Simone Inzaghi

[CafeCordoba]

Yeah I don't know what's this angle now @.h.

It's much easier to argue or reason such a bonus to a guy who's basically responsible for the whole performance or output of the team.

 

[Stefan]

Presume we don't want another spaletti or Conte situation hence the shorter contract.
Hopefully Limone stays happy with that style of renewal.

 

[.h.]

My point on the bonus is that hes not paid much more than other coaches in the league, and i'm actually very happy we've given a significant bonus kick on success. But 6.5m+2m for winning a scudetto + other bonuses for winning other things is very different to like a lautaro/barella which is very heavy on base and very little on bonus

 

[IM21]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1810730769435791506

 

[Black Knight]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1810730769435791506

Who put an aging filter on that photo?

 

[Glass box]

Would have liked a longer deal aswell, but gotta be some reason for the club not to want that.

They don't want another Spaletti and Conte.

 

[Adriano@10]

My point on the bonus is that hes not paid much more than other coaches in the league, and i'm actually very happy we've given a significant bonus kick on success. But 6.5m+2m for winning a scudetto + other bonuses for winning other things is very different to like a lautaro/barella which is very heavy on base and very little on bonus

You mean he ll be the second highest earning coach in serie A even before bonus? Like whats your argument here? He only makes less than conte who still is a way bgger name.....
Again lauti and barella also have bonuses included and at the end of the day th market and not inter management dictates how much of the salary we can move to variable remuneration. Remember all the talks about lutaro renewal if reports are to be believed the difference between us and lauti was/is mostly that he wanted higher fixed salary while Inter wanted lower fixed with higher bonus....
I m not saying your argument ain valid I m saying it s unrealistic if you think we can significantly lower our wage costs by moving more f the cost to variable remunerations. Our players are not dumb and their advisors will make sure that they dont take deals that are dumb from a financial standpoint.

Basically your suggestion of just moving to more variable remuneration is as if i went to inzaghi when shit aint going well and i just tell hime well you guys just gotta play better... Not a bad suggestion but doing it is a lo harder than suggesting it.

Bottom line unless we deal with a player who is interista and/or does not want to leave milano at any cost will have to pay salaries that are in line with the market there is simply no way around it and bonuses wont be a miracle solution for that.

 

[.h.]

You mean he ll be the second highest earning coach in serie A even before bonus? Like whats your argument here? He only makes less than conte who still is a way bgger name.....
Again lauti and barella also have bonuses included and at the end of the day th market and not inter management dictates how much of the salary we can move to variable remuneration. Remember all the talks about lutaro renewal if reports are to be believed the difference between us and lauti was/is mostly that he wanted higher fixed salary while Inter wanted lower fixed with higher bonus....
I m not saying your argument ain valid I m saying it s unrealistic if you think we can significantly lower our wage costs by moving more f the cost to variable remunerations. Our players are not dumb and their advisors will make sure that they dont take deals that are dumb from a financial standpoint.

Basically your suggestion of just moving to more variable remuneration is as if i went to inzaghi when shit aint going well and i just tell hime well you guys just gotta play better... Not a bad suggestion but doing it is a lo harder than suggesting it.

my point is that aligning commercial success of the club to the commercial success (remuneration) of the players in a significant fashion isnt contentious at all. How many people here, for example, have bonuses conditional on meeting targets. I've had roles where as much as 50% bonus on base salary based on the success of the business.

Our players, in general, are very heavy on base and very light on bonus - I'd personally be happy giving up 10-20% of my base salary for another 30-50% of my bonus (as long as its in a clear and objective fashion)


Instead of, say, 7.5m+1m, pitch for 5m + 5m bonus conditional on things like Serie A, CL qualification, CL win, etc.


I'd like our team, in general, to have more 'skin in the game' of the results they deliver - no one should be able to, for example, not feed their family because of poor results, but right now its I can buy 25 lambos if I fail, and 27 lambos if I succeed, which is a bit BS. It should be more like... I can buy 10 lambos if I fail, or 25 if I succeed.

So so many roles out there are aligned to this sort of commercial success - CL and Serie A win is probably worth 150mil to the club? Why is it only, say, a 15% impact on our payroll when its like a 40% impact on our revenue


this is also not 'that' crazy - premiership clubs have a lot of relegation clauses in contracts, things like 20% paycuts on relegation, or not featuring in Europe, etc.

Man Utd stars 'forced into huge pay cut' after missing out on Champions League

MANCHESTER UNITED stars are reportedly set for a huge pay cut after the club missed out on Champions League qualification. The Red Devils are guaranteed to miss out on the top four with one game le…

www.thesun.co.uk

United, 25% pay cut for not being in the CL

West Ham and Leicster, 50% pay cut on relegation

West Ham and Leicester inserted wage cut clauses in new contracts

Both West Ham and Leicester have sought to protect their financial futures in the case that they are relegated from the Premier League this season by inserting wage cut clauses in contracts.

www.dailymail.co.uk

If our guys go out of the CL at the group stages, or the R16, or whatever, its basically a minor financial inconvenience. I'd rather see much more structured contracts that mean these guys have some real skin in the game. I'm not talking about starvation wages, families going hungry, etc, but a material impact.


Also, the point isnt to take a player on 6.5+1 and cut them to 5+2.5, its to take them to (say) 5+5, so that they can win significantly vs their current baseline contract. But that that 'winning' is significantly aligned to commercial success for the club too.

 

[Adriano@10]

my point is that aligning commercial success of the club to the commercial success (remuneration) of the players in a significant fashion isnt contentious at all. How many people here, for example, have bonuses conditional on meeting targets. I've had roles where as much as 50% bonus on base salary based on the success of the business.

Our players, in general, are very heavy on base and very light on bonus - I'd personally be happy giving up 10-20% of my base salary for another 30-50% of my bonus (as long as its in a clear and objective fashion)


Instead of, say, 7.5m+1m, pitch for 5m + 5m bonus conditional on things like Serie A, CL qualification, CL win, etc.


I'd like our team, in general, to have more 'skin in the game' of the results they deliver - no one should be able to, for example, not feed their family because of poor results, but right now its I can buy 25 lambos if I fail, and 27 lambos if I succeed, which is a bit BS. It should be more like... I can buy 10 lambos if I fail, or 25 if I succeed.

So so many roles out there are aligned to this sort of commercial success - CL and Serie A win is probably worth 150mil to the club? Why is it only, say, a 15% impact on our payroll when its like a 40% impact on our revenue


this is also not 'that' crazy - premiership clubs have a lot of relegation clauses in contracts, things like 20% paycuts on relegation, or not featuring in Europe, etc.

Man Utd stars 'forced into huge pay cut' after missing out on Champions League

MANCHESTER UNITED stars are reportedly set for a huge pay cut after the club missed out on Champions League qualification. The Red Devils are guaranteed to miss out on the top four with one game le…

www.thesun.co.uk

United, 25% pay cut for not being in the CL

West Ham and Leicster, 50% pay cut on relegation

West Ham and Leicester inserted wage cut clauses in new contracts

Both West Ham and Leicester have sought to protect their financial futures in the case that they are relegated from the Premier League this season by inserting wage cut clauses in contracts.

www.dailymail.co.uk

If our guys go out of the CL at the group stages, or the R16, or whatever, its basically a minor financial inconvenience. I'd rather see much more structured contracts that mean these guys have some real skin in the game. I'm not talking about starvation wages, families going hungry, etc, but a material impact.


Also, the point isnt to take a player on 6.5+1 and cut them to 5+2.5, its to take them to (say) 5+5, so that they can win significantly vs their current baseline contract. But that that 'winning' is significantly aligned to commercial success for the club too.

You really compare us to relegation sides? Also its standard across the industry that players have to take big pay cuts in case of a demotion that is across all leagues. Fucking jube players took pay cuts to play in serie B thats almost 20 years ago stop acting like this is some kind of financial innovation or novelty in football.

If you think any player that can get 7+1 will settle for 5+5 I dont know what to tell you... Comparing any desk job to Footbal in any way is just useless...
Alot more luck is involved in football when compred to a desk job when it comes to achieving objectives... Imagine not getting 30% of your salary cause one of your teammates fucked up a penalty. Or just generally giving up 30% cause one or two team members are injured... It s a lot easier to settle for such a model in a desk job where uncertaintis and outside influences are not this big.
When it comes to skin in the game i truly hope that none of our players need 1 or 2 mios more to be motivated for a CL knockout game and if you need that you can gladly GTFO of my club.
Also do you realize that all of your examples are example of maluses and not Bonuses.. As in you get less if you dont perform not you get more if you reach certain criterias...
On top of that MAnu is probably the club with the most overpaid roster out there.... How you compare them to us i dont get it...

 

[.h.]

A minus is a plus from the previous year....

Also, did you see our r16 knock out game?

7.5+1 or 5+5 (and I'm not saying it has to be 5 base but you get the philosophy/point), I think anyone hungry would take the one with higher potential. Obviously it depends on what's realistic, but a lot of people in their regular lives give up base for bonus especially at some point of established comfort.

As I said, getting a 10% variation in your pay for finishing CL winners and Serie A winners vs ending 6th and not qualifying is just fucking crazy. The players have so little skin in the commercial success of the club.


As I said, I'm not looking at this as mainly a punitive mechanism, you put significant upside in front of the players as well.

5m base no matter what, +500k for not being relegated, +1m for a top 4 finish, +1.5m for a Serie A league win, +500k for QF, +1m for SF, +1.5m for finals, etc. I don't know what the exact sensible split would be right now but a disappointing season for this club results in really very little impact on our players


Or hell if you're fine with the Man It's way do it that way too. 9m base, -1m for not winning the CL, -2m for our at the group stages, -3m for not making Top 4. Doesn't really matter

 

[Adriano@10]

A minus is a plus from the previous year....

Also, did you see our r16 knock out game?

7.5+1 or 5+5 (and I'm not saying it has to be 5 base but you get the philosophy/point), I think anyone hungry would take the one with higher potential. Obviously it depends on what's realistic, but a lot of people in their regular lives give up base for bonus especially at some point of established comfort.

As I said, getting a 10% variation in your pay for finishing CL winners and Serie A winners vs ending 6th and not qualifying is just fucking crazy. The players have so little skin in the commercial success of the club.


As I said, I'm not looking at this as mainly a punitive mechanism, you put significant upside in front of the players as well.

5m base no matter what, +500k for not being relegated, +1m for a top 4 finish, +1.5m for a Serie A league win, +500k for QF, +1m for SF, +1.5m for finals, etc. I don't know what the exact sensible split would be right now but a disappointing season for this club results in really very little impact on our players


Or hell if you're fine with the Man It's way do it that way too. 9m base, -1m for not winning the CL, -2m for our at the group stages, -3m for not making Top 4. Doesn't really matter

And again I m saying your putting this out as some kind of big redemption for our salary problems which it simply is not. Also again people with regular jobs and their employers are in a whole different world to footballers... Goals are easier to achieve and the worker is way easier replaced and i usually dont have to wait 3 months till i m allowed to negotiate and get a replacement. If you give the players to easy to achieve bonuses like non relegaion for inter players might as well just give em those 500k fixed....

Again my main problem with your argument is that your acting as if we could make some big difference and it would be easy to achieve. Which a we re already trying it as you can see with the lauti barella hakan and even he skriniar renewal... A lot of the difference between us and players are reported to be exactly us offering more in bonus and the player wanting more in fixed salary. You can say 1000 times that in your daily work you see this ften fact is it does not happen in football especially not at the highest level and at top clubs.
Yet here you are saying that this could be some huge solution when we ve been trying it for years and it seems to only move the needel slightly. Can we ossibly save 1 or 2 mios more like that yes will it have any big impact on our financials no and thats where all the evidence points to.

I get that you put upside for the player as well but all the big example you had were from strictly punitive clauses. Thats why I m saying bonuses with reduced base salares wont move the needle as much as you think it could. Also lets not forget signing a contract with punitive clauses in it is a whole different thing psychologically speaking than signing with bonuses. Just a short excursion punitive clauses will only be easily accepted for things players thnk they ll easily achieve, you ll probably be able to sneak a cl miss clause in at the biggest teams but no player will sign a contract that will punish him for not winning the cl or going ou in the semis.


Look bottom line is very easy if a player can decide between 10 fixed and 8 fixed plus 2 in bonuses they all will go for the 10 fixed. As long as t s not normal for top players to recive 20-30-50% of their salary in variable remuneration we wont be able to pull that off unless we re happy with losing al our top players.
You ll get away with slightly underpaying when compared to other top clubs in europe (which we are already doing) You wont get away with changing remuneration structure as drastically as youd like to and keep your top players or think that you ll attract top players.

Again you re not wrong in suggesting we should try this i m saying we are already doing it and i dont think we have any significant safing potential there unless the whole market changes.

Last but not least no a minus aint no plus from the previous year.

 

[.h.]

If we can save 500k net from each player in a baseline basis that's 25mil in our wage bill which is already a big shift.. and if that means paying our an extra 1mil per player for good success then that's also fine because we will have had significant commercial success that justifies it!

 

[Adriano@10]

If we can save 500k net from each player in a baseline basis that's 25mil in our wage bill which is already a big shift.. and if that means paying our an extra 1mil per player for good success then that's also fine because we will have had significant commercial success that justifies it!

Yes i agree with that and we should try to defer as much to bonuses as we can, my argument is it s not as easy as you make it sound especially if we wanna retain top talent and stay competitive.

Fact is we are already doing this and in all our longer renewal sagas since skriniar reports have always been that we offer a lower base salary with higher bonuses while the player demands higher salary with lower bonuses.

Lets look at your example you make that sound pretty easy but consider we have 4 players for whom that would be less than a 10% decrease in base salary, for the highest paid it would be an ~8% decrease. For the next 8 it would be a ~12%-19% decrease... For everybody else that would be a more than 20% reduction.

So arguably you have 4 players where you possibly could pull that 1mio off for the rest of the 21 players thats gonna be extremly hard and i d argue that 25 mo reducion is impossible without losing players.

Again my point is not that its not a good idea my point is we will not be able to go much out of the industry standards without losing top talents. My argument is more that if we want to stay competitive we wont be able to cut the wage budget significantly and defering more to bonuses will help but wont be a magic remedy. Add to that we have to renew many of our top performers and none of em is gonna accept a lower base salary then they get now.

Last but not least why should players care about correlation between business and on the field success as long as there are teams out there offering em he same as we do but with more money guaranteed? Not their fault that serie a owners cant get their shit together when it comes to tv rights and building stadiums.

 

[IM21]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811718296904843453

 

[varmin]

This is very short contract extension. I don't know why they didn't extend him till 2027 at least

 

[.h.]

Genuine question when was the last time an Inter manager saw out their contract to it's end? And wasn't either sacked or left?

 

[Adriano@10]

Genuine question when was the last time an Inter manager saw out their contract to it's end? And wasn't either sacked or left?

Good question.... Trap? Not sure if his contract ended or he just left but quite sure he did not get fired

 

[CafeCordoba]

Now Inzaghi finishing this new season, he would see his initial contract to be finished. But these two extensions now prolongs this "end of contract" event.

 

[.h.]

But ignoring that though, when was the last time? I can't think of one

 

[Stefan]

This is very short contract extension. I don't know why they didn't extend him till 2027 at least

got burned by conte & spaletti hence the reluctance regarding a longer contract.