Kemar Roofe

[Sunglasses Ron 2,506]

Surprised he ended up injured after the fall but guess it was just one of this things. Prepared to keep the faith in Kemar after grabbing his goal, but that might change with the next one. 

[Sunglasses Ron 2,506]

.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,655]

9 minutes ago, Somemightsay7 said:

We'd still be paying his wages. Just rather than over the next 18 months in one big lump sum.

Paying him up now wouldn't mean we would be able to spend his £25k wages elsewhere.

It would if we used transfer funds, especially with FFP and wages as a % of turnover (if thats still part of their rules) 

Pointless us having transfer fees available if theres no room in the wage budget

[Somemightsay7 2,461]

11 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

It would if we used transfer funds, especially with FFP and wages as a % of turnover (if thats still part of their rules) 

Pointless us having transfer fees available if theres no room in the wage budget

But that's just 6 and half a dozen is it not?

Paying him off would cost £2m. Keeping him would cost £25k per week for the next 18 months.

If the club want to deduct £2m from our Transfer Budget and add it to our wage budget they can do that with our without Roofe. So your options are still either keep Roofe and lose £2m or get rid of Roofe and lose £2m.

The only way it would make sense is if Roofe agreed to be paid off for far less (eg. £1m) but I'd imagine that is unlikely. 

Paying him off would actually be worse for FFP, as keeping him on the bookings the £2m would be spread over 2 years, whereas paying him off now it would all go into this years accounts. FFP rules are mainly just income vs spend, regardless of whether it is wages or transfers from my understanding.

[OrangeRab 2,837]

It’s one of those super unlucky injuries you pick up when you have been out for a while.

Your strength, balance, positioning maybe just a bit off and you get into slightly worse positions where you leave yourself exposed to challenges like that (it was definitely a free kick. Not sure what the ref was smoking).

[graeme_4 34,774]

27 minutes ago, Somemightsay7 said:

But that's just 6 and half a dozen is it not?

Paying him off would cost £2m. Keeping him would cost £25k per week for the next 18 months.

If the club want to deduct £2m from our Transfer Budget and add it to our wage budget they can do that with our without Roofe. So your options are still either keep Roofe and lose £2m or get rid of Roofe and lose £2m.

The only way it would make sense is if Roofe agreed to be paid off for far less (eg. £1m) but I'd imagine that is unlikely. 

Paying him off would actually be worse for FFP, as keeping him on the bookings the £2m would be spread over 2 years, whereas paying him off now it would all go into this years accounts. FFP rules are mainly just income vs spend, regardless of whether it is wages or transfers from my understanding.

Thought FFP was wages as a % of turnover?

If it’s a one off cost, it’s not wages maybe?

Fuck knows. If it’s a serious one we need another striker in. 

[ElBufalo20 7,925]

1 hour ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Aye except his wages could be used elsewhere

Plenty of players who should be out the door first to save on wages than Roofe

[GersInCanada 7,775]

14 minutes ago, ElBufalo20 said:

Plenty of players who should be out the door first to save on wages than Roofe

Quite right. We have a lot of deadwood to get rid of first. Kemar was only on for a few minutes before putting us in final.

I don't think the arm thing is serious. I have seen jump jockeys come away holding their arm in a similar fashion but a few days later they are back in the saddle.

[dummiesoot 16,034]

19 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

Quite right. We have a lot of deadwood to get rid of first. Kemar was only on for a few minutes before putting us in final.

I don't think the arm thing is serious. I have seen jump jockeys come away holding their arm in a similar fashion but a few days later they are back in the saddle.

Jockeys are brave as fuck mind you

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,655]

1 hour ago, Somemightsay7 said:

But that's just 6 and half a dozen is it not?

Paying him off would cost £2m. Keeping him would cost £25k per week for the next 18 months.

If the club want to deduct £2m from our Transfer Budget and add it to our wage budget they can do that with our without Roofe. So your options are still either keep Roofe and lose £2m or get rid of Roofe and lose £2m.

The only way it would make sense is if Roofe agreed to be paid off for far less (eg. £1m) but I'd imagine that is unlikely. 

Paying him off would actually be worse for FFP, as keeping him on the bookings the £2m would be spread over 2 years, whereas paying him off now it would all go into this years accounts. FFP rules are mainly just income vs spend, regardless of whether it is wages or transfers from my understanding.

So we keep roofe for 15 games and potentially lose out on a signing who could manage double that because we dont have the wages there, when we could maybe pay him up his contract, take it off the transfer funds (which we'll struggle to spend anyway given there no wages) and have someone whos more reliable fitness wise

Even if the payoff goes into this years accounts, they will likely have the space to do so given the month we'll have taken in this season, what they wont be able to do is commit another contract for a new player knowing the next x amount of months we'll be over budget cause of guys like roofe helander etc

In theory

[Essandoh 21,226]

One of my favourite songs for a player  

Brilliant

[Somemightsay7 2,461]

5 hours ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

So we keep roofe for 15 games and potentially lose out on a signing who could manage double that because we dont have the wages there, when we could maybe pay him up his contract, take it off the transfer funds (which we'll struggle to spend anyway given there no wages) and have someone whos more reliable fitness wise

Even if the payoff goes into this years accounts, they will likely have the space to do so given the month we'll have taken in this season, what they wont be able to do is commit another contract for a new player knowing the next x amount of months we'll be over budget cause of guys like roofe helander etc

In theory

That's not how clubs work.

Money is money, how much the club assigns to wages or transfers is irrelevant, what is important is how much you spend. FFP and the clubs financials are as simple is Income minus Spend. If the club wants to spend less on transfers and more on wages they can.

If we spent £2m paying off Roofe that doesn't "free up" £25k per week, we've just paid it in advance.

It's like saying whether to pay your £40 per month Phone contract up front or over the next 12 months. If you pay it up front that doesn't mean you have an extra £40 per month to spend. In the Roofe scenario your options are paying the phone upfront and not having the phone or paying it monthly and having the phone. I'd rather pay monthly and have the phone given the overall cost is the same.

 

[rabc10000 5,061]

4 minutes ago, Somemightsay7 said:

That's not how clubs work.

Money is money, how much the club assigns to wages or transfers is irrelevant, what is important is how much you spend. FFP and the clubs financials are as simple is Income minus Spend. If the club wants to spend less on transfers and more on wages they can.

If we spent £2m paying off Roofe that doesn't "free up" £25k per week, we've just paid it in advance.

It's like saying whether to pay your £40 per month Phone contract up front or over the next 12 months. If you pay it up front that doesn't mean you have an extra £40 per month to spend. In the Roofe scenario your options are paying the phone upfront and not having the phone or paying it monthly and having the phone. I'd rather have the phone given the overall cost is the same.

 

Or you could say income is 100m so the max we can use in players wages and transfers is 70m (unless it's changed from 70% )

[Bad Robot 21,373]

Any update on his injury?

[The Specky Forum Organiser 65,295]

5 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

Any update on his injury?

He's dead

[rabc10000 5,061]

9 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

Any update on his injury?

Had a tattoo done before his 2nd last Friday night. Infected tattoo 6-8 weeks minimum

[Bad Robot 21,373]

4 minutes ago, The Specky Liar said:

He's dead

dead to you or dead to everyone 

[Somemightsay7 2,461]

27 minutes ago, rabc10000 said:

Or you could say income is 100m so the max we can use in players wages and transfers is 70m (unless it's changed from 70% )

Basically yeah.

So if we're going to have to spend the money we may as well have the player.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,655]

49 minutes ago, Somemightsay7 said:

That's not how clubs work.

Money is money, how much the club assigns to wages or transfers is irrelevant, what is important is how much you spend. FFP and the clubs financials are as simple is Income minus Spend. If the club wants to spend less on transfers and more on wages they can.

If we spent £2m paying off Roofe that doesn't "free up" £25k per week, we've just paid it in advance.

It's like saying whether to pay your £40 per month Phone contract up front or over the next 12 months. If you pay it up front that doesn't mean you have an extra £40 per month to spend. In the Roofe scenario your options are paying the phone upfront and not having the phone or paying it monthly and having the phone. I'd rather pay monthly and have the phone given the overall cost is the same.

 

Lets put it another way then, the club will want more than 15 games a season (if he even manages that) so paying him off and spending the wages elsewhere is a better option

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,655]

53 minutes ago, Somemightsay7 said:

That's not how clubs work.

Money is money, how much the club assigns to wages or transfers is irrelevant, what is important is how much you spend. FFP and the clubs financials are as simple is Income minus Spend. If the club wants to spend less on transfers and more on wages they can.

If we spent £2m paying off Roofe that doesn't "free up" £25k per week, we've just paid it in advance.

It's like saying whether to pay your £40 per month Phone contract up front or over the next 12 months. If you pay it up front that doesn't mean you have an extra £40 per month to spend. In the Roofe scenario your options are paying the phone upfront and not having the phone or paying it monthly and having the phone. I'd rather pay monthly and have the phone given the overall cost is the same.

 

Also as its 70%, surely paying him off this year, when we have the funds to take the hit, is better as is frees up his wages for the following season when we might have less money

To use your phone analogy, if you had the money to pay it upfront, wouldn't you want to knowing that you'll be paying less per month over the contract, allowing you to use more money per month on other things

[bluenoz 31,050]

8 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Lets put it another way then, the club will want more than 15 games a season (if he even manages that) so paying him off and spending the wages elsewhere is a better option

I would rather we paid Matondo off. Matondo is making 28K sitting in the stands.

Insurance will offset at least some of Roofe's wages and the boy can score. As frustrating as it is, let's hope he is back soon.

[Somemightsay7 2,461]

6 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Also as its 70%, surely paying him off this year, when we have the funds to take the hit, is better as is frees up his wages for the following season when we might have less money

To use your phone analogy, if you had the money to pay it upfront, wouldn't you want to knowing that you'll be paying less per month over the contract, allowing you to use more money per month on other things

 

If you have £120 and can either spend £10 per month or all £120 up front, how much money will you have at the end of 12 months?

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,655]

1 hour ago, Somemightsay7 said:

 

If you have £120 and can either spend £10 per month or all £120 up front, how much money will you have at the end of 12 months?

But thats not the whole situation is it, 

We have more money this season due to a higher income from CL and player sales, so the money is there to deal with roofe (if need be) and free up his wages, without worrying about FFP

Then next season if our income looks like its going to be less (we dont make CL or big enough player sales) then we have the comfort that his wages are off the book, saving us some cash given he's unreliable, and if we do end up having his wages spare, they can be spent on someone reliable

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,655]

1 hour ago, bluenoz said:

I would rather we paid Matondo off. Matondo is making 28K sitting in the stands.

Insurance will offset at least some of Roofe's wages and the boy can score. As frustrating as it is, let's hope he is back soon.

Fuck making claims on all our injured players, our premiums next season will put us into admin probably lol

[Darth Bear 15,116]

6 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

But thats not the whole situation is it, 

We have more money this season due to a higher income from CL and player sales, so the money is there to deal with roofe (if need be) and free up his wages, without worrying about FFP

Then next season if our income looks like its going to be less (we dont make CL or big enough player sales) then we have the comfort that his wages are off the book, saving us some cash given he's unreliable, and if we do end up having his wages spare, they can be spent on someone reliable

You seem to be failing to understand that you are not saving a single penny with your scenario.