Player with 82% promotion wage rise clause

Actually there are also multiple players with this clause.  Duje Ćaleta-Car for example has the same clause in his contract, and also his loan has Lyon contributing nothing with regards to fee or salary (not that I am aware of what details this loan agreement is subject to in real life, but I would be surprised at such a loan being sanctioned)

Hello, that's not how it would work. It's 82% of their current wage so after promotion he'd be on around £2200pw.

17 minutes ago, Zachary Whyte said:

Hello, that's not how it would work. It's 82% of their current wage so after promotion he'd be on around £2200pw.

Ah I see thanks for the clarification! Should the loan contract with Lyon be as such however with no fee or wage contribution?

Duje Caleta-Car has a strange deal. 

From an online article:

On Wednesday, it was announced that Lyon had signed Duje Caleta-Car from Southampton, but it wasn’t the deal everyone was expecting.

It’s explained that Lyon paid Southampton €1.54m up front for the loan, which will be used by the English club to pay Caleta-Car’s wages. Therefore, no new salary appears on Lyon’s yearly bill.

This is also a problem at Leicester

Majority of the players and staff have an 82% promotion wage increase which is crazy

In fact after a quick look through the Championship, all clubs seem to have a lot of players and staff with ridiculously high promotion wage increases

Edited October 22, 2023 by adamm8

19 hours ago, adamm8 said:

This is also a problem at Leicester

Majority of the players and staff have an 82% promotion wage increase which is crazy

In fact after a quick look through the Championship, all clubs seem to have a lot of players and staff with ridiculously high promotion wage increases

Hopefully this will be fixed as it's clearly a bug

Sorry to bump but just wondered if this is being looked into/fixed? It has a massive impact on every championship club and I'm guessing lots of second tier leagues and below if they're affected. 35% would seem pretty generous and it's unlikely to exist for most of the relegated teams of those players are already on existing contracts.

Something we're aware of and currently reviewing, thanks for raising. 

3 hours ago, Zachary Whyte said:

Something we're aware of and currently reviewing, thanks for raising. 

Great, thank you

Are there any further examples of players you feel have unrealistic wages upon promotion, please?

We would anticipate that almost all Championship clubs have very large promotion wage increases, due to the significant increase in revenue upon reaching the Premier League. The figure of 82% arises from a 45% relegation wage decrease written in bulk to the contracts of first team players at the newly relegated sides - an increase of 82% reverses the decrease of 45% upon relegation last season to return a player to their previous PL wage.

I'm aware there are a few examples of players, especially at Leicester (where the wage bill is somewhat larger than that of Leeds or Southampton), who have wages that are perhaps slightly too high - especially those among new signings. If you have any other examples we can take a look - but we do not believe that the 82% increase, nor others in the Championship, need altering at this stage.

I think is perfectly reasonable if not a bit low. Most clubs will double wages upon promotion to the Premier League and in quite a few cases now up to the Championship from League 1 too given the increases in income upon gaining promotion to those divisions.

On 31/10/2023 at 08:58, Tom Elliott said:

Are there any further examples of players you feel have unrealistic wages upon promotion, please?

We would anticipate that almost all Championship clubs have very large promotion wage increases, due to the significant increase in revenue upon reaching the Premier League. The figure of 82% arises from a 45% relegation wage decrease written in bulk to the contracts of first team players at the newly relegated sides - an increase of 82% reverses the decrease of 45% upon relegation last season to return a player to their previous PL wage.

I'm aware there are a few examples of players, especially at Leicester (where the wage bill is somewhat larger than that of Leeds or Southampton), who have wages that are perhaps slightly too high - especially those among new signings. If you have any other examples we can take a look - but we do not believe that the 82% increase, nor others in the Championship, need altering at this stage.

I understand the rationale but do we know that this actually happens in real life? As somebody who spends a lot of time reviewing contracts (not football employment ones granted) it seems strange an unwieldy to have a conditional clause, that is then based on another conditional clause.

Not experienced it myself but seen a couple of people play as Leicester and get promoted, only to be £350k-£400k in deficit on the wage bill when given their budgets which is not realistic of any promoted team (particularly at Leicester where a lot of the cash flow issues have been solved and it's likely there would be some significant investment if they are promoted next year). If you're keeping those clauses in, then surely finances of promoted teams need a big increase in wage budget to compensate for it.

I'd also suspect that a lot of clubs do not have much in the way of promotion clauses as that's not necessarily their aim and they certainly wouldn't have anything approaching 80%.

On 31/10/2023 at 19:09, matt_neil41 said:

I think is perfectly reasonable if not a bit low. Most clubs will double wages upon promotion to the Premier League and in quite a few cases now up to the Championship from League 1 too given the increases in income upon gaining promotion to those divisions.

Where are you getting that from? The idea of offering 100% wage increases to the bulk of your squad is absolute madness, even moreso in any league outside the PL where there is a huge climb in revenue. 25-40 is probably quite standard as that's still bloating the wage bill especially when a few high earners arrive.

57 minutes ago, dmayne07 said:

I understand the rationale but do we know that this actually happens in real life? As somebody who spends a lot of time reviewing contracts (not football employment ones granted) it seems strange an unwieldy to have a conditional clause, that is then based on another conditional clause.

Not experienced it myself but seen a couple of people play as Leicester and get promoted, only to be £350k-£400k in deficit on the wage bill when given their budgets which is not realistic of any promoted team (particularly at Leicester where a lot of the cash flow issues have been solved and it's likely there would be some significant investment if they are promoted next year). If you're keeping those clauses in, then surely finances of promoted teams need a big increase in wage budget to compensate for it.

I'd also suspect that a lot of clubs do not have much in the way of promotion clauses as that's not necessarily their aim and they certainly wouldn't have anything approaching 80%.

From what is reported in the media almost every year when clubs are relegated, we expect it is fairly common for Premier League contracts to have 35-45% relegation wage cuts written in, on average. The Daily Telegraph reported in May that for Leicester City, this would be up to 50%. Clearly, this is in place to protect the club in the event of losing a significant amount of revenue in the TV rights and prize money it loses being outside of the topflight. A club expected to challenge for immediate re-promotion such as Leicester or Southampton would likely have players agreeing to stay on the basis that their contract returned to a similar level of base pay upon that promotion, I'd anticipate.

I would be intrigued if you could provide some evidence for an improvement in Leicester's cash flow, please. As recently as last week, the club took out two further loans against future transfer redeemables to support its cash flow, which by its latest 21-22 figures were troublesome even prior to relegation. The club had the 7th highest wage bill in England upon relegation and has retained a significant number of those player's rights since, while losing 2/3 of its revenue. It is extremely likely that the club posts a significant loss for both the 22-23 and 23-24 financial years at minimum, and to my latest knowledge the club remains on UEFA's FFP 'watchlist'.

I'd admit we should review some players' wages which were not reduced in the database by 45% (but rather a slightly lesser 25-35% amount) post-relegation, at Leicester. We'll review those for a future data update, along with some other player wages among new signings which may have been set erroneously high.

As for clubs outside of those recently relegated (the likes of Luton Town, for example) - a large promotion clause would seem logical to me to prevent the need for a club to renew 25 first team contracts upon promotion to a league which offers exponentially higher revenues. A surprise promotion of a team offering £5-10kpw to their players in the Championship would surely warrant a promotion increase of near-doubling those wages, in my estimation.

28 minutes ago, Tom Elliott said:

From what is reported in the media almost every year when clubs are relegated, we expect it is fairly common for Premier League contracts to have 35-45% relegation wage cuts written in, on average. The Daily Telegraph reported in May that for Leicester City, this would be up to 50%. Clearly, this is in place to protect the club in the event of losing a significant amount of revenue in the TV rights and prize money it loses being outside of the topflight. A club expected to challenge for immediate re-promotion such as Leicester or Southampton would likely have players agreeing to stay on the basis that their contract returned to a similar level of base pay upon that promotion, I'd anticipate.

I would be intrigued if you could provide some evidence for an improvement in Leicester's cash flow, please. As recently as last week, the club took out two further loans against future transfer redeemables to support its cash flow, which by its latest 21-22 figures were troublesome even prior to relegation. The club had the 7th highest wage bill in England upon relegation and has retained a significant number of those player's rights since, while losing 2/3 of its revenue. It is extremely likely that the club posts a significant loss for both the 22-23 and 23-24 financial years at minimum, and to my latest knowledge the club remains on UEFA's FFP 'watchlist'.

I'd admit we should review some players' wages which were not reduced in the database by 45% (but rather a slightly lesser 25-35% amount) post-relegation, at Leicester. We'll review those for a future data update, along with some other player wages among new signings which may have been set erroneously high.

As for clubs outside of those recently relegated (the likes of Luton Town, for example) - a large promotion clause would seem logical to me to prevent the need for a club to renew 25 first team contracts upon promotion to a league which offers exponentially higher revenues. A surprise promotion of a team offering £5-10kpw to their players in the Championship would surely warrant a promotion increase of near-doubling those wages, in my estimation.

Surely you could refer back to Leicester players wages from FM23 and calculate the wage increases to bring wages back to the same level should they get promoted in FM24? There might be the odd player who got a new contract during the 22/23 season but it wont be many at all.

 

Look at the top 3 earners in the Leicester squad and their new wages once promoted in FM24: Ricardo Pereira  wages jump to 135k per week. James Justin’s  up to 120k per week, Soumares up to 100k per week. These are all 15-20k higher than their wages at the start of FM23 while in the Premier League and none of these players were awarded with new contracts during the 22/23 season. If this pattern continues through the rest of the squad then its easy to see how Leicester have such an large overspend on wages at the start of the 24/25 season if they get promoted.

16 hours ago, Turlo said:

Surely you could refer back to Leicester players wages from FM23 and calculate the wage increases to bring wages back to the same level should they get promoted in FM24? There might be the odd player who got a new contract during the 22/23 season but it wont be many at all.

 

Look at the top 3 earners in the Leicester squad and their new wages once promoted in FM24: Ricardo Pereira  wages jump to 135k per week. James Justin’s  up to 120k per week, Soumares up to 100k per week. These are all 15-20k higher than their wages at the start of FM23 while in the Premier League and none of these players were awarded with new contracts during the 22/23 season. If this pattern continues through the rest of the squad then its easy to see how Leicester have such an large overspend on wages at the start of the 24/25 season if they get promoted.

Indeed - this is why the number is 82% - in FM23, we had a bulk 45% relegation wage drop clause for the first team squad - an increase of 82% reverses a decrease of 45%.

It is, admittedly, an oversight that we did not set individual wage increases for those players whose wages were not reduced by a full 45%, and as mentioned in my previous reply, we'll review that for a future data update.

Having said that, the three wages you mention really do not seem extraordinarily large. Ricardo and Justin were among very few established first team players to sign renewed terms in the last two years, and will have been on at least £100kpw prior to relegation, from the calculations and estimations we've made. I think it is obvious that Leicester will still have a problem of a large wage bill next season, and that should be part of the FM experience upon promotion, of course. I do agree that some adjustments should be made, but we think we are on the right lines to have the clauses that do exist, on balance. 

Just picking up on this thread, I can understand why players who had wage drops after relegation would have their contracts increased back to previous levels after promotion. But why would players such as Harry Winks and Mavididi who joined in the summer also have 82% increases on promotion, that doesn't make any sense?

23 hours ago, craigrnorman said:

Just picking up on this thread, I can understand why players who had wage drops after relegation would have their contracts increased back to previous levels after promotion. But why would players such as Harry Winks and Mavididi who joined in the summer also have 82% increases on promotion, that doesn't make any sense?

As noted above, this is under review. 

On 02/11/2023 at 17:30, Tom Elliott said:

I'd admit we should review some players' wages which were not reduced in the database by 45% (but rather a slightly lesser 25-35% amount) post-relegation, at Leicester. We'll review those for a future data update, along with some other player wages among new signings which may have been set erroneously high.

 

Thankyou Tom