Does anyone have any idea how much "minimal wage" is? That might put the wages issue into some perspective.Magpiegull wrote:I have just watched the lunchtime edition of BBC Spotlight where Mr Brent Pilnick was interviewed and said that Kevin Nicholson said in his Facebook entry that many players were way below 'minimum wage'. KN didn't say that. He used the term 'minimal wage' which is somewhat different don't you think. I have spoken with BBC Spotlight and they say that they will amend this inaccuracy in the next edition. We shall see!
If in football "minimal" is say £1k per week then Hargreaves claim that players were on £375 p.w. provides some balance - if it is nearer the recognised "national minimum" wage, that throws a different light on the issue.
If we have a significant number of players on National Minimum - that can only be good for the finances (OK not for the quality of player) as it will keep the wage bill down. A number of our players are in the 18-20 age bracket, which requires £5.30 per hour, with the rest on the 21+ rate of £6.70 per hour.
E.G - for an 18 -20 year old working 60 hours a week (no idea what contracted hours might be, just worked on 10 hours a day x 6 days a week - which I'm sure is way over the actual terms!) - then the weekly wage would be £318 / £402 for the older ones.
Say we have 12 players in the "minimum wage" bracket at an average of £350 per week that would cost c.£220k per annum in wages (on a 52 week contract).
Recent rumour suggested the club had annual turnover of £1m (not sure if that is right?) so the cost of 50% of the playing staff would be 20% of the T/O, even if the remaining 12 players are on average £750 per week (£468k) - would hope that a well managed club could manage to pay all other bills from the residual say £320k ? The wage figures would be less if the contracted hours are below my 60 per week x 52 weeks example.
Obviously, if the wage figures are nearer £1k per week for all, then we are in trouble.
