| Robinson & Ned 18:31 - Mar 28 with 4827 views | 1JD |
Whilst I believe both Ned and Robbo will be offered new contracts as our first choice centre half pairing, if there are only funds to re-sign one, then I expect the club to choose Robbo, not Ned, for purely financial reasons.
At 24 years old, the major difference is that Robinson under a 3 year contract is a higher value asset on the balance sheet, than Ned at 31 years old, on a 2 year contract.
If Robinson continues to prove his fitness and his quality, then his value as a top, young, championship defender with former England u21 pedigree, in today’s market is circa £5m, and growing. Ned at 32 on his next birthday, is not a financial asset, and as a result we have a substantial differential of £5m in asset value.
Worth noting this as many are expecting Ned to stay and Robbo to go if we can only choose one. Also worth noting that whilst every team ideally needs a balance of experience and youth (I.e. Nedum is clearly an experienced player for us and does a great job), we may on this occasion not be afforded such luxuries, as finances (not just expenses, i.e. wages, but assets, i.e. player value) will largely dictate who we try and re-sign this summer. |  | | |  |
| Robinson & Ned on 19:01 - Mar 28 with 4766 views | Hunterhoop |
I 'don't think anyone disagrees with that.
But it's not just down to us. The players have a say. And the club are unlikely to break the salary cap they have in place, which I believe is £12k per week basic, as I'm surely was reported when Chery left. Now Caulker is gone, the only two players above this, on old guard money, are Ned and Robinson.
Precisely because of what you've said, it's unlikely we'll be able to compete with some other clubs on Robinson. Because of Ned's situation, age, asset value, he may be content to resign in our wage structure.
The players will dictate the outcome, not the club. The club are absolutely right not to break with their more disciplined wage structure approach. |  | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 19:20 - Mar 28 with 4723 views | kensalriser |
Any player's going to go if he gets offered a much better deal somewhere else and there's nothing we can do about if his contract's up. |  |
| |
| Robinson & Ned on 19:41 - Mar 28 with 4683 views | Match82 |
Grant Hall might have something to say about those two being first choice, fitness depending. |  | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 22:18 - Mar 28 with 4496 views | RBlock |
| Robinson & Ned on 19:01 - Mar 28 by Hunterhoop |
I 'don't think anyone disagrees with that.
But it's not just down to us. The players have a say. And the club are unlikely to break the salary cap they have in place, which I believe is £12k per week basic, as I'm surely was reported when Chery left. Now Caulker is gone, the only two players above this, on old guard money, are Ned and Robinson.
Precisely because of what you've said, it's unlikely we'll be able to compete with some other clubs on Robinson. Because of Ned's situation, age, asset value, he may be content to resign in our wage structure.
The players will dictate the outcome, not the club. The club are absolutely right not to break with their more disciplined wage structure approach. |
To add to this, Ned is settled here and is club captain.
Robinson got brought in to play football and was immediately farmed out on loan, which understandably pissed him off a bit [that is that famed Redknapp man management for you]. I wouldn't say he owes us much in the way of loyalty, and when he can earn more else where what incentivise's him to take a pay cut? |  | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 22:23 - Mar 28 with 4479 views | Dorse |
In many ways, I'd like to see both stay for different reasons. Head says Robinson (for all the reasons JD mentioned); heart says Ned (steady leadership). Likelihood is that we'll end up with neither, which raises different questions. Who should be captain? Starting CB partnership? |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| Robinson & Ned on 03:03 - Mar 29 with 4307 views | timcocking |
Robbo will surely be able to move to a 'bigger team', if not a premier league side if he wants. I'd be interested to know what he's being paid now, any ideas? Can't see him staying unfortunately.
Ned at his age i'm sure would hope to stay. I hope we keep him. He's been faultless off the pitch and ok on it. I've no problem with Ned. But i assume they are letting him go. Otherwise our conduct is p!ss poor. The service he's given us, he deserves to know our plans for him.
Much prefer a centre back who is comfortable with the ball given the choice though (Robbo).
But the fact they haven't been offered contracts by now means we have to expect they are both off. Which will be a mistake. [Post edited 29 Mar 2018 3:04]
|  | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 09:48 - Mar 29 with 4099 views | W7Ranger |
| Robinson & Ned on 03:03 - Mar 29 by timcocking |
Robbo will surely be able to move to a 'bigger team', if not a premier league side if he wants. I'd be interested to know what he's being paid now, any ideas? Can't see him staying unfortunately.
Ned at his age i'm sure would hope to stay. I hope we keep him. He's been faultless off the pitch and ok on it. I've no problem with Ned. But i assume they are letting him go. Otherwise our conduct is p!ss poor. The service he's given us, he deserves to know our plans for him.
Much prefer a centre back who is comfortable with the ball given the choice though (Robbo).
But the fact they haven't been offered contracts by now means we have to expect they are both off. Which will be a mistake. [Post edited 29 Mar 2018 3:04]
|
I thought contract talks were underway with Robbo? |  | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 10:39 - Mar 29 with 4040 views | Antti_Heinola |
I've gotta say, I' not as convinced by robbo as others. Straight choice between the two? We need experience. Ned. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Robinson & Ned on 10:50 - Mar 29 with 4019 views | paulparker |
| Robinson & Ned on 10:39 - Mar 29 by Antti_Heinola |
I've gotta say, I' not as convinced by robbo as others. Straight choice between the two? We need experience. Ned. |
at the end of the day results have picked up but we are a 16th/17th placed championship team no way should we be paying anything more than 15/20k a week for lets face it average championship players , if they go they go , its down to our new scouts& DOF to find adequate replacements for less money , that's the way it is |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| Robinson & Ned on 12:14 - Mar 29 with 3947 views | hubble |
| Robinson & Ned on 19:01 - Mar 28 by Hunterhoop |
I 'don't think anyone disagrees with that.
But it's not just down to us. The players have a say. And the club are unlikely to break the salary cap they have in place, which I believe is £12k per week basic, as I'm surely was reported when Chery left. Now Caulker is gone, the only two players above this, on old guard money, are Ned and Robinson.
Precisely because of what you've said, it's unlikely we'll be able to compete with some other clubs on Robinson. Because of Ned's situation, age, asset value, he may be content to resign in our wage structure.
The players will dictate the outcome, not the club. The club are absolutely right not to break with their more disciplined wage structure approach. |
Salary cap at £12k a week basic. Good grief. Is it still really that much? Incredible. |  |
| |
| Robinson & Ned on 12:22 - Mar 29 with 3933 views | isawqpratwcity |
| Robinson & Ned on 12:14 - Mar 29 by hubble |
Salary cap at £12k a week basic. Good grief. Is it still really that much? Incredible. |
There'd be plenty in the Championship on much, much more than that, even without legacy Premier contracts. |  |
| |
| Robinson & Ned on 12:38 - Mar 29 with 3914 views | smegma |
| Robinson & Ned on 12:14 - Mar 29 by hubble |
Salary cap at £12k a week basic. Good grief. Is it still really that much? Incredible. |
I believe the cap is £20k. How do they keep the bailiffs from the door?? | | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 12:52 - Mar 29 with 3885 views | Northernr |
| Robinson & Ned on 12:38 - Mar 29 by smegma |
I believe the cap is £20k. How do they keep the bailiffs from the door?? |
That's what it has been but wouldn't surprise me if it's coming down again given the looming end of the parachute payments - which is probably why we'll struggle to keep these two. |  | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 12:59 - Mar 29 with 3870 views | LazyFan |
I thought when Chery left the wage limit was £10K per week max, not £12K. And that only Chery was on that out of the entire squad (apart from the old contracts that Caulker, Ned and any others may have been on).
I think Robbo (3-year) will stay and so, will Ned (2-year). I am hoping we shall re-sign them at lower wages but still high for the Championship as they can both command this.
And then I am hoping we sell Winter Leech and Washout to Sunderland who will have the funds to buy them. Fish and Mackie are released. We sell Sylla to a team in France and then with whatever is left we buy a target man (not a striker) from the lower leagues who can score goals. Develop Wheeler into a Right Back, which I think was why we really signed him. Or sign a Right Back on a free from the lower leagues.
And then use our attacking young un's for supporting our new target man.
This should set us up nicely for next season and also mean we only bring in like 2 players and release at least 4 in return. All for very little outlay or even profit!!!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz |  |
| |
| Robinson & Ned on 15:22 - Mar 29 with 3798 views | 1JD |
We are probably working towards a total wage bill of £8-10m to be self-sustainable in the post-parachute payment era (start of 19/20 season). But this also includes management and all other staff, which currently make up around 30% of the total. The current Championship average is £27m.
A quick run of the numbers applied to a 25-man playing squad, gives a budget of around £9m for playing staff, but probably needs to be a bit less. Anyway for estimates sake..
2 players on 15k per week = £1.56m
5 players on 10k per week = £2.6m
5 players on 7.5k per week = £1.95m
10 players on 5k per week = £2.6m
5 players on 2.5k per week = £650k
Total: £9.36m.
Why does the total wage bill need to be around the £10m mark? Because we currently have a pretty fixed cost of a further £10m for all other expenses (training ground rental, stewarding etc). Our total income post-parachute era will be circa £20m (£7.5m Championship Broadcasting, £7.5m Commercial, £5.5m Ticketing). Meaning a wage bill of around 10m is required in order to break-even.
This excludes any player trading (in or out) and should allay any fears that we are absolute desperate and need to sell assets to survive, which is not the case, as the club will have the wage budget under control by start of 19/20 season - and we are well on the way. | | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 19:52 - Mar 29 with 3651 views | ridethewave |
| Robinson & Ned on 12:59 - Mar 29 by LazyFan |
I thought when Chery left the wage limit was £10K per week max, not £12K. And that only Chery was on that out of the entire squad (apart from the old contracts that Caulker, Ned and any others may have been on).
I think Robbo (3-year) will stay and so, will Ned (2-year). I am hoping we shall re-sign them at lower wages but still high for the Championship as they can both command this.
And then I am hoping we sell Winter Leech and Washout to Sunderland who will have the funds to buy them. Fish and Mackie are released. We sell Sylla to a team in France and then with whatever is left we buy a target man (not a striker) from the lower leagues who can score goals. Develop Wheeler into a Right Back, which I think was why we really signed him. Or sign a Right Back on a free from the lower leagues.
And then use our attacking young un's for supporting our new target man.
This should set us up nicely for next season and also mean we only bring in like 2 players and release at least 4 in return. All for very little outlay or even profit!!!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
You were talking lot of sense... and then you suggested we spend money on a right back/turn a winger into a right back, with no mention of our perfectly capable, young, and hungry lad, Furlong. [Post edited 29 Mar 2018 19:53]
|  | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 03:43 - Mar 30 with 3518 views | timcocking |
| Robinson & Ned on 10:39 - Mar 29 by Antti_Heinola |
I've gotta say, I' not as convinced by robbo as others. Straight choice between the two? We need experience. Ned. |
I like them both. Jack's just younger, that's tipping the balance for me. But we should definitely be keeping them both if possible imo. | | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 03:45 - Mar 30 with 3516 views | timcocking |
| Robinson & Ned on 09:48 - Mar 29 by W7Ranger |
I thought contract talks were underway with Robbo? |
Oh, didn't hear. I heard Jack say one or two weeks ago he wants to stay but we haven't been in contact at all. Same thing Ned said. Hope you're right. | | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 12:49 - Mar 30 with 3411 views | LazyFan |
| Robinson & Ned on 19:52 - Mar 29 by ridethewave |
You were talking lot of sense... and then you suggested we spend money on a right back/turn a winger into a right back, with no mention of our perfectly capable, young, and hungry lad, Furlong. [Post edited 29 Mar 2018 19:53]
|
Actually, I said at the start of the season that Furlong should be the first choice right back and it was a disgrace that he was not auto-included in the team.
Apologies if it was not clear, but the need for a right back here is as a back up to Furs2. Hence that is why we can take a risk on converting Wheeler or getting freebies from the lower leagues as that person is the back up to Furs2.
If we have Robbo and Bids gets injured we know Robbo can go across and cover, while Hall comes in for him. So, the left back position would be covered. As the Fish will leave, this leaves us only with Furs2 as a right back. Granted a very good right back, but we need cover. Hence my comments.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz | |
| |
| Robinson & Ned on 13:50 - Mar 30 with 3340 views | ridethewave |
| Robinson & Ned on 12:49 - Mar 30 by LazyFan |
Actually, I said at the start of the season that Furlong should be the first choice right back and it was a disgrace that he was not auto-included in the team.
Apologies if it was not clear, but the need for a right back here is as a back up to Furs2. Hence that is why we can take a risk on converting Wheeler or getting freebies from the lower leagues as that person is the back up to Furs2.
If we have Robbo and Bids gets injured we know Robbo can go across and cover, while Hall comes in for him. So, the left back position would be covered. As the Fish will leave, this leaves us only with Furs2 as a right back. Granted a very good right back, but we need cover. Hence my comments.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
Well that, I certainly agree with :) [Post edited 30 Mar 2018 13:50]
| | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 17:24 - Mar 30 with 3257 views | LongtimeR |
My numbers may be out of date (and the rules may have changed yet again) but I think the FFP rules allow a Championship team to make an average annual loss of £13m over a 3 year period (or £5m a year if the loss is not converted into equity).
That gives a bit more room on the wage side although it all depends on how far Uncle Tony is prepared to dip into his or his fellow directors' pockets. Also there is the small matter of the FFP fine. | | | |
| Robinson & Ned on 02:45 - Mar 31 with 3167 views | Benny_the_Ball |
To be honest I won't get too excited whether they stay or go. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
