£8,000 per week..

A lot more!

Read the Deloitte report that's the best source for footballers' earnings. On paper that is. Footballers instruct expensive accountants and IFAs to deal with their money, especially the higher up in the league structure they go.

The player's base weekly wage gives little accuracy to actual earnings because their contracts are heavily performance related. I have had to review a fair few and they become quite complex/convoluted - i.e. weekly bonuses based on position in the league table, wins, goals etc.

I've seen some very average footballers earn a very lot of money, but I don't think that's revealing anything ground-breaking.

 

Some general points, didn't really know where to post, but...

Firstly, the pay of footballers is obscene, all stemming from the top and the consequent knock on effect, and it is us that pay them. Whether that's through ticket prices, sky subscriptions or the price of the pint in the pub which has been inflated to cover the cost of their sky subscription.

There is a bit of double standards in parts of this thread where people are complaining about wages in football. When Steele and Hassell were being offered reduced terms plenty said it was derisory and shocking. When we brought in players from lower leagues on lower wages they were immediately branded as not good enough. I appreciate this is an extremely glib interpretation of a more complex issue.

My main point is that O'Grady and Cranie were our best players last season, and our best players the season before. At least we are in a position where our best players earn the most (which has often not been the case - Lovre, Jay Mac, Mostto etc). But we don't operate in a vaccuum. It would be great if we paid half us much to all our players but then they wouldn't sign for us. They would go somewhere else.

The big problem last season wasn't O'Grady and Cranie being on (insert whatever figure here). Its that we had too many players, and didn't spend more of our wage bill on players of their quality. Flitcroft offered two many existing players new deals and brought in too many, leaving us with a bloated squad who on the whole weren't good enough. We'd have been better having 22 quality players instead of 40 limited ones.

And if we'd only given them one year deals everyone would have gone mental when they walked away for nowt or were flogged on the cheap at Christmas.

The problem is we're playing an unfair game, trying to compete on an un-level playing field of parachute payments and irresponsible debt ridden spending. Which ultimately means Mansford et al are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

Haven't read JD's book, but that would lead to an interesting discussion with my 'source' (which would involve a breach of confidence to reveal). I wonder whether JD's figures are describing basic salary figures or total potential earnings (with bonuses, etc)? I can see why JD would want to make the position seem a fait accomplait, because allowing Danny to go was just about the most disastrous decision in my 40+ years of watching Barnsley. The fact is though, that Danny was contracted to us, and we had to give Wednesday permission to speak to him. So it was a conscious decision on our part. And even if you accept JD's figures at face value then the extra 250K pa would have been money better spent than we lavished on a number of hopeless players in the years following.

Although you don't quote your source re salaries, I'm happy to accept what you say there. But do you agree that Tinkler was top earner, with Redders on less? That would be another error of judgement on the (then) Board's part, in my view.

 

Wasn't it Tinkler, De Zeeuw and Fjortoft who pulled the most money?

 

You're a reasonable pr1ck you, Andy.

 

Wilson wanted to leave though, so I'm not sure what the board could have done. We got huge compensation for him going too which was down to JD's negotiating skills.

Appointing Hendrie wasn't great - although he did sign Hignett and Dyer.

I can't recall how much Tinkler was on but could find out I suppose. Also worth pointing out is that the manager signs the players - not the board. Wilson chose Tinkler and will have been the one who approved his wages, with the final sign-off from the board.

 

Zidic is out of contract and doesn't have a new club yet, so he's done with robbing the Brummies.

 

Annoying though, in't it.

 

Wilson would be the one to approve a player's wages? Really, his responsibility? Not the ones in charge of the club's various financial budgets and running costs, ie administrative costs, all payroll costs, paying agents fees, setting admission fees, etc.?
Blimey, you learn something new every day.

 

Is that still the case now, mate? For example, the offers to Bobby/Cranie/TK/COG/Jennings etc last season. Who decides on what to offer them? Would it have been Flitcroft, and then signed off by Ben?

Same again - will the financial offers to Dawson, JOB and Cywka this summer have been made by Danny, and then signed off by Ben? Or, is it Ben (or Maurice/Patrick/Barry) who determine how much we offer to pay the player, and the managers only choice is whether he wants that player?

 

At the evening with JD thingy at the Lamproom he said that the player who earned the highest amount in any one season during his time at Oakwell was Craig Hignett, who he said with wages, signing on fees and bonuses cleared £300k one season. So, unless JD was lying, mistaken or can't add up, it blows the Tinkler's £8k rumour out of the water.

 

Don't agree with that. I've been to a number John Dennis speeches/meetings/evenings with/whatever and he hasn't said anything like that. Exactly the opposite in fact. Wilson wanted Tinkler, yes, but John Dennis agreed the wages. From what I can gather John and Danny worked very closely when acquiring players, sounds like they had a really good relationship, but John Dennis made the decision about the size of the contract.

John tells a good story about when we nearly signed Ian Dowie. Danny, John, Dowie and his agent were discussing a contract with Dowie and his agent wanting ridiculous amounts of money. John eventually offered a figure, so Dowie and his agent left the room to discuss it. John then turned to Danny and said, "I've made a mistake, I've offered him way too much, we can't afford that." Dowie and his agent returned and rejected the offer, then left.

John Dennis, breathing a sigh of relief, turned to Danny and said, "Who else do you want?"
"Ashley Ward" replied Danny.

 

Didn't know he's left. Unreal that they could pay that for the last few seasons though.

 

Isn't that in the John Dennis book though, author Matthew Murray?


I'm still waiting for Matthew to answer me anyway, because like you (and Kev) I find it hard to believe the manager decides how much to offer players in terms of a salary.

 

Not a chance Whitey. No manager will decide the wages. A lot of managers openly say they don't even know the players wages.

Take VanGaal for example. Edward Woodard will have done the lot along with the other board members.

 

That's always been my understanding. That a manager may have 'some' input, but that the negotiations are held between the player and his advisor(s) and the board members of the club. Maybe I've read it wrong, but Matthew seems to be implying that Danny (and managers before him) have greater input and decide a players salary.

 

I don't know what Barnsley do but if you listen to managers talk about it some hardly get involved. harry redknapp Often says he just gives a list of names and then the Chairman and board get the players. Doesn't even get involved in Transfer fees wages anything. The only thing he will meet the player for is to tell him the plans and maybe sell his idea.

 

Harry Redknapp doesn't get involved in transfer deals?

Really?

 

Said it quite a lot.

The defender they got from Russia former Blackburn player was just a player on a list. Said next thing he knew was he was meeting him after Toni had fernandes signed him.

Think the name was Samba