It seems alot of people feel Pressley is seriously under performing because we have a wage budget of 2.7 million (which comes from the recent forum?) if its true that we are currently spending this on players then while summer recruitment was very difficult I'd still agree that he is seriously underforming.
However, do people believe we are spending 2.7million on player wages and that we are in the top 8 spenders on wages? I don't not for a second.
When we hear that our wage budget is 2.7m, we all rightly assume that means that the amount we are playing all our first team squad players x 52 weeks = 2.7 million.
Does it mean that though?
2.7m /52weeks /24 players 2.15k per week per player which is alot when you consider that 24 includes James Madison, Ivor Lawton, Jack Finch, Ryan Haynes, hell we are surely not paying Burge anything like 2.1k a week either. Then there is 3 players from Bournemouth who I highly doubt we are paying 2.1k a week each for since they were part of the Wilson deal. taking all that into account means we are paying about an average of 3k a week for everyone else which would surely mean we are paying some of them well over that. I just don't believe they would have been making 4k or so a week deals in northampton.
is it more likely they are playing fast and loose with the truth again and a wage budget of 2.7 million means we are able to spend 2.7m under ffp rules rather than we have spent that?
Or could it mean we are spending 2.7million on wages this year but that includes paying out contracts of people we are getting no benefit from like Baker who if we truely were paying 8k a week for probably cost 4k a week to get rid of.
Or this year could be 2014 instead of this season.
I could easily be wrong though, there is no inside info here, just a healthy scepticism about the hidden meanings behind what we are told by people who can't lie straight in bed. Perhaps we are currently spending 2.7m on player wages and that would probably mean Pressley should be on very thin ice but I doubt it.
However, do people believe we are spending 2.7million on player wages and that we are in the top 8 spenders on wages? I don't not for a second.
When we hear that our wage budget is 2.7m, we all rightly assume that means that the amount we are playing all our first team squad players x 52 weeks = 2.7 million.
Does it mean that though?
2.7m /52weeks /24 players 2.15k per week per player which is alot when you consider that 24 includes James Madison, Ivor Lawton, Jack Finch, Ryan Haynes, hell we are surely not paying Burge anything like 2.1k a week either. Then there is 3 players from Bournemouth who I highly doubt we are paying 2.1k a week each for since they were part of the Wilson deal. taking all that into account means we are paying about an average of 3k a week for everyone else which would surely mean we are paying some of them well over that. I just don't believe they would have been making 4k or so a week deals in northampton.
is it more likely they are playing fast and loose with the truth again and a wage budget of 2.7 million means we are able to spend 2.7m under ffp rules rather than we have spent that?
Or could it mean we are spending 2.7million on wages this year but that includes paying out contracts of people we are getting no benefit from like Baker who if we truely were paying 8k a week for probably cost 4k a week to get rid of.
Or this year could be 2014 instead of this season.
I could easily be wrong though, there is no inside info here, just a healthy scepticism about the hidden meanings behind what we are told by people who can't lie straight in bed. Perhaps we are currently spending 2.7m on player wages and that would probably mean Pressley should be on very thin ice but I doubt it.
