Gregg Wylde - Contract??

[craig 5,199]

I don't know which world you live in but 40k for a 19 year old labourer? No chance! Sticking in at school, spending 4 years at university and then gaining 20 years of professional experience rarely even gets you that in most careers - unless you're an accountant. In fact the average for 20+ years experience in the Uk is just under �£39k.

 

Hence why I said you CAN'T compare the two Actually, I read a report the other day which stated that the average expected salary of a university student just entering the marketplace in the UK is now just under 30k. Wylde is only 1 yr away from being the "normal" age of an under-grad entering the marketplace (and, indeed, if you are gifted or young for your year group then he could have been graduated at 20). Yes, that is a 33% higher salary than the average but obviously some graduates would be expecting more than the 40k Wylde is looking at. So not that far-fetched when using your university analogy.

 

Footballers are greedy enough as it is without fans saying they should be earning even more. Saying 40k is peanuts for a raw 19 year old is incredibly insulting to 90% of the fans who pay for his wages and that earn less.

 

You can be precious all you like. That is your prerogative. However, just for your precious sake lets take a look at this through the eyes of the club shall we.

 

Club : Gregg, we dont think you are worth more than 800 a week (40k a year).

GW : But wee Fleck and Ness get twice that amount and I have contributed as much as them this past season.

Club : Aye but we shouldnt have given them as much and we simply wont give you a penny more.

GW : Fair enough. I wont sign the contract and will go elsewhere.

 

Not an unrealistic conversation. So Wylde then moves on, for free as he runs down his contract, leaves the club for nothing and then goes on to some other club and gets what he wants (higher wages) whilst the club, Rangers, get the square root of nothing for him. So by NOT giving him an extra 35k a year (so about 105k over 3 years) they have lost a player for nothing. A player who, even as raw as he is, would currently command far in excess of 105k. On a very conservative estimate the club could realise AT LEAST 3 times that additional cost.

 

But you are right, we probably should just hold out and possibly lose the player and then have to spend even MORE money to replace him.

 

Even when I look at this from the club's point of view I see the long-term validity in giving him an additional 700 a week. You dont. Fair enough.

 

Perhaps all the rich fans who think they should earn more should pay something like 10% of their salary into a fund for these poor, underpaid wretches.

 

What has "rich fans" contributing more got to do with it. What a preposterous notion. I am presuming that you are aspersing that I am one such fan. I am by no means rich. comfortable yes, rich certainly not. if you arent then I fail to see why you even mention rich fans.

 

The wealth of fans has nothing to do with how much the club should pay for its players.

 

Do you pay 10% of your salary into the club to improve its financial health seeing as we have been at death's door for a while ? should it be only those of a certain wealth bracket that contribute ?

[calscot 0]

Hence why I said you CAN'T compare the two

 

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said.

 

Actually, I read a report the other day which stated that the average expected salary of a university student just entering the marketplace in the UK is now just under 30k.

 

Personally I think that is a mile off - it might be true for a small number but they would be few and far between. Almost everyone I work with is a graduate, most with at least 10 years experience, and the average wage must be around 35k. Granted I work for a University but then I sometimes get emailed job details for experienced programmers for industry jobs and they usually come in at 30-40k. Even at the top of that, I'd struggle to match all my benefits here.

 

I think 18-22k is far more likely for most graduates - if they can get a career job at all.

 

Wylde is only 1 yr away from being the "normal" age of an under-grad entering the marketplace (and, indeed, if you are gifted or young for your year group then he could have been graduated at 20). Yes, that is a 33% higher salary than the average but obviously some graduates would be expecting more than the 40k Wylde is looking at. So not that far-fetched when using your university analogy.

 

I think you missed the analogy - I was talking about a university graduate with 20 years experience... In football terms that's maybe more like 7 years experience. In those terms it's pretty far fetched. Can I also quote again that the average wage in Glasgow is �£24k?

 

 

 

You can be precious all you like. That is your prerogative. However, just for your precious sake lets take a look at this through the eyes of the club shall we.

 

I don't think I was being precious, I just counter the glib assumption that footballers should earn massively more than the fans that pay their wages. To me football has become like a pyramid scam, with the mugs who give all the money at the bottom and the few that cream it all off at the top. I think people try to apply industry standards and market pressure to this to make it all sound ok and normal but football is nothing like proper industry or economics. It's just people continually paying more and more to get exactly the same product due to a lack of wisdom and restraint on the part of football bodies and clubs. The problem is out of control and unless people see this, there is going to be an almighty crash - except I doubt the governments will bale it out.

 

 

Club : Gregg, we dont think you are worth more than 800 a week (40k a year).

GW : But wee Fleck and Ness get twice that amount and I have contributed as much as them this past season.

Club : Aye but we shouldnt have given them as much and we simply wont give you a penny more.

GW : Fair enough. I wont sign the contract and will go elsewhere.

 

That may or may not happen, there are only so many team places and there is not always someone who will offer more. When you think about it, there is a finite limit of the number of players we can't afford and someone else can. The board have to weigh this up and find the right figure. However, this is not my beef - what I don't like is pressure from fans that players deserve more.

 

But you are right, we probably should just hold out and possibly lose the player and then have to spend even MORE money to replace him.

 

Again that is up to the board to decide, they have to gauge the finances correctly, but that doesn't mean automatically writing huge salaries into contracts. They also need some balls.

 

Even when I look at this from the club's point of view I see the long-term validity in giving him an additional 700 a week. You dont. Fair enough.

 

I don't pretend to know the amounts we should be giving players, but I can't see what the criticism is of trying to get a fair deal and keep the wages down. If there's one thing we should know by now, we only have so much money to spend on wages, and even with the largest turnover in Scotland, we're struggling to afford to pay a decent size squad of players. That's a financial fact.

 

You can always pay players a bit more - in fact that's what seems to happen all the time, but there's a line that's been crossed that Rangers are trying to step back from. The problem is that there are too many other clubs who don't care about that line.

 

The fact they are leaving the line way behind, doesn't mean that fans should just get used to it and encourage it's recession into the distance.

 

What has "rich fans" contributing more got to do with it. What a preposterous notion. I am presuming that you are aspersing that I am one such fan. I am by no means rich. comfortable yes, rich certainly not. if you arent then I fail to see why you even mention rich fans.

 

The wealth of fans has nothing to do with how much the club should pay for its players.

 

Do you pay 10% of your salary into the club to improve its financial health seeing as we have been at death's door for a while ? should it be only those of a certain wealth bracket that contribute ?

 

It was a bit of sarcasm. You give the impression you are well off and have no problem increasing players' salaries willy nilly, I think that's a bit glib when there are plenty of people at Ibrox, who pay for the wages, who are not on comfortable salaries - and the vast majority are on less than the �£40k in question for 19 year old.

 

My response may have been skewed as I had the impression you thought he was being offered a labourer's salary - sorry again.

 

My whole point is that although we need to be realistic about wages, we need to stop the encouragement of increasing players' wages even when they are already far more than they deserve compared to people in other walks of life. The thing to remember is that they are not sharing out a benign windfall - the fact is there is just not enough sustainable money and the fans are being increasingly squeezed dry.

[craig 5,199]

Just had a look, the average wage in Glasgow is �£26k. Seems like the best choice of career by a mile must be labourer with a teenage starting salary of �£40k.

 

You might want to start reading what I typed, not what you think I did.

[craig 5,199]

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said.

 

you just made my subsequent post redundant No worries. It could have been interpreted both ways, my point was that you cant compare the two - not that you shouldnt compare them at 40k....

 

Personally I think that is a mile off - it might be true for a small number but they would be few and far between. Almost everyone I work with is a graduate, most with at least 10 years experience, and the average wage must be around 35k. Granted I work for a University but then I sometimes get emailed job details for experienced programmers for industry jobs and they usually come in at 30-40k. Even at the top of that, I'd struggle to match all my benefits here.

 

I wont argue with you here - I only stated what the article stated. And that is the starting salary is expected to be 30k. Why does the number stick in my head ? Because that is exactly what I was getting paid when I was 3 yrs post qualified when I left the UK, which meant I had 6 yrs of commercial experience (3yrs after my degree in a training contract and 3 yrs after qualifying). FWIW, my starting salary when I left uni was under 9k... how times have changed for under-grads.... IF they can find a job as you say !

 

Academia generally get paid lower wages do they not ? Again, it is hard to compare that against other industries, which is the point I was originally trying to make. I see newly qualified accountancy jobs going for 60k. It is all industry specific. The problem that Rangers have is that there industry is inflated due to the English leagues. Yes, we cant compete financially with them but that means players are exposed to what could be on offer and could see the $$ sign rather than long-term improvement in themselves and being 1st team regulars (ala Danny Wilson). BUT... in Scotland 800 a week may be the going rate for a kid his age, but given Ness & Fleck are on double I would suggest that 1.5k is the going rate. If we dont pay it and he thinks he warrants it then he WILL leave (which hurts not just him but also the club). This is similar to what Canada saw a few years ago with what they termed the "brain drain". The smartest people (or at least university graduated) left Canada as they didnt want to pay 40% tax, went to offshore jurisdictions, paid zero tax, stashed it for 7-10 years and went home to Canada and built mansions with their tax-free savings, paid in cash. Similar, in a sense, to a footballer moving.

 

I think 18-22k is far more likely for most graduates - if they can get a career job at all.

 

Very true, finding a job is difficult right now. And your 18-22 may be accurate. But.... for any graduate who proves his worth the company are probably going to push the boat out a little to try to keep him. I believe Rangers should do the same as the longer-term financial consequences are likely to be worse for the club than if they pay him 35k a year more than being offered (assuming the figures are true).

 

I think you missed the analogy - I was talking about a university graduate with 20 years experience... In football terms that's maybe more like 7 years experience. In those terms it's pretty far fetched. Can I also quote again that the average wage in Glasgow is �£24k?

 

Sure, you can quote it. But hopefully we have established that you really cant compare one industry with another. It is an apples vs oranges comparison.

 

 

 

I don't think I was being precious, I just counter the glib assumption that footballers should earn massively more than the fans that pay their wages. To me football has become like a pyramid scam, with the mugs who give all the money at the bottom and the few that cream it all off at the top. I think people try to apply industry standards and market pressure to this to make it all sound ok and normal but football is nothing like proper industry or economics. It's just people continually paying more and more to get exactly the same product due to a lack of wisdom and restraint on the part of football bodies and clubs. The problem is out of control and unless people see this, there is going to be an almighty crash - except I doubt the governments will bale it out.

 

I was being a bit facetious, sorry.

 

Dont get me wrong, I DONT think that footballers should get paid massively more than the punters who pay their hard-earned to watch them. However, in this particualr instance, it looks to me that the club would lose out if they dont pay the kid more. I take your point, maybe he doesnt deserve more. BUT.... if we dont give him what he wants then he could run down his contract and leave for nothing. If he does that then the clubs finances have suffered. And who would be expected to pay for any replacement ? Yep, the fans.

 

It is a damned if you do and damned if you dont scenario from that perspective. But by paying a "little" more (little is a relative term, 35k more could a) mean a reasonable transfer fee at some future point in time or b) save you from a recruitment cost for a replacement - because we know for every body lost in this pre-season we absolutely NEED a replacement - and are we likely to get a replacement on 800 a week ?

 

I agree with the pyramid scam analogy. But in looking at Wylde's situation I personally see it as a win-win by giving him parity with Fleck & Ness. It would be a win-win-win if he accepted the 800 a week, I agree. However, in your opinion what we really SHOULD be doing is offering him 400-500 a week so he gets that 20-25k graduate salary, right ? "So, Gregg, we have decided that we are cutting your salary in half, OK ? Sign on the dotted line wee man"

 

That may or may not happen, there are only so many team places and there is not always someone who will offer more. When you think about it, there is a finite limit of the number of players we can't afford and someone else can. The board have to weigh this up and find the right figure. However, this is not my beef - what I don't like is pressure from fans that players deserve more.

 

True, it may or may not happen. But at 800 a week the lad could go to the 3rd tier of English football and still get paid more. And, lets face it, he would certainly be able to get a transfer to the Championship - if Conway can, Wylde can. So I think it is more likely than not.

 

There is NO pressure from fans that players deserve more though. If Whyte, Smith & McCoist get pressured by fans into paying more then they should quit en masse today. Their job is to determine what a player is worth and how valuable he is to the squad. If fan pressure decides that then they should quit !

 

Again that is up to the board to decide, they have to gauge the finances correctly, but that doesn't mean automatically writing huge salaries into contracts. They also need some balls.

 

True. Then we all have to accept that it could happen that we find ourselves in a Boyd or Miller situation whereby you lose a player who is worth a fait bit of money for the sake of not offering them a higher salary. Whether that higher salary is justified or not, the club need to weight it up in terms of a) is the player worth it b) what is the knock-on effect of their peers if they do get it c) what do the club stand to lose by not offering what the player wants (or some middle ground) in terms of future transfer fee and d) how much would a replacement cost in terms of fees and/or wages.

 

In Wylde's case I think it would be pretty difficult to find a replacement at 800 a week who would be ready, and proven the point, to step into the 1st team and not look out of place.

 

 

I don't pretend to know the amounts we should be giving players, but I can't see what the criticism is of trying to get a fair deal and keep the wages down. If there's one thing we should know by now, we only have so much money to spend on wages, and even with the largest turnover in Scotland, we're struggling to afford to pay a decent size squad of players. That's a financial fact.

 

I dont see anyone arguing that we shouldnt be keeping the wages down. We should. But you cant really just look in isolation at this. Wylde is getting 800 a week. We have a thin squad so if he goes we need a replacement. It is doubtful we get one at 800 a week who we know can "step up and play". So it could cost the club a whole lot more by NOT increasing his offer.

 

The term "a fair deal" works both ways. The club obviously thought that 1.5k per week was a "fair deal" for Ness & Fleck (otherwise they wouldnt have paid it). Wylde would be justified in thinking that parity with those two (given his contribution to the 1st team last season) is a "fair deal". Striking a balance between the two is what is necessary.

 

If Wylde doesnt think 800 a week is a fair deal but would accept, say, 1200, then I would be very disappointed if the club let a player go for the sake of 20k a year given how much he could be worth in a transfer fee. Yes, 20k a year would be the salary of an undergraduate but would they be ready to play if necessary ? We have a small squad as it is and Wylde has proven he is quite comfortable in there and can do a job.

 

You can always pay players a bit more - in fact that's what seems to happen all the time, but there's a line that's been crossed that Rangers are trying to step back from. The problem is that there are too many other clubs who don't care about that line.

 

Agreed, and this is where it becomes difficult. Because if a player is told by a club down south that they will pay him 5k a week if he signs for them, whilst Rangers are paying 800 a week then he is very likely to ask Rangers to match the offer, right ? At those wages we cant compete nor should we compete. It is a sign of the times we live in that we simply cant compete when English clubs come calling (you only need look at Danns going to Leicester for proof of that).

 

It is finding that line where the club CAN afford it and the player WILL accept it. And it also requires longer-term thinking in terms of the player's development and potential sell-on value.

 

IF, and it is a big IF, Wylde were to progress the way that Wilson did would we be happy at not offering him 35k a year more in salary and lose out on a 5 mill transfer fee ? I wouldnt. But the problem here is that we cant foresee the future, we can only guess.

 

The fact they are leaving the line way behind, doesn't mean that fans should just get used to it and encourage it's recession into the distance.

 

No-one is asking the fans to get used to it. But the fans are irrelevant in the situation unless and until they start voting with their feet. The club will decide. It seems that Whyte is taking a cautious approach financially, as we must - surely we ALL know that by now. But looking at the salary in isolation is self-defeating in my opinion because if you ignore things like replacement cost or future transfer fee then all we will do is end up with Boyd & Miller situations watching 5 mill go down the drain (ignoring the CL qualification income etc that they helped produce) for the sake of, in football terms, is a small salary increase and, in fact, to simply put him on parity with his peers.

[craig 5,199]

It was a bit of sarcasm. You give the impression you are well off and have no problem increasing players' salaries willy nilly, I think that's a bit glib when there are plenty of people at Ibrox, who pay for the wages, who are not on comfortable salaries - and the vast majority are on less than the �£40k in question for 19 year old.

 

No worries, I can usually detect your sarcasm. I dont agree that I "have no problem increasing players salaries willy nilly" - hopefully by now I have got my point across that the salary decision is not one that should be taken in isolation, there are other factors that should be considered. Also, by suggesting he "deserves parity with his peers" is not what I would call "willy nilly". Giving the lad an increase to say 5k would be "nilly willy" as it then opens the club up to Fleck, Ness et al looking for parity with Wylde - THAT is willy nilly. Suggesting parity isnt.

 

My response may have been skewed as I had the impression you thought he was being offered a labourer's salary - sorry again.

 

Hey, even though I live in a mansion, sip margharitas by the pool being served by my live-in waitress & maid, travel 1st class, use $100 bills as toilet paper and have riches beyond my wildest dreams doesnt mean that I dont recognise a labourer wouldnt get 40k a year of a salary

 

My whole point is that although we need to be realistic about wages, we need to stop the encouragement of increasing players' wages even when they are already far more than they deserve compared to people in other walks of life. The thing to remember is that they are not sharing out a benign windfall - the fact is there is just not enough sustainable money and the fans are being increasingly squeezed dry.

 

Yes, we absolutely need to be realistic about wages, you wont see me argue that point. I disagree though with the comparison with other industries. What YOU get paid in academia is of no concern to me. What DOES concern me is how I am getting paid in terms of my peer group. I understand what you are saying, completely, but it just isnt relevant in terms of what a person gets paid for doing the job they do in the industry they are in. It really is about peer groups and neither your vocation nor mine is relevant to a professional footballer. Whether you or I like it or not, it appears that he is being under-paid in terms of his peer group (given he is playing for the country's largest club, has contributed to a double winning season etc - so dont throw back the "19 yr old at Brechin gets 50 quid a week" at me )

 

Football in general has become an industry which is a money-grabbing whore. And it takes much of the enjoyment out of it. but until the fans vote with their feet and until the sponsors dont offer exorbitant amounts of money it is what we are stuck with.

 

Rangers have to have a balancing act with a number of factors. Whilst 1,500 a week for a 19yr old who has played just 17 times for the club is considered too much by you, I would counter that the club itself, by NOT paying that, is likely to lose out financially longer-term.

[calscot 0]

Craig, I pretty much see what you're saying and agree with the practicality of it - however, what I'm against is the "casualisation" of the situation, if that's a fitting word. To me it's a bit like bribes, in some countries they are necessary to do business at all, but that doesn't mean we have to see it as something that's ok. We perhaps will pay the bribe to get the business done, but I don't think we should be encouraging it or vastly upping the rates to beat our rivals.

 

Because you put a pure business head on, it sometimes seems you think it's all good and proper, whereas I'm trying to point out that the ordinary fan is being shafted, and while we may have to give in to some of the inflated demands to have any sort of success, in no way should we have sympathy for the lowly paid professional footballer who is playing hard and fast with the fans' cash. My point is, we shouldn't be fighting the player's corner. I lose all feeling for them as soon as they start earning more than me - which seems to be at age 19.

 

One problem I see with today's society, is that looking after number one and being motivated by greed seems to be seen as a virtue, something to aspire to, and that's not good for the future generations. We're already suffering from the repercussions of this attitude by the banks, and now the newspapers are the latest scandal in the news. Football is on a precarious precipice, and we IMHO shouldn't be using business sense to encourage people to take it over the edge.

 

We SHOULD USE business sense, but see the greed for the evil that it is. It's the old saying about all it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

 

One point you seem to have missed out is that surely the Rangers board understand all what you have said and are taking that into account - unfortunately so does Wylde's agent. So while 40k might seem low compared to some peers, it's probably a starting point and he could end up with a lot more. It all depends on the results of sabre rattling and the stare downs.

 

I could also use your points about Fleck and Ness as a counter argument. Maybe Fleck could have walked on a lower wage offer - but would we have noticed? Or would we have replaced him with another guy on a much lower wage. In fact when it came to the team, last season we did just that. The guy's name was Wylde...

 

Who is to say we don't have another Wylde waiting to come through on an affordable wage? The thing is, if we didn't have Fleck's 1500 a week wage, how many Wylde's could we have had in the U19's for that money? Maybe that's the long term business model to follow...

 

So in the end, I think it's up to the board to weigh everything up and make what they think is the right offer, and not for us to bleed for the player if that offer sounds "a bit low".

[calscot 0]

I've got a rumbling afterthought... I wonder what the vast number of players now on the scrap-heap think about the huge wage demands of players who are doing well?

 

I wonder whether they regret the wage spiral that caused the big reduction of playing squads and so took away their dream?