Fletcher out

GibGreen wrote:

I believe we are still paying a significant portion of Damien Johnsons wages. Why not end his contract to free up some more of the 55%?

Yes, I fully understand that it would cost a lot to end his contract. Call it, oh I don't know, investment for example.

What I don't know is if the money saved not paying DJ's wages would be enough for another striker?

Thoughts?

If we cancelled his contract we would be due to pay it off in full and so save nothing. We could, perhaps, negotiate an early settlement at a lower price but why would he want to sign it? The really daft thing is that we are paying him to play for a team that is richer than we are but that is just one of the anomalies to come out of the mess of the last year or two.

Crawley deserves a thread of its own. Where does their money come from? Just how are they financed? Who owns them?

I know paying off DJ wouldn't save anything. In fact it would cost us - a lot.

My point is though, the wage bill will drop. Thus, freeing up some of the 55% for a new player.

GibGreen wrote:

I know paying off DJ wouldn't save anything. In fact it would cost us - a lot.

My point is though, the wage bill will drop. Thus, freeing up some of the 55% for a new player.

I don't understand how we would save any money by paying him off.

I'm not explaining myself very well. I apologise for that.

At the moment, we are apparently at 55% of wages versus income.

By paying off DJ, the wage bill would come down to whatever (say 50% for example). That would then free up 5% of wages v income to pay another player. The figures are arbitrary and just there for example purposes.

It wouldn't save any money, in fact it would cost us, but it would enable us to get a new striker without breaking the 55% rule.

I hope that's a bit clearer.

But if we are up against the 55% ceiling then how can we suddenly bring 6 months wages forward, pay them in one go and stay under the 55% for that month? We can't. If these things are levelled out over a whole season allowing us to excede in a given month it wouldn't make any difference at all over the longer term. All it would do is bring forward the date that the money is due.

I don't how the 55% is calculated, whether It's just a spot time, or if It's averaged out over a season.

If It's just 'it needs to be 55% at any given moment', then JB would just need to put his hand in his pocket and pay him off.

If It's averaged over a season, then yes I agree, it wouldn't be possible.

Correct me if im wrong this sixty percent rule has a very large loop hole. All brent needs to do is make salt rock/ akkeron group a new club sponsor and pay us say 1miilion a year each which is then classed as income, then we have more money to spend on wages. Just like other clubs do.

lawnmowerman wrote:

Correct me if im wrong this sixty percent rule has a very large loop hole. All brent needs to do is make salt rock/ akkeron group a new club sponsor and pay us say 1miilion a year each which is then classed as income, then we have more money to spend on wages. Just like other clubs do.

Indeed.

lawnmowerman wrote:

Correct me if im wrong this sixty percent rule has a very large loop hole. All brent needs to do is make salt rock/ akkeron group a new club sponsor and pay us say 1miilion a year each which is then classed as income, then we have more money to spend on wages. Just like other clubs do.

This has been mentioned elsewhere too e.g renaming the stadium the Akkeron stadium. But clearly brent is not interested.

Thanks to Grovehill for this:

Quote :

But chairman Greg Clarke said the governing body was taking a "leap of faith" in approving the businessman's takeover.

Mr Brent's offer, although strongly backed by fans, was always a last resort for Argyle, and will see creditors – including charities and small businesses – receive less than 1p for every pound they were owed when the club collapsed in March.

In a statement, Mr Clark said: "I would like to welcome James Brent to the Football League and thank him for the efforts he has made to help save Plymouth Argyle Football Club."

But he added: "It is important to place on record that his takeover proposals have required a significant leap of faith by the board, which it has agreed to take in order to preserve the future of professional football in Plymouth.

"In seasons ahead, the League will closely scrutinise the financial affairs of the club to ensure that the promises made to the board are kept."


The above is a direct quote from the League after PAFC exited Administration.

The last sentence seems to indicate that it's not just compliance with the "55%" rule that the League are concerned about.

Rather begs the question why the wage cap's being stressed so much when they could be looking at everything.

By the by - and no agenda here - we obviously know the staff and players have got to wait, but does anybody know if all the relevant creditors have had their 0.77p yet?

I think we have just witnessed the cheapest takeover of a business in administration ever, I think that the paying of the staff debts over 5 years are the problem in all this. I wonder if the equation being used by Brent is 55% T (being turnover) - staff payments 50% T= -5% B to spend on players. It is this 5 year plan that I have always had a problem with, I cannot get my head around the fact that we are not allowed to question the ins and outs of this when the owner has nothing to hide and we the fans are paying off the debt, I would be a lot happier with some honesty than poodle fed bullshit.

....



EDIT: I replied to a different topic but when I posted my lambastal of knecht it ended up on this thread....how positively QUEER.

Has anybody ever seen the actual rule that defines this 55% salary cap? What does it actually say?

I personally believe Carl Fletcher has done a superb job, it has taken time but we are out of the bottom 2, we need a good mentor not a new manager