The two separate rumours

[Ascension Ox]

The 'numbers' as quoted on messages attached to the online OM article on Yemi are that he is on £1200 a week and Hutch and Pettifer were on £2k per week.

Oh ffs, 'numbers'. No one has the slightest clue what our individual players earn.
So these three players are more than 25% of our total wage capped bill..
Er... no.

[Baboo]

As for Eddie, if we can have the one that turned up at Stafford then no contest give him a 3 year deal but I'd want to be sure that the old Eddie was gone.

Yes but we've seen at least as much bad Eddie as good Eddie since he has been with us. Stafford are a poor side. He needs to be judged against better opposition - i.e. most other teams in the BSP.

[Snake]

The 'numbers' as quoted on messages attached to the online OM article on Yemi are that he is on £1200 a week and Hutch and Pettifer were on £2k per week.

Oh ffs, 'numbers'. No one has the slightest clue what our individual players earn.
So these three players are more than 25% of our total wage capped bill..
Er... no.

Oh yes, they do.

The various directors and chairmen over the years have often stated what the salaries paid to individual players were, either because they want to get a player out (being too expensive and therefore “greedy

[recordmeister]

What do sources close to Gilly reckon?

Just over £1k a week. £55k per year?

[GodalmingYellow]

The 'numbers' as quoted on messages attached to the online OM article on Yemi are that he is on £1200 a week and Hutch and Pettifer were on £2k per week.

Oh ffs, 'numbers'. No one has the slightest clue what our individual players earn.
So these three players are more than 25% of our total wage capped bill..
Er... no.

Oh yes, they do.

The various directors and chairmen over the years have often stated what the salaries paid to individual players were, either because they want to get a player out (being too expensive and therefore “greedy

[Mooro]

The 'numbers' as quoted on messages attached to the online OM article on Yemi are that he is on £1200 a week and Hutch and Pettifer were on £2k per week.

Oh ffs, 'numbers'. No one has the slightest clue what our individual players earn.
So these three players are more than 25% of our total wage capped bill..
Er... no.

I hasten to add, I was only putting up the numbers/rumours to which the original post was referring, rather than passing any judgement on them or whether I believe them or not.

Early this season, I took my own stab at 'pricing' the whole squad wage-wise in order to gauge how close to the salry-cap we were running. By putting ex youth teamers at £250/wk, young players from other youth systems/non-league at £500/wk, then more experienced players on £750/£1k/£1.25k or £1.5k/wk, depending on potential,success,years/level played, it was interesting how close I got to committing the £900k budget.
It also very quickly showed how much Smith was pushing the numbers early season and why Patto has had to pull it back somewhat.

For the record, I had Yemi &amp Petts on £1k, Hutch on £750 and Gilly (and Willmott) on £1.5m, but none of this based on any actual sourced info.

[boris]

For the record, I had ... and Gilly (and Willmott) on £1.5m

Well no wonder we've been struggling if those two have been getting £3m a week between them. Gate receipts would hardly cover their wages alone!

[ty cobb]

The 'numbers' as quoted on messages attached to the online OM article on Yemi are that he is on £1200 a week and Hutch and Pettifer were on £2k per week.

Oh ffs, 'numbers'. No one has the slightest clue what our individual players earn.
So these three players are more than 25% of our total wage capped bill..
Er... no.

I hasten to add, I was only putting up the numbers/rumours to which the original post was referring, rather than passing any judgement on them or whether I believe them or not.

Early this season, I took my own stab at 'pricing' the whole squad wage-wise in order to gauge how close to the salry-cap we were running. By putting ex youth teamers at £250/wk, young players from other youth systems/non-league at £500/wk, then more experienced players on £750/£1k/£1.25k or £1.5k/wk, depending on potential,success,years/level played, it was interesting how close I got to committing the £900k budget.
It also very quickly showed how much Smith was pushing the numbers early season and why Patto has had to pull it back somewhat.

For the record, I had Yemi &amp Petts on £1k, Hutch on £750 and Gilly (and Willmott) on £1.5m, but none of this based on any actual sourced info.

It's probably not too far off and I really despair with the running of the club if it is true. Wilmotts last game for us before being given this contract was the one where he got stupidly sent off in the most important game in our history. He was a member of a awful defence and we reward him with a excellent contract. Gilly, although capable of doing a job was always going to be creaking and I question the logic of paying high wages to someone who can't play every game in a season - the same argument can be used for Rufus and Gavin Johnson, both on decent money but neither could play for 3 games in a row which meant we were paying a huge amount of money for one position.

So Yemi has one decent season (after one very poor one) and we make him one of the highest payers of the club?!?

The amount of output we get from the players we're paying top whack to is very very poor, contracts should be on a performance basis with extra built in for injury - if you're not playing well and not getting picked you should not be getting over a grand a week at this level.

[boris]

contracts should be on a performance basis with extra built in for injury - if you're not playing well and not getting picked you should not be getting over a grand a week at this level.

Easy to say, but there isn't a player or agent who would accept such an agreement, or else you'd end up with very substandard players who couldn't earn a proper contract elsewhere.

Just because the OUFC management pays silly money for players who don't do the biz, is no reason to offer the players themselves conditions that have a negative effect on their workers' rights. Contracts should be negotiated sensibly at the start, with no need for silly clauses or unworkable bonus schemes. The club should have a wage structure, possibly not dissimilar to the one Mooro used for his workings, and stick to it. That way the players know what to expect, and the club can budget properly going forward.

[Mally]

contracts should be on a performance basis with extra built in for injury - if you're not playing well and not getting picked you should not be getting over a grand a week at this level.

Easy to say, but there isn't a player or agent who would accept such an agreement, or else you'd end up with very substandard players who couldn't earn a proper contract elsewhere.

But don't we get those players anyway?

[ty cobb]

contracts should be on a performance basis with extra built in for injury - if you're not playing well and not getting picked you should not be getting over a grand a week at this level.

Easy to say, but there isn't a player or agent who would accept such an agreement, or else you'd end up with very substandard players who couldn't earn a proper contract elsewhere.

But don't we get those players anyway?

Exactly, there is no incentive for players at our club. If a player only wants to join us because we offer the most money is this really the type of player we want? Look at Easter, we offered him quite a pay rise but he turend us down because he was ambitious and wanted to play at a high level so every week he busts a gut to make this happen.

We attract the players who know they aren't going to get more money elsewhere so there is no motivation for them to do well.

Instead of getting in players who are looking for one last pay day we should get in hungry ambitious players who want to be part of something good and will accept that if they don't do well they will get paid less.

The industry I work in is very much based on performence related pay - it really does seperate the hard workers who are good at their job from the ones who really can't be bothered and are just there to pick a pay cheque up every week.

[GodalmingYellow]

There has to be an incentive element to a player's contract to get the maximum from them.

Sure have a wage structure, but that needs to be based on a sensible basic, with extra for appearances, goals, clean sheets and so on. That way, wages are only maximised for success, and success breeds improved club income.

I largely agree with Ty (again! come on Ty post something up about Duffy being a God so we can get back to normality!! , we have overpaid sub-standard players and given them little incentive to perform. This is a significant element that has contributed to our downward spiral and it cannot be the way forward.

[Ascension Ox]

There has to be an incentive element to a player's contract to get the maximum from them.

Sure have a wage structure, but that needs to be based on a sensible basic, with extra for appearances, goals, clean sheets and so on. That way, wages are only maximised for success, and success breeds improved club income.

I largely agree with Ty (again! come on Ty post something up about Duffy being a God so we can get back to normality!! , we have overpaid sub-standard players and given them little incentive to perform. This is a significant element that has contributed to our downward spiral and it cannot be the way forward.

How does anyone know for sure that the club DOES NOT have a bonus scheme built in to contracts already? Once again people are just guessing.

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

The industry I work in is very much based on performence related pay - it really does seperate the hard workers who are good at their job from the ones who really can't be bothered and are just there to pick a pay cheque up every week.

Even if I weren't sceptical about this (in my experience people say this when they're doing well - when they're not, they query the basis on which performance is measured) it does tend to assume that performance is measurable. Is it, at a football club? In a team sense it certainly is. In an individual sense it's a lot harder because individuals' results aren't individually achieved.

I'm not saying it doesn't have a role. But I am saying that it's something of a blunt instrument and its efficacy is overrated. And I suspect that players' contracts at Oxford, as it is, may have a substantial performance element.

And don't forget that we compete with other clubs for players. You have to match what other clubs offer, on the whole, and for that reasons I again suspect that contracts may not vary that much from club to club. But it's something I think we probably know less about than we might.

[GodalmingYellow]

There has to be an incentive element to a player's contract to get the maximum from them.

Sure have a wage structure, but that needs to be based on a sensible basic, with extra for appearances, goals, clean sheets and so on. That way, wages are only maximised for success, and success breeds improved club income.

I largely agree with Ty (again! come on Ty post something up about Duffy being a God so we can get back to normality!! , we have overpaid sub-standard players and given them little incentive to perform. This is a significant element that has contributed to our downward spiral and it cannot be the way forward.

How does anyone know for sure that the club DOES NOT have a bonus scheme built in to contracts already? Once again people are just guessing.

We don't know that there ins't a bonus scheme, infact there probably is a bonus scheme. But we do know that the basic wages being paid are too high a proportion of the total and so the incentive to perform is less than it should be. This is from known wages figures so isn't guessing.