shurlock

What is clear is that the known figure used by the blog post is for club wages, not players wages. His assumptions are made against this arguably faulty baseline. It is very easy to conflate players wages and club wages, overlooking the whole staff force that works behind the scenes (not to mention lavishly paid (ex)directors). Gareth Rogers has had to remind journos of this distinction in the past. Players -rather than club wages- could be in the ballpark of £53m this year; but that would require as much as a 85% increase in the player wage bill in the space of a year. Doubt it.

The more I think about this issue, the more I believe the blog post is way off the mark. Attempting to confirm with a sports lawyer friend but am pretty sure FFP wage restrictions apply only to player wages and not overall club wages (that include director remuneration and general club staff wages). It is definitely the case with the championship. Why does this matter? Because if true, it significantly increases our room for manoeuvre and suggest were nowhere near the relevant limit. Publicly available data on which the blog post (mistakenly) draws refers to overall club wages. In 2013, total wages, including player wages were £47.1m, up from £28.7m in 2012. The claim is that they are around £52m this year - hence the alleged pressure to sell. We know that the club wage to turnover ratio is around 65% (turnover was £72m in 2013). Critically, however, Gareth Rogers, pointed out that the player wage to turnover ratio was only around 40-50% in 2013 -namely around £29m and £36m. A much lower figure and arguably the relevant one from a FFP perspective (see above) If we assume that turnover ratios stay broadly in line this year, our current player wage bill (not total wage bill) is only around £32m and £40m, nowhere the supposed dangerzone suggested by the poster. The above caveat aside, this point should be seen alongside the other evidence -from the unnecessary scale of the sales to official statements- that casts doubt on this theory.

Nah- Glasgow's a luvved up member of the new management - this is someone who set his stall out against 'Mopo'. What we can expect is tedious sugar-coating while smugly pointing out others negativity should things go badly. Still a troll - and will be happier for doing it all under the radar.

As far as I understand things, FFP only applies to player wages (definitely the case for the championship) All the published data on which the blogger draws, however, include director remuneration and general club staff wages. As such, the relevant figures are likely to be lower and a simplification by the blogger. Think Rodgers gave the precise breakdown in his interview with Blackmore who had also erred on this point.

Interesting theory but cannot take it seriously. Leaving aside the validity and understanding of the numbers, it fails to explain the extent of player sales we have seen. Even it concedes our case is borderline -as such, it might explain one sale but not five sales. That is what has happened. Nor does it explain why many of the other midsized clubs aren't in the same boat, especially when you consider their wages/turnover ratio etc is significantly worse. The idea that we're using the loan system so we can kick on even stronger the season after next. If Carslberg did denial...

What are you on about? Moneyball has nothing to do with this. It's about using data -rather than raw intuition- to eke out small, overlooked advantages on the pitch. Big Sam was doing it years ago, well before FFP. In the case of Bolton, the Oakland As etc, it's more about how Davids can defeat Goliaths. If anything, salary cap rules are the most relaxed in baseball, compared to the NFL and NBA. MoneyBall was inspired by the relative lack of rules to level the playing field, not because of them.

We're a top 8 side- we not only have to maintain that position but enhance it. All according to Les Reed, of course.

Where does the massive increase in TV money and to a less extent prize money factor in?

Why if KL wants to cash in on her investment? There's no reason why this summer's sales should go on transfers and wages.

In other words, it was a choice, not some deus ex machina, a gun put to our heads by FFP/salary caps.

Of course, all this musing and speculation about FFP -which is ultimately informed guesswork (being charitable given the cursory treatment of the revenue side)- does not nothing to explain the extent of player sales.

At times like these, what this place is misses is that chubby, washed up mentalist StuRomseySaint.

I heard they call him the Bundesliga Lee Chapman...

Jeff sounds like a starved rat scrapping over morsels. Tuck in!

Can't see it - How would he fit with Pelle? Surely they're too similar? Unless we're going Blackburn circa 1994.

Why does a 5 second clip capture who might or might not be doing fitness tests. They typically do them two at a time. For all we we know, Morgan will be doing his later along with Gaston, another WC participant.

You know when you see it - you just need to channel your inner mong.

Hope we start getting linked to some shïtty CBs because we wouldn't want to block Jack Stephens progression to the first team. Seems to be the new desperate mongboard mantra

Also implies that the board deliberately leaked false info to Sky about Schneiderlin handing in a transfer request.

In the land of the blind, the one eye man is king and all that. Basically nobody knows jack.

Losing Morgan will weaken us whoever we bring in. Unlike MP, think Koeman wants his CMs to get forward more, so will opt for only one DM -Wanyama, with the other CMs expected to be more box-to-box. Views of Cork depend whether he can get forward or whether he's competing with Vic for that one DM spot. If the latter, Cork is a necessary back-up for Vic - assuming Morgan goes. If Morgan stays, things could get pretty crowded for Cork. My view, however, is that Cork isn't just a one trick pony but can also play in a more advanced position a la Everton (h). Until the likes of Taider, JWP and Reed prove themselves (and the burden of proof is firmly on them), I wouldn't let Cork go anywhere and have him signed up to a new contract. Should they prove themselves, things can be reassessed. There will no shortage of suitors for such a consistent, known performer.

They don't even play in the same position. Clasie doesn't have the same defensive qualities as Morgan - again quite similar to S.Davis.

With Taider coming, can't see this one at all.

Will take a listen, cheers. He does fancy himself as bit of a mudraker, a modern day Upton Sinclair out to expose some larger corruption or rot in the game (see his second article). Guess we represent a convenient test case for these machinations, not least because of his access to Morgan and Krueger's involvement.

Where did he say that? In his articles? His tone definitely escalated after the first article -Krueger's side-stepping of Blackmore's question in which he mentioned Molina probably didn't help. But it wasn't as hostile as you suggest.