January transfer window 2023

[From Despair To Where?]

I'd hesitate to call those figures accurate but I reckon they're in the ball park.

[Nameless]

I think it was a Swiss ramble thread that suggested 16m would be the lowest in the div by a distance and if you look round the other clubs on there - according to that site it wouldn’t be, or anywhere close

Guess it may be base salary without bonus? Being and bonuses play a fairly big part of the salary I expect. But they must be getting this info from somewhere fairly solid as it can’t all be wild guessing

More likely they take the budget and take an educated guess at how it’s split between the squad. Search through a few discussion boards and use the speculated wages as a base. There’s no ‘knowledge’ involved, we could probably all come up with numbers that added up to about the right total and looked ‘about right’…..

The fact they included the wages of loan players at their parent club should ring all sorts of alarms as to how accurately it represents OUR wages !

[Hound]

I think it was a Swiss ramble thread that suggested 16m would be the lowest in the div by a distance and if you look round the other clubs on there - according to that site it wouldn’t be, or anywhere close

Guess it may be base salary without bonus? Being and bonuses play a fairly big part of the salary I expect. But they must be getting this info from somewhere fairly solid as it can’t all be wild guessing

More likely they take the budget and take an educated guess at how it’s split between the squad. Search through a few discussion boards and use the speculated wages as a base. There’s no ‘knowledge’ involved, we could probably all come up with numbers that added up to about the right total and looked ‘about right’…..

The fact they included the wages of loan players at their parent club should ring all sorts of alarms as to how accurately it represents OUR wages !

Not really an alarm it’s what the player is being paid. Admittedly they need to stop that being added to the overall team figure.

How would they know the budget of each team. I don’t think you could publish a site like that without having some sort of inside knowledge, it doesn’t strike me as solely guesswork . If it is that’s a hell of a lot of research to make an educated guess

[Nameless]

I think it was a Swiss ramble thread that suggested 16m would be the lowest in the div by a distance and if you look round the other clubs on there - according to that site it wouldn’t be, or anywhere close

Guess it may be base salary without bonus? Being and bonuses play a fairly big part of the salary I expect. But they must be getting this info from somewhere fairly solid as it can’t all be wild guessing

More likely they take the budget and take an educated guess at how it’s split between the squad. Search through a few discussion boards and use the speculated wages as a base. There’s no ‘knowledge’ involved, we could probably all come up with numbers that added up to about the right total and looked ‘about right’…..

The fact they included the wages of loan players at their parent club should ring all sorts of alarms as to how accurately it represents OUR wages !

Not really an alarm it’s what the player is being paid. Admittedly they need to stop that being added to the overall team figure.

How would they know the budget of each team. I don’t think you could publish a site like that without having some sort of inside knowledge, it doesn’t strike me as solely guesswork . If it is that’s a hell of a lot of research to make an educated guess

It’s not much more than looking at the accounts and making some adjustments for the extra year
Great thing is people will assume it is ‘accurate’ because it can’t be proved not to be, because like the compilers, we just don’t know ….

[Royal_jimmy]

Hadn’t checked this site for a while but showing what it thinks are 2023 wages now

https://salarysport.com/football/sky-be ... p/reading/

Doubt ince is that low but may be fairly accurate otherwise

Lolz at Baba

If as seems likely Ejaria, Joao, Meite and Moore all leave in the summer are wage bill really is rock bottom

Not sure that's true really. Especially Yiadom. There's no way he took a pay cut that big

[Royal_jimmy]

When Moore leaves or resigns on much lower wages that'll cover the salary of 3 players next season. I don't think we can get away with paying players like Holmes that wage forever. Should offer him £10k a week with a new contract to tie him down to the club.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Yep know he earned plenty through his career but that still seems low to me. Would have expected about 8-10

But may be not. Ridiculous bargain if he is on that

It’d actually leave Tom Mc as our highest paid player at the end of the season at just 3.6k a week.

I do actually think those figures look accurate. I know I was told that FM23 wages will have been "made up" but I had a feeling that they'd be in and around what we'd expect to see.

I wasn't expecting players to be earning quote-on-quote "respectable" Championship wages of around £8k (which is still fairly low). I'm not sure whether it was P.Ince or someone involved at Sheffield Wednesday but I've read before that the restrictions imposed on clubs are geared up to take them down.

The figures might be general estimates but describing them as accurate would be a real stretch. There are some which just look wildly out, and some which are definitely wrong….. there is also the point that they might in some cases be what they think the player is receiving, but they aren’t close to what we are paying them

I've never taken it as dead on or anything, but I did have a feeling that it would be in and around what they are really. I doubt they are all accurate, but I can imagine most are somewhere near. Particularly the players who were signed permanently in the summer or were tied down to new deals like Holmes and Yiadom.

The bigger concern moving forward is, what happens when we are out of restrictions and some of our higher performing players (Ince, Holmes, Yiadom etc) want improved deals, because those 3 are better than the wage they are taking at the moment.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Yep know he earned plenty through his career but that still seems low to me. Would have expected about 8-10

But may be not. Ridiculous bargain if he is on that

It’d actually leave Tom Mc as our highest paid player at the end of the season at just 3.6k a week.

I do actually think those figures look accurate. I know I was told that FM23 wages will have been "made up" but I had a feeling that they'd be in and around what we'd expect to see.

I wasn't expecting players to be earning quote-on-quote "respectable" Championship wages of around £8k (which is still fairly low). I'm not sure whether it was P.Ince or someone involved at Sheffield Wednesday but I've read before that the restrictions imposed on clubs are geared up to take them down.

I'd find salaries that low astounding tbh. And find it difficult to see how they added up to £16m

I don't think the wage limits are in anyway intended to send clubs down. I think they're intended to force clubs to live within their means, and the direct consequence of no bugger doing that unless its enforced means you're at a massive disadvantage and likely to go down. Because the whole system is rotten to the core and otherwise utterly unchecked

It wasn't just the wages, but the restrictions in general. It's not really any secret that out of all the teams who have had points deductions (ourselves, Birmingham, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday), 2 of them have gone down. I think the only reason Birmingham stayed up is because their points came off towards the latter stages of the season. We obviously struggled and, in another season, probably would have gone down.

I do think there is some truth to that, at the end of the day, it's a punishment as well as wanting to clubs to comply with regulations.

[Hound]

Of course there is an element of punishment and setting an example to deter others

Very naive to think it’s all done in our best interests

They like to see us get relegated as a further deterrent and to show they took tough action. It’s just a shame the whole process seems to have so many grey areas and loopholes

[Snowflake Royal]

Yeah, and punishment id actually warranted too.

If they wanted us to be relegated for it, they could just set the sanction at automatic relegation.

And given our current position and survival last season, clearly no one is trying that hard to relegate us, or we'd be gone.

[Stranded]

Yeah, and punishment id actually warranted too.

If they wanted us to be relegated for it, they could just set the sanction at automatic relegation.

And given our current position and survival last season, clearly no one is trying that hard to relegate us, or we'd be gone.

Don' t the clubs need to vote through the sanctions and as such I would never expect an automatic relegation to be applied unless they do some sort of sliding scale i.e. if you are 75% over the required limit. Would also be very hard to apply given penalties are given out mid-season as that is when the accounts come through.

If we, or any other side, are hit with a auto relegation penalty in say November but were say top 6 to that point, then the competition becomes skewed as teams playing us whilst we were competing are playing a different side to one that is now essentially playing glorified friendlies - how would that impact contracts - would a player be able to refuse to play as the game means nothing and if he gets injured he may not be able to move on etc...

You may see more penalties of Derby's total (though that was 2 separate deductions) which will act as a big enough deterrent but is not big enough to stop games being competitive as you could, though likely won't, claw it back.

[Sutekh]

Yeah, and punishment id actually warranted too.

If they wanted us to be relegated for it, they could just set the sanction at automatic relegation.

And given our current position and survival last season, clearly no one is trying that hard to relegate us, or we'd be gone.

Don' t the clubs need to vote through the sanctions and as such I would never expect an automatic relegation to be applied unless they do some sort of sliding scale i.e. if you are 75% over the required limit. Would also be very hard to apply given penalties are given out mid-season as that is when the accounts come through.

If we, or any other side, are hit with a auto relegation penalty in say November but were say top 6 to that point, then the competition becomes skewed as teams playing us whilst we were competing are playing a different side to one that is now essentially playing glorified friendlies - how would that impact contracts - would a player be able to refuse to play as the game means nothing and if he gets injured he may not be able to move on etc...

You may see more penalties of Derby's total (though that was 2 separate deductions) which will act as a big enough deterrent but is not big enough to stop games being competitive as you could, though likely won't, claw it back.

For all the things Derby got caught for they were still able to carry on trading as normal ie. buy and sell as they pleased.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Yeah, and punishment id actually warranted too.

If they wanted us to be relegated for it, they could just set the sanction at automatic relegation.

And given our current position and survival last season, clearly no one is trying that hard to relegate us, or we'd be gone.

As above, not sure what that does for the integrity of the competition, especially if you're deducting points mid-season, which they have done with every team to be deducted points in recent times and not sure how that really helps the club either.

It is both a case of a punishment and living within your means. Kieran Maguire had said that the only Championship side that consistently breaks-even or make a profit is Rotherham and they regularly go down, so I take your point about that. But it does have to be stressed, it is also a punishment.

[Hound]

Yeah, and punishment id actually warranted too.

If they wanted us to be relegated for it, they could just set the sanction at automatic relegation.

And given our current position and survival last season, clearly no one is trying that hard to relegate us, or we'd be gone.

Yeah it probably was warranted- though I suspect a few others have probably warranted a penalty and managed to find a way round in recent times

Tbf we did deserve a punishment but we also assisted the EFL with their investigations, admitted guilt, played by the new rules and agreed we’d been very silly previously

Would take it as a severe telling off rather than worthy of automatic relegation

[Stranded]

Yeah, and punishment id actually warranted too.

If they wanted us to be relegated for it, they could just set the sanction at automatic relegation.

And given our current position and survival last season, clearly no one is trying that hard to relegate us, or we'd be gone.

Don' t the clubs need to vote through the sanctions and as such I would never expect an automatic relegation to be applied unless they do some sort of sliding scale i.e. if you are 75% over the required limit. Would also be very hard to apply given penalties are given out mid-season as that is when the accounts come through.

If we, or any other side, are hit with a auto relegation penalty in say November but were say top 6 to that point, then the competition becomes skewed as teams playing us whilst we were competing are playing a different side to one that is now essentially playing glorified friendlies - how would that impact contracts - would a player be able to refuse to play as the game means nothing and if he gets injured he may not be able to move on etc...

You may see more penalties of Derby's total (though that was 2 separate deductions) which will act as a big enough deterrent but is not big enough to stop games being competitive as you could, though likely won't, claw it back.

For all the things Derby got caught for they were still able to carry on trading as normal ie. buy and sell as they pleased.

They weren't last year, that had an embargo. No fees and only a certain number of players in the squd. 23 IIRC. As soon as they came out of admin though, it appears to have gone right back to business as usual.

[Nameless]

Don' t the clubs need to vote through the sanctions and as such I would never expect an automatic relegation to be applied unless they do some sort of sliding scale i.e. if you are 75% over the required limit. Would also be very hard to apply given penalties are given out mid-season as that is when the accounts come through.

If we, or any other side, are hit with a auto relegation penalty in say November but were say top 6 to that point, then the competition becomes skewed as teams playing us whilst we were competing are playing a different side to one that is now essentially playing glorified friendlies - how would that impact contracts - would a player be able to refuse to play as the game means nothing and if he gets injured he may not be able to move on etc...

You may see more penalties of Derby's total (though that was 2 separate deductions) which will act as a big enough deterrent but is not big enough to stop games being competitive as you could, though likely won't, claw it back.

For all the things Derby got caught for they were still able to carry on trading as normal ie. buy and sell as they pleased.

They weren't last year, that had an embargo. No fees and only a certain number of players in the squd. 23 IIRC. As soon as they came out of admin though, it appears to have gone right back to business as usual.

Weren’t Derby under a very odd embargo which meant they didn’t actually pay the fees for players they had already signed ?

[YorkshireRoyal99]

For all the things Derby got caught for they were still able to carry on trading as normal ie. buy and sell as they pleased.

They weren't last year, that had an embargo. No fees and only a certain number of players in the squd. 23 IIRC. As soon as they came out of admin though, it appears to have gone right back to business as usual.

Weren’t Derby under a very odd embargo which meant they didn’t actually pay the fees for players they had already signed ?

I think the embargo was (partly) because they hadn't paid those fees and they didn't clear them because they were in administration. I don't know if they've paid them off now that they've got new owners though.

I know one of the players that was relating to was Bielik.

[Nameless]

They weren't last year, that had an embargo. No fees and only a certain number of players in the squd. 23 IIRC. As soon as they came out of admin though, it appears to have gone right back to business as usual.

Weren’t Derby under a very odd embargo which meant they didn’t actually pay the fees for players they had already signed ?

I think the embargo was (partly) because they hadn't paid those fees and they didn't clear them because they were in administration. I don't know if they've paid them off now that they've got new owners though.

I know one of the players that was relating to was Bielik.

Allowed to keep using a player they hadn’t paid the fee for, how did they get away with that ! At least Cardiff haven’t had Sala playing while they tried to avoid paying for him.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Weren’t Derby under a very odd embargo which meant they didn’t actually pay the fees for players they had already signed ?

I think the embargo was (partly) because they hadn't paid those fees and they didn't clear them because they were in administration. I don't know if they've paid them off now that they've got new owners though.

I know one of the players that was relating to was Bielik.

Allowed to keep using a player they hadn’t paid the fee for, how did they get away with that ! At least Cardiff haven’t had Sala playing while they tried to avoid paying for him.

No idea, that's the million dollar question, but there are plenty of reports to suggest that was the case. How does an organisation also be allowed to continue to trade when they haven't paid HMRC the £26m they owe them? It happened though.

[Nameless]

I think the embargo was (partly) because they hadn't paid those fees and they didn't clear them because they were in administration. I don't know if they've paid them off now that they've got new owners though.

I know one of the players that was relating to was Bielik.

Allowed to keep using a player they hadn’t paid the fee for, how did they get away with that ! At least Cardiff haven’t had Sala playing while they tried to avoid paying for him.

No idea, that's the million dollar question, but there are plenty of reports to suggest that was the case. How does an organisation also be allowed to continue to trade when they haven't paid HMRC the £26m they owe them? It happened though.

I know it happened !
I would say using a player for whom you’ve not paid the agreed fee is worse than owing tax. If a club fails to pay any part of a transfer fee the player should immediately become ineligible. I do recall that Arsenal (?) didn’t demand payment because it woukd have finished Derby and they would never have got the money….