slightly pointless arguing whether salaries come from the transfer budget or not but what does have to be factored in is that if they are organised in this way then you would need to classify each sale by also factoring in salaries saved eg: Sell Colback for £2m but factor in his wages in the sale as well. Otherwise you are very much skewing the figures to make it look like we've spend more than we have - I appreciate Free-dor would not be seeking to do this as he has been vociferous on the Sunderland board about the advantages of looking at nett spend rather than gross.

Amazing...I mean, are there posters still left on the Mackem board with which to have debates with?

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

It's slightly pointless arguing whether salaries come from the transfer budget or not but what does have to be factored in is that if they are organised in this way then you would need to classify each sale by also factoring in salaries saved eg: Sell Colback for £2m but factor in his wages in the sale as well. Otherwise you are very much skewing the figures to make it look like we've spend more than we have - I appreciate Free-dor would not be seeking to do this as he has been vociferous on the Sunderland board about the advantages of looking at nett spend rather than gross.

Works both ways. You have to consider wages and fees coming in and out. To do otherwise is just silly. I believe the only difference in outgoing and incoming is the agent fees and signing on fees. Incoming transfers cost you more money because the agents and players are a bunch of greedy bastards requiring sweeteners to do the deal.

We have a pot of money for transfers. Wages and transfer fees will come out of this. It can be bolstered by selling players (you get fees and reduce your wage budget). You can separate the wages off if it suits but you can't ignore its an outgoing cost that has to be met. People like to simplify the sales and buys situation into pure transfer fees. Its not really the case for a manager. If he sells a big earner on say 100k a week and replaces him with a guy on 50k a week, he doesn't just think "right I have more to spend on wages". If he has a budget left of say 10m but the player he wants is 12.5m, then I'm sure the club would say you can use the 2.5m saved in wages from selling the 100k earner to fund the difference as its all coming from the same pot.

You see its far from pointless. As it could be a way for manager to use his budgets to develop his team and for betterment.

Thank the lord Rafa is governing this and not you lot.

 

[Rum & Black for 2]

Whilst discussing the amount of money we may have to spend on new players we shouldn't forget our "traditions" of under bidding (tyre kicking as Ashley may call it) for players and/or offering peanuts for wages and expecting to get the organ grinder and not the monkey.

Would also hope that Penfold & Co are ready armed with facts and figures to get our business done early rather than at the end of the window thereby saving a month or two's wages on the new players.

We can but dream.

 

[Judge Death]

Works both ways. You have to consider wages and fees coming in and out. To do otherwise is just silly. I believe the only difference in outgoing and incoming is the agent fees and signing on fees. Incoming transfers cost you more money because the agents and players are a bunch of greedy bastards requiring sweeteners to do the deal.

We have a pot of money for transfers. Wages and transfer fees will come out of this. It can be bolstered by selling players (you get fees and reduce your wage budget). You can separate the wages off if it suits but you can't ignore its an outgoing cost that has to be met. People like to simplify the sales and buys situation into pure transfer fees. Its not really the case for a manager. If he sells a big earner on say 100k a week and replaces him with a guy on 50k a week, he doesn't just think "right I have more to spend on wages". If he has a budget left of say 10m but the player he wants is 12.5m, then I'm sure the club would say you can use the 2.5m saved in wages from selling the 100k earner to fund the difference as its all coming from the same pot.

You see its far from pointless. As it could be a way for manager to use his budgets to develop his team and for betterment.

Thank the lord Rafa is governing this and not you lot.

Ultimately wages and transfers are linked but separate.

In theory we could have an infinite transfer pot, but would still be hamstrung by the fact that we can only spend whatever the current percentage of our income on wages.

This is where Ashley actually is impacting on the club - the lack of additional sponsorship which he effectively takes for free could add to that income and generate a bit more latitude in the wages column, admittedly it would be a fairly small increase, but every little helps.

However, I guess if you stack it up against possible interest payments on loans back to him, it probably evens itself out

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

Whilst discussing the amount of money we may have to spend on new players we shouldn't forget our "traditions" of under bidding (tyre kicking as Ashley may call it) for players and/or offering peanuts for wages and expecting to get the organ grinder and not the monkey.

Would also hope that Penfold & Co are ready armed with facts and figures to get our business done early rather than at the end of the window thereby saving a month or two's wages on the new players.

We can but dream.

Ah this old myth. The conspiracy theorists final gambit as it is also known.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

Ultimately wages and transfers are linked but separate.

In theory we could have an infinite transfer pot, but would still be hamstrung by the fact that we can only spend whatever the current percentage of our income on wages.

This is where Ashley actually is impacting on the club - the lack of additional sponsorship which he effectively takes for free could add to that income and generate a bit more latitude in the wages column, admittedly it would be a fairly small increase, but every little helps.

However, I guess if you stack it up against possible interest payments on loans back to him, it probably evens itself out

We will have a wage structure of course but as we have seen that percentage against turnover moves every year. I'm pretty sure that the in theory situation would only become applicable if we went way too high on the wage against turnover percentage. This would be due to the risk it would create. I'd imagine it is pretty common place to allow managers to spend more on transfers when they are operating significantly under the wage limit. You just can't bust both like some of our fans seem to want.

 

[Rum & Black for 2]

Ah this old myth. The conspiracy theorists final gambit as it is also known.

I know reality is sometimes hard to face but you do need to recognise and acknowledge the truth before you can face the future. Or are you trying to have your cake and eat it namely Staveley not bidding what Mikey wants is tyre kicking but when we don't bid what selling Clubs want for their players then the players are over priced?

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

I know reality is sometimes hard to face but you do need to recognise and acknowledge the truth before you can face the future. Or are you trying to have your cake and eat it namely Staveley not bidding what Mikey wants is tyre kicking but when we don't bid what selling Clubs want for their players then the players are over priced?

I think buying football clubs is somewhat different to buying football players.

Nurse get this man his medication

 

[Beardsley's Stylist]

Works both ways. You have to consider wages and fees coming in and out. To do otherwise is just silly. I believe the only difference in outgoing and incoming is the agent fees and signing on fees. Incoming transfers cost you more money because the agents and players are a bunch of greedy bastards requiring sweeteners to do the deal.

We have a pot of money for transfers. Wages and transfer fees will come out of this. It can be bolstered by selling players (you get fees and reduce your wage budget). You can separate the wages off if it suits but you can't ignore its an outgoing cost that has to be met. People like to simplify the sales and buys situation into pure transfer fees. Its not really the case for a manager. If he sells a big earner on say 100k a week and replaces him with a guy on 50k a week, he doesn't just think "right I have more to spend on wages". If he has a budget left of say 10m but the player he wants is 12.5m, then I'm sure the club would say you can use the 2.5m saved in wages from selling the 100k earner to fund the difference as its all coming from the same pot.

You see its far from pointless. As it could be a way for manager to use his budgets to develop his team and for betterment.

Thank the lord Rafa is governing this and not you lot.

But you don't pay someone a year's wages on day 1. I know of no company that sets aside an amount of money in the bank to pay for the entire staff for a year. I'm presuming they pay the players on a monthly bases. This means wages can be paid out of and budgeted for in the coming year's income. Yes you will need consider how much you can afford in total wages for the year but this shouldn't effect how much you have as a transfer fund based on the income you have already generated.

 

[Rum & Black for 2]

I think buying football clubs is somewhat different to buying football players.

Nurse get this man his medication

Buying and selling and buying and selling...hmmmm

No, the same principles apply. "A" makes offer to "B" and then "B" accepts and contract made or "B" refuses and no contract made. Fortunately though you seem to have borrowed Chippy's nurse and she should be able to help you forget any facts which don't suit even if eventually it is only forgetting that the nurse is called Obi.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

But you don't pay someone a year's wages on day 1. I know of no company that sets aside an amount of money in the bank to pay for the entire staff for a year. I'm presuming they pay the players on a monthly bases. This means wages can be paid out of and budgeted for in the coming year's income. Yes you will need consider how much you can afford in total wages for the year but this shouldn't effect how much you have as a transfer fund based on the income you have already generated.

The money generated by the club needs to cover any transfer fees plus any rise in the wage budget. Otherwise where does the money come from to cover the increase in wages? Conversely though if the overall wages goes down, we should have greater flexibility on fees.

 

[Lord Jonjomort]

At the heart of the matter is trust. For three transfer windows in succession, Benítez believes months of work in identifying players and setting up deals was wasted. Last January, he wanted a couple of new additions to guarantee promotion and got nothing. Last summer, he wanted Newcastle to act quickly to bring in a goalkeeper and a striker. Four months ago, he wanted to clear up that mess and was restricted to loans.

The record books show that Newcastle went up as champions and have now finished tenth, yet Benítez would argue that both accomplishments were jeopardised by the club’s lack of action. Why take that risk? And why make life more difficult for yourself, when some prudent investment would remove that stress and give you something to build upon? The table says one thing, but this has been a season of toil and it has taken a toll.
In a PR statement released on Sunday night — the sportswear retailer is away on holiday — Ashley was quoted as saying, “I will continue to ensure that every penny generated by the club is available to [Benítez].” Full disclosure was assailed by a drive-by shooting. Every penny is impossible to quantify if Benítez is not told what that budget is, nor if he cannot control when it is spent.

To re-tell a story for the umpteenth time, when Benítez attempted to sign Willy Caballero on a free transfer from Manchester City last summer, the club demurred. Newcastle already had ‘too many’ goalkeepers. Benítez pushed and eventually Lee Charnley, the managing director, took it up with Ashley. No dice. Yet when they brought in Martin Dubravka in January, the manager’s logic immediately became obvious. Dubravka has changed the team.

With safety secured, negotiations have begun in earnest, but what should be a straightforward situation has become the opposite.

Benítez does not want a repeat of this season, but how can he be persuaded things will be different? It is impossible to put a guarantee of funds into a contract, let alone a guarantee that he will be listened to. How can he trust them again?

 

[Beardsley's Stylist]

The money generated by the club needs to cover any transfer fees plus any rise in the wage budget. Otherwise where does the money come from to cover the increase in wages? Conversely though if the overall wages goes down, we should have greater flexibility on fees.

No the income generated during the year has to cover the increase in wages. Yes you need to consider how any new players are going to effect your wage bill but you put that against the income generated during the year. You also need to consider how that is going to effect future transfer budgets. It doesn't influence the income you have already generated.