Stoke show RFC how to run a Real Football Club

[Hoop Blah]

And he revealed how the club is still paying some of the wages of former strikers Robbie Fowler and Robbie Keane because they did not want to take a drop in wages when they left Elland Road.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-7399139-money-pit-that-is-leeds-united.do

[Platypuss]

It's been done before.

What, seriously - a club sells a player (not loans) so he is no longer in their employ, and they continue to pay a proportion of his wages? I've never heard of that before.

Pretty sure Robbie Fowler was being paid a proportion of his salary by Leeds after he joined Man City.

[Royal Rother]

I'm sure Leeds did it when things went tits up for them and continued paying some of the wages for the like of Fowler just to shift the rest.

I might be mistaken but I'm sure there are ways of doing it if needs be.

I honestly doubt it. Let's ask Svlad! He'll know...!

[Royal Rother]

And he revealed how the club is still paying some of the wages of former strikers Robbie Fowler and Robbie Keane because they did not want to take a drop in wages when they left Elland Road.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-7399139-money-pit-that-is-leeds-united.do

Ah, but surely that wholly dubious practice was stamped out after that fiasco?

But anyway, I should imagine that was a separate contractual arrangement between the selling club and the player rather than a contribution to his ongoing wages.

Maybe I appear too literal here but that feels very different to me. I CAN get my head around that!

[Hoop Blah]

Or just read this quote from the link above...

The Leeds chairman also revealed how the club is still paying £500,000 a year towards Robbie Fowler's wages despite his move to Manchester City and £200,000 a year of Robbie Keane's signing-on fee at Tottenham which will cost them £800,000 in total.

When City came in for Fowler, the Leeds board felt they could not turn down the £6m on offer, especially considering the depressed state of the transfer market.

However, they agreed to pay nearly £10,000 a week of his wages throughout his threeanda-half-year contract

.

[Hoop Blah]

And he revealed how the club is still paying some of the wages of former strikers Robbie Fowler and Robbie Keane because they did not want to take a drop in wages when they left Elland Road.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-7399139-money-pit-that-is-leeds-united.do

Ah, but surely that wholly dubious practice was stamped out after that fiasco?

I have no idea, oh, and I'll take that as your acceptance of my being right and not making a such ridiculous suggestion then!

[Royal Rother]

See my edit above!

[Stranded]

Wow people are now actually questioning facts from the past to suit their anti SJM viewpoint. Bizarre.

Matt Taylor was all but a Reading player, the whole package had been agreed including wages but Coppell pulled the plug. O'Neil and Gary Cahill were also all but done deals. Those were mistakes made by Coppell - end of.

[Ian Royal]

Wow people are now actually questioning facts from the past to suit their anti SJM viewpoint. Bizarre.

Matt Taylor was all but a Reading player, the whole package had been agreed including wages but Coppell pulled the plug. O'Neil and Gary Cahill were also all but done deals. Those were mistakes made by Coppell - end of.

No that can't be right, it's all Madejski's fault. Coppell must have been lying, because McDermott just said we weren't interested in Le Fondre. Prince Phillip used MI6 to force Coppell to say it for his mate Madeski, who was actually the power behind Dodi & Diana's deaths as a way of getting back at Mohammed Al Faiyed who he had once been slighted by at a Chairman's conference.

[FiNeRaIn]

Matt Taylor was all but a Reading player, the whole package had been agreed including wages but Coppell pulled the plug. O'Neil and Gary Cahill were also all but done deals. Those were mistakes made by Coppell - end of.

If true, howling decisions by coppell.

[Hoop Blah]

I didn't think Cahil was one of those we had pretty much in the bag but the rest of Stranded's post is as I remember it.

Cahil was one of those I thought we should've got at the time (Fletcher, Routledge or Gera being the others I think would've saved us as such) so thought I'd have remembered it. Quite possible that I've blocked it out though!

[Svlad Cjelli]

I'm sure Leeds did it when things went tits up for them and continued paying some of the wages for the like of Fowler just to shift the rest.

I might be mistaken but I'm sure there are ways of doing it if needs be.

I honestly doubt it. Let's ask Svlad! He'll know...!

Yes, this is quite common - it's cheaper for a club to get rid of a player and still pay a proportion of his wages rather than have them in the reserves and have to pay all of their wages for the rest of their contract. Ludicrous, but not that rare - and a symptom that they were clearly over-paying that player in the first place.

[Svlad Cjelli]

For the 563rd time (you thick IDIOT) money was available but Coppell chose not to spend it. How the fcuk can you blame SJM for that?

SJM then supported the manager and the players by paying over the odds to get straight back up after relegation, thus making a significant loss in that season. Coppell and the players failed him.

TBF we don't know that. Managers don't always tell the truth. Look at McDemott's protestations that we weren't in the maket for ALF.

We do know that - SC confirmed it at a Fans' Forum, and I've heard it from other sources also.

[Royal Rother]

I'm sure Leeds did it when things went tits up for them and continued paying some of the wages for the like of Fowler just to shift the rest.

I might be mistaken but I'm sure there are ways of doing it if needs be.

I honestly doubt it. Let's ask Svlad! He'll know...!

Yes, this is quite common - it's cheaper for a club to get rid of a player and still pay a proportion of his wages rather than have them in the reserves and have to pay all of their wages for the rest of their contract. Ludicrous, but not that rare - and a symptom that they were clearly over-paying that player in the first place.

Thanks. Would you know whether that is paid to the player's new club as a contribution towards his (inflated) wages or as a separate contractual arrangement with the player?

The former option I just can't get my head around at all.

(As if I needed any further confirmation but what a bleedin' mess football's finances are!)

[Svlad Cjelli]

Don't have an answer on that one - it's down to what the individual clubs and players decide.

[Royal With Cheese]

For the 563rd time (you thick IDIOT) money was available but Coppell chose not to spend it. How the fcuk can you blame SJM for that?

SJM then supported the manager and the players by paying over the odds to get straight back up after relegation, thus making a significant loss in that season. Coppell and the players failed him.

TBF we don't know that. Managers don't always tell the truth. Look at McDemott's protestations that we weren't in the maket for ALF.

We do know that - SC confirmed it at a Fans' Forum, and I've heard it from other sources also.

It's all down to who you believe and who you don't.

I find the suggestion that SJM is a completely innocent party in all the proceedings at Reading at best dubious.

[Royal Rother]

"Innocent party" - What does that mean in this context?

Coppell had funds available.

Deals were lined up.

Coppell chose not to follow through on those deals because he believed the team he had was capable of staying up and anyway, was mindful of the negative impact new faces might have on the team spirit of a (at that time) very united group of players.

All this Coppell has said.

If you really want to find a guilty party in all this, I think you'll have a hard task convincing anyone with a brain it was SJM.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I'm not sure it's really been suggested that SJM is a completely innocent party. Certainly he sets the overall policy and takes the credit whenever anything goes well. He's also wheeled out to make statements when considered necessary - although tbf a lot of the time problems come from when he makes statements himself without guidance.

But, in general, the people at the football club are left to get on with everything on a day-to-day basis, working under the guidelines that this business unit is self-sufficient - and needs to be. So no money in from SJM and no money taken out by him.

[Schards#2]

Personally, I find it hard to believe that:

a) Coppell became the only manager in history to choose not to spend money that was made available

b) Madejski, having offered Coppell riches beyond the dreams of avarice, completely U turned to the extent that future managers are offered nothing at all other than the oppotunity to reinvest about 10-15% of anything raised by sales

Both scenarios seem unlikely, particularly compared to the other, entirely plausible, scenario that Madejski did not make funds available to Coppell.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Personally, I find it hard to believe that:

a) Coppell became the only manager in history to choose not to spend money that was made available

b) Madejski, having offered Coppell riches beyond the dreams of avarice, completely U turned to the extent that future managers are offered nothing at all other than the oppotunity to reinvest about 10-15% of anything raised by sales

Both scenarios seem unlikely, particularly compared to the other, entirely plausible, scenario that Madejski did not make funds available to Coppell.

But both of those scenarios are exaggerated extremes. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.