Just listened to SD's press conference, he said the wage bill is 59m, with the rest being bonus related.

AndyClaret wrote:Just listened to SD's press conference, he said the wage bill is 59m, with the rest being bonus related.

Very interesting, so £22 million in bonuses for finishing 7th and qualifying for Europe.

Information that would not normally be shared with supporters, certainly was not shared in the previous year.

Anybody remember how much our share of the sky money was for finishing 7th compared to 17th.
As long as we remain in the prem, a very generous bonus scheme is our only way of staying competitive with our peers.

Colburn_Claret wrote:Anybody remember how much our share of the sky money was for finishing 7th compared to 17th.
As long as we remain in the prem, a very generous bonus scheme is our only way of staying competitive with our peers.

I think the difference was 16m from 16th to 7th, so if we finish 17th it would be around 18m, seems like most of the prize money goes in the bonus pool, which is a good thing.

Makes sense to me.

Royboyclaret wrote:Very interesting, so £22 million in bonuses for finishing 7th and qualifying for Europe.

Information that would not normally be shared with supporters, certainly was not shared in the previous year.

The 59m might just be football staff and not other employee's, but i can't see the rest of the club's staff being that much.

Colburn_Claret wrote:Anybody remember how much our share of the sky money was for finishing 7th compared to 17th.
As long as we remain in the prem, a very generous bonus scheme is our only way of staying competitive with our peers.

For 7th we received £119.5m, compared to £104m for the previous season.

Seems fair enough. You can't really ask for relegation clauses - if they exist - and not offer the big bonus if all goes well.

I suppose the only problem is some players are instantly in a comfort zone for the rest of their careers after such a windfall, although hopefully we don't have too many of that sort.

Seriously wonder if this was a slip of the tongue from our manager.

The club took steps to make the 2016 bonus difficult to identify in the accounts, after which in 2017 & 2018 only the consolidated Total Wage bill was made available for scrutiny.

Royboyclaret wrote:Very interesting, so £22 million in bonuses for finishing 7th and qualifying for Europe.

Information that would not normally be shared with supporters, certainly was not shared in the previous year.

22m bonus to qualify for something we didnt want to be in. Seems illogical.

AndyClaret wrote:The 59m might just be football staff and not other employee's, but i can't see the rest of the club's staff being that much.

Be prepared to be surprised. I know Elaine is on £1m bonus if we sell all our tickets for Chelsea. Thats why she lowered them to a tenner a pop.

NottsClaret wrote:Seems fair enough. You can't really ask for relegation clauses - if they exist - and not offer the big bonus if all goes well.

I suppose the only problem is some players are instantly in a comfort zone for the rest of their careers after such a windfall, although hopefully we don't have too many of that sort.

Very good problem. And something Fergie was good at addressing.

Once some players had won the league they had achieved everything they had ever aimed for and were no longer as motivated. Thats another reason he refreshed the team so much.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Be prepared to be surprised. I know Elaine is on £1m bonus if we sell all our tickets for Chelsea. Thats why she lowered them to a tenner a pop.

Laughed out loud at that one.

The big bonus will just be staying up, then a little more for finishing so high.

Royboyclaret wrote:Seriously wonder if this was a slip of the tongue from our manager.

The club took steps to make the 2016 bonus difficult to identify in the accounts, after which in 2017 & 2018 only the consolidated Total Wage bill was made available for scrutiny.

I seem to remember a similar press conference last year when the results were announced, he played down the headline wage figure, can't remember if he named a figure though.

My club that iv'e followed through thick and thin paying £59 million in wages and playing in the best league in the world. I'm not old but I remember the collection buckets at the turf so in the words of Margaret Thatcher ' just rejoice at that news'.

Royboyclaret wrote:Seriously wonder if this was a slip of the tongue from our manager.

The club took steps to make the 2016 bonus difficult to identify in the accounts, after which in 2017 & 2018 only the consolidated Total Wage bill was made available for scrutiny.

Doubt it, it's absolutely in his interests for it to be clear that our basic wage bill is pretty modest in Premier League terms. And if it is £59 million, modest it most definitely is.

claretspice wrote:Doubt it, it's absolutely in his interests for it to be clear that our basic wage bill is pretty modest in Premier League terms. And if it is £59 million, modest it most definitely is.

It contradicts Garlick's statement about us not being bottom of the wage table anymore though.

AndyClaret wrote:It contradicts Garlick's statement about us not being bottom of the wage table anymore though.

Not really, because the £59 million figure is no more relevant than the £81 million figure. It's an eminently sensible model for Burnley to follow - a really generous bonus structure and fairly modest basic wage bill. But Dyche will want that wage bill to increase to enable him to sign better players, and will probably want to remind the football work that (arguably) he's working on a relative shoestring at Burnley.

AndyClaret wrote:It contradicts Garlick's statement about us not being bottom of the wage table anymore though.

most clubs in the league of 14 will have sizeable bonuses for staying up and that includes Huddersfield and Brighton who paid less than us in last years accounts - the worry is when you get to the levels of Swansea, Stoke and West Brom who won't have paid bonuses on relegation

claretspice wrote:Not really, because the £59 million figure is no more relevant than the £81 million figure. It's an eminently sensible model for Burnley to follow - a really generous bonus structure and fairly modest basic wage bill. But Dyche will want that wage bill to increase to enable him to sign better players, and will probably want to remind the football work that (arguably) he's working on a relative shoestring at Burnley.

It is relevant when comparing us to our rivals.

AndyClaret wrote:It is relevant when comparing us to our rivals.

Only if you also know the basic wage and bonus structures of all of our rivals, so have a direct comparison to make.

Bet Garlick is well chuffed with Dyche for revealing that, not sure what business he has to be talking about finer details of the wage figures in a press conference.

I'm assuming bonuses were calculated on the number of games
each player played and possibly whatever else was deemed as appropriate.
Presumably it also applied to the whole squad.

It seems that there is a possibility that a number of players received
close on a million, possibly more.

Not a bad bonus really. Another 20 grand a week for some.

Our model has served us well. However if we can't get the midfield we need next year will be relegation for sure.

claretspice wrote:Only if you also know the basic wage and bonus structures of all of our rivals, so have a direct comparison to make.

Most other either don't pay large bonus', or take them out of the wage figure.

I don't see this as a bad thing. If we finish in a good position whilst making profit I think they've earned every penny of the bonus. It has to be balanced if we go the other way though, the teams that start looking too far forwards without protecting themselves are the ones that have debt up to their eyeballs now.

I'm pretty confident we are protecting ourselves though. Questions get asked of the board in regards to player transfers etc all the time (myself included), but the truth is I actually feel confident in the decision makers to do the right thing for us. It's probably not that often said at other clubs.

summitclaret wrote:Our model has served us well. However if we can't get the midfield we need next year will be relegation for sure.

Defour coming back will be like a new signing.......

AndyClaret wrote:Most other either don't pay large bonus', or take them out of the wage figure.

How do you know that?

The bonus thing isn't anything new to this football club.

The last bonus I got was £50 voucher though.

59 million and lots of it wasted on
Hart
Lowton
Ward
Gibson (may get chance to earn his wage)
Defour
Brady
Wells
Crouch
Walters
Vydra (see Gibson)

I'm sure there's more

fanzone wrote:59 million and lots of it wasted on
Hart
Lowton
Ward
Gibson (may get chance to earn his wage)
Defour
Brady
Wells
Crouch
Walters
Vydra (see Gibson)

I'm sure there's more

It's a squad game - and it is expected that some of the squad get injured.

Talk Paul is right, 4 of names on above list weren't Burnley players when £59m was spent. Lowton and Ward were regular starters, Defour and Brady were among the "stars" when we reached 4th in early Dec.

Were we "wasting" money on Tom Heaton while he was injured?

fanzone wrote:59 million and lots of it wasted on
Hart
Lowton
Ward
Gibson (may get chance to earn his wage)
Defour
Brady
Wells
Crouch
Walters
Vydra (see Gibson)

I'm sure there's more

The £59m relates to last season's wage bill. It's hard to argue that any of that was wasted when we finished 7th.

Royboyclaret wrote:Very interesting, so £22 million in bonuses for finishing 7th and qualifying for Europe.

Information that would not normally be shared with supporters, certainly was not shared in the previous year.

Hi Roy, wasn't something around £10m of the £81m "social costs" i. e. Employer's National Insurance? I think that is 13.8% of wages.

My expectation is that the larger part of bonus will for retaining Premier League - because that brings in the tv money for another season. I expect only a small proportion will be related to finishing position - why reward for achieving 7th and getting into Europa? That would be so far away from "expectations" I'd be surprised if any of the players (and their agents) would have been arguing to put that in their contracts?

If we "do the maths" £50,000 per week x 52 weeks = £2.6 million. Let's assume, for easy maths, that there are 22 players in the squad on this figure (on average), that is wages of £57.2 million.

Of course,if Sean Dyche and coaching staff are included in £59 million then the calc is a little different.

Paul Waine wrote:It's a squad game - and it is expected that some of the squad get injured.

Its also expected some get game time.

Vydra and Gibson are two of our most expensive players ever. Gibson is our most expensive non striker ever. He has started once.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Its also expected some get game time.

Vydra and Gibson are two of our most expensive players ever. Gibson is our most expensive non striker ever. He has started once.

I'm sure we will see Ben Gibson starting more next season. Maybe Matej Hydra will also be getting regular games.

UTC

Paul Waine wrote:I'm sure we will see Ben Gibson starting more next season. Maybe Matej Hydra will also be getting regular games.

UTC

Im not convinced we will.

With Tarks there was a natural progression. As there was with Keane before him.

Where is Gibson going to come in unless we change system?

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Its also expected some get game time.

Vydra and Gibson are two of our most expensive players ever. Gibson is our most expensive non striker ever. He has started once.

When we only had 3 centre backs including Long most people on this board were up in arms that we did not have a quality 4th centre back who was better than Long.
So we paid for a quality CB and people moan because he’s not starting enough games.
The likelihood is that Gibson will get his chance when we sell Tarks at a huge profit - that’s good succession planning.
Plus how long was it before Tarks got a chance ? He had to be patient in the same way as Gibson is.

TVC15 wrote:When we only had 3 centre backs including Long most people on this board were up in arms that we did not have a quality 4th centre back who was better than Long.
So we paid for a quality CB and people moan because he’s not starting enough games.
The likelihood is that Gibson will get his chance when we sell Tarks at a huge profit - that’s good succession planning.
Plus how long was it before Tarks got a chance ? He had to be patient in the same way as Gibson is.

If Gibson comes in for Tarks alongside Mee I will be more than extremely surprised. But will hold my hands up if wrong.

Also, of course we need good back up. Arguably we even need better than Mee. And Gibson possibly is.

But if we are going to spend the second highest amount we ever have on back up, its poor business whichever way you look at it.

We are desperately short of quality in the centre of the park. And £15m would have been far wiser spent there with us filling in centre half back up with Long and either a defensive version of Crouch. Or the highly rated Dunne.

Tarks was waiting in the wings to replace Keane who was always going to go.
Keane was waiting in the wings to replace Duff who was always going to retire.

I don't see where Gibson comes in. As its unlikely Mee will go. And both are left sided.

I personally would have no issue with two left footers playing alongside one another. But its not the way most teams do it nowadays.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Its also expected some get game time.

Vydra and Gibson are two of our most expensive players ever. Gibson is our most expensive non striker ever. He has started once.

When you know how many times the third centre half will be needed, it's much easier to evaluate how much to spend on him.

What's you're opinion on the third centre half next year? Should we keep Gibson, or should we sell him and get a middle of the road, adequate-but-not-really-first-team replacement, or rely on Long or Jimmy Dunne or a lower league promising youngster? How much is our third centre half going to play?

dsr wrote:When you know how many times the third centre half will be needed, it's much easier to evaluate how much to spend on him.

What's you're opinion on the third centre half next year? Should we keep Gibson, or should we sell him and get a middle of the road, adequate-but-not-really-first-team replacement, or rely on Long or Jimmy Dunne or a lower league promising youngster? How much is our third centre half going to play?

Kevin Long has played 47 games in ten years.

So the chances of our FOURTH choice defender (which is what Gibson is) playing many games is slim to none. To then pay £15m for that is mental. Its OK saying he is one for the future.

1) He is 26 - hardly that young
2) the most important thing is the here and now first and foremost
3) We had Long who has always been reasoable back up and worse case Jimmy Dunne as 4th choice and one for the future


Gibson is a decent player in my book. But a complete waste of money if he was brought in as fourth choice, which clearly he has been.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Kevin Long has played 47 games in ten years.

So the chances of our FOURTH choice defender (which is what Gibson is) playing many games is slim to none. To then pay £15m for that is mental. Its OK saying he is one for the future.

1) He is 26 - hardly that young
2) the most important thing is the here and now first and foremost
3) We had Long who has always been reasoable back up and worse case Jimmy Dunne as 4th choice and one for the future


Gibson is a decent player in my book. But a complete waste of money if he was brought in as fourth choice, which clearly he has been.

That's fine. You're willing to nail your colours to the mast and say that you would be happy with Mee, Tarkowski, Long and Dunne as our centre halves next season? Rather you than me!

dsr wrote:That's fine. You're willing to nail your colours to the mast and say that you would be happy with Mee, Tarkowski, Long and Dunne as our centre halves next season? Rather you than me!

Well that isnt EXACTLY what I said is it.

What I EXACTLY said was I would rather the £15m for Gibson last summer was spent elsewhere. i.e. midfield.

However he is now here. So Tarks, Gibson, Mee and Dunne would be just fine. Cash in on Long.

There is no way though that the £15m was a wise investment given our business last summer and what was needed.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Well that isnt EXACTLY what I said is it.

What I EXACTLY said was I would rather the £15m for Gibson last summer was spent elsewhere. i.e. midfield.

However he is now here. So Tarks, Gibson, Mee and Dunne would be just fine. Cash in on Long.

There is no way though that the £15m was a wise investment given our business last summer and what was needed.

That's pretty much the point - we didn't know what was needed. Gibson was cover in case Mee or Tarkowski missed matches - they could have missed a whole season. Long was third choice for the odd game or part game, but Gibson would have got the nod (I would think) if we needed a long term reserve.

£15m on Gibson would have been money well spent, if he had been needed. That's all. As for next year, I'd keep Long - I don't think his cash-in value would be all that high, and a good reserve who is happy to be a reserve is hard to find.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Its also expected some get game time.

Vydra and Gibson are two of our most expensive players ever. Gibson is our most expensive non striker ever. He has started once.

Gibson was bought when Mee was refusing to sign a new deal. Mee thought he would be offered a chance at one of the 'better' teams (particularly in terms of wages) and only signed the new deal when it became obvious there wasn't going to be the move he hoped for. If Gibson had been fit and available earlier in the campaign it would have been no surprise to see him replace Mee when he was dire.

dsr wrote: As for next year, I'd keep Long - I don't think his cash-in value would be all that high, and a good reserve who is happy to be a reserve is hard to find.

Gibson is not the 4th centre back - Long played ahead of him because Gibson was injured.
If Long is the 3rd centre back as you say CC why has he not made the bench since January ?
Out of interest CC did you criticise the Gibson signing in the summer ?

I’d imagine Gibson will be Tarkowski’s replacement if and when he goes (probably in the summer)

He’s a good player, as is Mee, but whether having two left footed centre backs will work is another matter.

TVC15 wrote:Gibson is not the 4th centre back - Long played ahead of him because Gibson was injured.
If Long is the 3rd centre back as you say CC why has he not made the bench since January ?
Out of interest CC did you criticise the Gibson signing in the summer ?

Did I balls criticise the signing. I thought it was astute business. On the assumption he was going to be first choice!

How many clubs record signings never start a game? Its insane. We could have spent a fraction of the money on a third or fourth choice and spent that money on central midfield.

I think we are both in agreement Crouch was a dreadful signing. To put it in context Crouch has played more minutes!!!!

Gibson is a good player. And I am no doubt our backup is better for having him. That doesn't mean the money was well spent.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Did I balls criticise the signing. I thought it was astute business. On the assumption he was going to be first choice!

How many clubs record signings never start a game? Its insane. We could have spent a fraction of the money on a third or fourth choice and spent that money on central midfield.

I think we are both in agreement Crouch was a dreadful signing. To put it in context Crouch has played more minutes!!!!

Gibson is a good player. And I am no doubt our backup is better for having him. That doesn't mean the money was well spent.

Record signing is a bit of a red herring - doesn’t mean he is our most valuable player or best paid. It just means he is one of our most recent signings and unfortunately with prices so inflated if you want quality (even as cover) you have to pay over the odds. We were being quoted £20m for Tom Lees from Sheffield Wednesday and also the same for the Forest CB - neither of which had the pedigree of Gibson who we only got for that price because he had been promised he could leave if Boro did not get promoted.
If you thought he was going to go straight into the first team in front of possibly the best performing centre backs in the league last season then you are on your own - nobody else did.
There are points this season when I think Mee should have been dropped but unfortunately Gibson was unlucky to be out with injury when Mee or Tarks missed games through injury.
I am not unhappy we bought Gibson - it’s irrelevant he cost £15m - it’s peanuts now in this division and players who cost a lot more than this are languishing in the reserves in nearly all the teams. Where most of us do agree is that we should have spent more on other players in other positions.
Better to look at overall transfer record for me than individual signings - we have 4 decent centre backs which cost in total less than £20m and are probably worth 3 or 4 times that and we made £30m on Keane so I am pretty sure Dyche knows more about buying centre backs than me and thee !

Burnley finished seventh last season and the Mee / Tarks partnership was a big reason for that - it was always going to take some breaking up for a player from the outside but unfortunately Gibson's early weeks with us did not go well with his hernia injury and sending off in the Europa League match.

Also highlighted the importance of doing business early in the summer, neither him nor Vydra arrived early enough to embark on a full Dyche pre-season and we know from seasons past that this is am important time for players to put themselves in the thick of it.

I wouldn't rule out Dyche looking to be more flexible with formations next season - as he has been this season, compared to last. The 5-3-2 worked reasonably effectively at Spurs and Arsenal, albeit it came crashing down on Boxing Day. Central defence is the area we have great strength in depth - no surprise given Dyche's background as a player - its about finding the right full backs who are at ease with defending and attacking. Charlie Taylor's development this season (and his growing understanding with McNeil) has been a rare highlight - if we can find a right-sided player who can do the same on the other flank, then a back 'five' might well be something to consider next season, and would play to our strengths. I think we should move heaven and high water to bring Tripps back and pay him a one-off signing on fee, that prevents us 'breaking' the wage structure.