Paying Callum Wilson £100,000. Per week.


Report in the Mail.

Heathclaret wrote:Paying Callum Wilson £100,000. Per week.


Report in the Mail.

Did absolutely nothing against us last season but he’s got himself a good gig there.

BOOM!

I wonder if he had a release clause so Bournemouth have bumped up his contract to make sure if he does go in next 12 months they get full whack for him which in current market could be a small fortune and dwarf what they pay him in wages

Tiny club. Fairytale story... Cough cough

Fair play to him for managing to get a place in the England team when there is clearly a dearth of good English strikers around (aside from Harry Kane).

They can afford to spend that sort of money on arguably their most important player.

OMG!! How dare a team pay more than Burnley.

#cheaters

Good for them. He’s not actually that good.

Dyched wrote:OMG!! How dare a team pay more than Burnley.

#cheaters

Not one post has suggested that. It’s of course much easier to do with a nice pile of legitimately earned Russian money to fund the wages.

Is Bournemouth’s owner just donating money or is it a loan arrangement that can be written off ? Just wondering what happens when he pops his clogs and whether it could be another Bolton situation.

They’d drop like a stone without him and would need to very quickly pay wages that were within their means.

Blackrod wrote:Is Bournemouth’s owner just donating money or is it a loan arrangement that can be written off ? Just wondering what happens when he pops his clogs and whether it could be another Bolton situation.

I think they are operating a profit so the owner isnt needing to fund them at all whist they are in the Prem. The advantage Bournemouth have with a rich owner is they can theoretically push they spending to the limits on the premise should they go down the owner will cover the wages in the Championship.

With Eddie's eye for young players their strategy is currently pretty good as players like Wilson and Brookes would provide the funds to see out a few big contracts should they drop

The issue with this sort of stuff is our strikers are as good as him and earning a third (ballpark). When the likes of Bournemouth are paying 100k a week for anyone the world has officially gone mad.

There was a post on here a couple of months back showing the debt Bournemouth have, can’t remember exactly but it was over £100 million to a tax haven in the Caribbean, with other debts as well. Hope someone can re-post it as it shows the true debt.

He has an excellent record and now he’s capped and wanted this was inevitable.

BurnleyFC wrote:Good for them. He’s not actually that good.

14 goals and 10 assists in 30 league appearances last season.

I hope one of our strikers isn't that good this season.

Devils_Advocate wrote: With Eddie's eye for young players their strategy is currently pretty good as players like Wilson and Brookes would provide the funds to see out a few big contracts should they drop

That only works if the wages paid are inline with what other clubs "in the market" will also be prepared to pay. Lot's of examples of clubs agreeing over the odds wages and there being an impact on transfer value - either lower fee, or the selling club paying out the balance of the player's contract after the transfer.

Expensive business, if you get these things wrong.

Paul Waine wrote:That only works if the wages paid are inline with what other clubs "in the market" will also be prepared to pay. Lot's of examples of clubs agreeing over the odds wages and there being an impact on transfer value - either lower fee, or the selling club paying out the balance of the player's contract after the transfer.

Expensive business, if you get these things wrong.

Agree and thats where Bournemouth can take more risk than us but will still have their limits. £100k for an England striker in demand seems very much in line (actually probably below) what the clubs in the market for him are paying.

Its a fine balance of risk and reward with dire consequences should it be gotten wrong. Our board rightfully aren't getting involved in this but the question for our club is when does being too cautious become a problem

Edit: Just to add what I see as the good strategy part is Eddie spots some good players young so the fee's and wages are well below top dollar. Obviously they've chucked big money at some players too but for me they have the balance right at the minute. Whether that will go south soon remains to be seen

Can easily end in tears when the likes of Fraser, Brooks and Ake discuss amongst themselves why Wilson is now earning almost double that of the other players.

JohnMcGreal wrote:14 goals and 10 assists in 30 league appearances last season.

I hope one of our strikers isn't that good this season.

He has 33 in 91 prem appearances. Chris Wood has 20 in 62 for us. Very similar records.

Then factor in that 5 of his goals were penalties, you could argue that Wood has a slightly better record. Also factor in the fact that Bournemouth can’t defend and are set up to attack.

One of our strikers is as good and we are paying him a third (to a half) of what Wilson is being paid. I would also argue that Barnes is as good because I see him as a similar level to Wood with different playing style/qualities

DCWat wrote:Not one post has suggested that. It’s of course much easier to do with a nice pile of legitimately earned Russian money to fund the wages.

It’s the same every time there is a thread about anything to do with Bournemouth. People can’t take it that they spend some money. Then everyone makes post on why Burnley are better. Or Burnley players are better.

DCWat wrote:Not one post has suggested that. It’s of course much easier to do with a nice pile of legitimately earned Russian money to fund the wages.

Or a big pile of Premier League TV money.

Put it this way, last season we would have had 8 players earning £100k a week on top of our existing squad and we'd have still made a profit.

Hibsclaret wrote:He has 33 in 91 prem appearances. Chris Wood has 20 in 62 for us. Very similar records.

Then factor in that 5 of his goals were penalties, you could argue that Wood has a slightly better record. Also factor in the fact that Bournemouth can’t defend and are set up to attack.

One of our strikers is as good and we are paying him a third (to a half) of what Wilson is being paid. I would also argue that Barnes is as good because I see him as a similar level to Wood with different playing style/qualities

Where did you find out the info on how many penalties he scored? To see how many Wood has scored for us?

They’ve had a tough time of it in the past, constantly fighting to survive, I don't really have a problem with them having a few days in the sun.

The problem comes when the Russian money stops. It could all end with a Colne Dynamos like implosion on a whole new level. There will be a reckoning at some point.

one thing they are not doing from cashflow is the training ground http://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/vi ... start=1550" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blackrod wrote:Is Bournemouth’s owner just donating money or is it a loan arrangement that can be written off ? Just wondering what happens when he pops his clogs and whether it could be another Bolton situation.

Others on here would probably be able to answer that. He did sell some of the club to Americans but then bought it back.

Russian money keeping them afloat.Sounds like a mini Chelsea.How on earth are Bournemouth staying in the fair play ruled with gates of 11,000 and paying Wilson £100,000?Surely its a case of income way below outgoings and therefore breaking the ffp rules?

Woodleyclaret wrote:Russian money keeping them afloat.Sounds like a mini Chelsea.How on earth are Bournemouth staying in the fair play ruled with gates of 11,000 and paying Wilson £100,000?Surely its a case of income way below outgoings and therefore breaking the ffp rules?

There’s a base line at which fair play comes in at Premier League level. Bournemouth will be nowhere near it.

Woodleyclaret wrote:Russian money keeping them afloat.Sounds like a mini Chelsea.How on earth are Bournemouth staying in the fair play ruled with gates of 11,000 and paying Wilson £100,000?Surely its a case of income way below outgoings and therefore breaking the ffp rules?

Gate receipts are a very small percentage of a PL club's income, Bournemouth have been making profits and I don't think the PL financial rules are based on income anyway.

we have been here before - http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... hp?t=37838" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ClaretTony wrote:There’s a base line at which fair play comes in at Premier League level. Bournemouth will be nowhere near it.

Plus this has just been passed which has maybe encouraged them to start paying bigger wages?

Cleveleys_claret wrote:Plus this has just been passed which has maybe encouraged them to start paying bigger wages?

If something’s been recently passed then I don’t know. Lee Hoos told me about the base line but that was back in 2014/15.

aggi wrote:Or a big pile of Premier League TV money.

Put it this way, last season we would have had 8 players earning £100k a week on top of our existing squad and we'd have still made a profit.

I assume from reading some of your posts, aggi, that you’d advocate more of an increase in terms of wages. What would you see as being our ceiling, particularly when thinking about not risking the club in the future?

Devils_Advocate wrote:I think they are operating a profit so the owner isnt needing to fund them at all whist they are in the Prem.

I'm pretty sure this isn't correct given their wage bill and transfer business on crowds of less than 11,000.

DCWat wrote:I assume from reading some of your posts, aggi, that you’d advocate more of an increase in terms of wages. What would you see as being our ceiling, particularly when thinking about not risking the club in the future?

I think up until now our wages have been sensible. We don't have a rich backer so we had to build up that pile of money in case of relegation. We're at the point now where I feel the level of reserves is sufficient to see us through a couple of years if we go down so we don't need to carry on making profits of ~ £45m (although the year just gone will likely be a fair bit lower due to lack of player trading) although I'd still like to see average profits in the region of £10-15m.

As such, I wouldn't be averse to a modest increase in wages but I would still expect us to be one of the lowest wage bills in the division. I'd also like to pair that with greater investment in younger players (similar to Bournemouth I guess in terms of promising, edge of the first team players around 20-23).

Jakubs Tash wrote:I'm pretty sure this isn't correct given their wage bill and transfer business on crowds of less than 11,000.

For clubs like Burnley and Bournemouth the crowds make barely any difference. It's about 4% of the total revenue. It's all about the TV money

ClaretTony wrote:If something’s been recently passed then I don’t know. Lee Hoos told me about the base line but that was back in 2014/15.

I assume Clevely's is talking about the removal of thr £7m year on year wages increase http://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/vi ... d#p1038895" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Serviceable

That's the word that Bolton fans used to use a lot.

As in the sentence, "The debt is serviceable whilst we are an established Premier League team."

Rowls wrote:Serviceable

That's the word that Bolton fans used to use a lot.

As in the sentence, "The debt is serviceable whilst we are an established Premier League team."

Bolton was an interesting one as Davies wrote off almost all the debt when the club was sold, the problem was the expectation even the demand that someone else would do the same, combined with an owner who saw the club as a vehicle to make money not spend money.

The real issue is what happens when an owner loses their interest, dies or has to recall the monies loaned.

Quickenthetempo wrote:Where did you find out the info on how many penalties he scored? To see how many Wood has scored for us?

Just google Bournemouth penalty takers. There are stats on everything.

We don’t get pens and Wood hasn’t scored any in the league I don’t think

They also spunked a shed full of cash on Defoe and that was hardly a success.

Rowls wrote:Serviceable

That's the word that Bolton fans used to use a lot.

As in the sentence, "The debt is serviceable whilst we are an established Premier League team."

And that's the gamble half of the current PL clubs have to weigh up,what happens in the event of relegation,if Bournemouth were to drop in the next season or two,they could run into problems,not insurmountable problems by any means,but they'd have to trim their running costs,of course in the event of Championship football,Callum Wilson and a few others will move on anyway,i guess the bigger issue is having guys on large contracts that you can't shift off the wage bill,for instance a Jack Rodwell at Sunderland type situation.

About 5 or 6 years ago they were paying Sylvain Distin a rumoured £100,000 a week while he was there on loan

How do Bournemouth need the Russian owners money if they’re making profit from PL income? All Bournemouth are doing is spending the PL money (the same money we receive) on young players (assets), if they go down, they will be able to offload many of their players (including their highest earners) and for big money too. Fraser, Brooks, Wilson and Ake must be pushing £150M in fees in the ever inflating market if they ever needed to cut their cloth.

So essentially where we have our money stockpiled in the dry powder room, Bournemouth are investing it into young players and adding to an already very good squad.

Who’s policy is better? In the end, Bournemouth will receive a much higher return on their assets than we have cash stockpiled.

they were paying Defoe even more

KRBFC wrote:How do Bournemouth need the Russian owners money if they’re making profit from PL income? All Bournemouth are doing is spending the PL money (the same money we receive) on young players (assets), if they go down, they will be able to offload many of their players (including their highest earners) and for big money too. Fraser, Brooks, Wilson and Ake must be pushing £150M in fees in the ever inflating market if they ever needed to cut their cloth.

So essentially where we have our money stockpiled in the dry powder room, Bournemouth are investing it into young players and adding to an already very good squad.

Who’s policy is better? In the end, Bournemouth will receive a much higher return on their assets than we have cash stockpiled.

1) they didn’t make a profit - they lost nearly £11m.
2) their wage bill increased by nearly 50% to over £100m
3) they recently paid a fine of almost £5m for breaking financial fair play rules in championship
4) they have over £120m of creditors - £52m of which is from their sugar daddy billionaire owners

The reason all of the above circumstances are allowed to exist are because of their owners. Everything else you included in your post is pretty much incorrect because of the above.
So when you ask which is the best policy - Bournemouth’s or ours it’s a completely irrelevant question because we do not have any option to do what they do.

I know you love nothing more to be negative about our club but just for once why don’t you actually do a bit of research before you post your criticism...or even better don’t post anything at all

bfcjg wrote:They also spunked a shed full of cash on Defoe and that was hardly a success.

Weirdly when I suggested he wasn't worth the money/wages and wouldn't be any good, I was battered on here and yet you're stating he wasn't a success.

I think I'll just wait until a transfer has proven to be hardly a success next time

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Weirdly when I suggested he wasn't worth the money/wages and wouldn't be any good, I was battered on here and yet you're stating he wasn't a success.

I think I'll just wait until a transfer has proven to be hardly a success next time

Is Defoe still out on loan?