Has Ayew Taken A Pay Cut Signing For Slaven's West Ham?

The £20 Million plus arrival of Andre Ayew on a 3 year deal at the London Stadium from Swansea has undoubtedly raised a few eyebrows, not least because the ex-team mate at Marseille of Dimitri Payet arrived at Swansea on a free transfer last summer! Fans who have been expecting a 'marquee' signing may feel slightly underwhelmed by the Ghanaian International who was born in France's arrival, they may observe he seems more of a large tent than a marquee, however as with many signings the details of the deal are rather vague.
The main reason Swansea were able to sign the 27 year old from Marseille on a 'free' was because he and his manager had let his contract run down safe in the knowledge that they had a deal in place to go to Swansea on massive wages along with a huge signing on fee, so when is a free not a free? Rumour is that Ayew was being paid £120,000 per week by the Swans, a figure that the Hammers hierarchy were definitely NOT prepared to pay, which is one of the reasons for the protracted negotiations, with the player having to agree to a 33% reduction in his wages! Never the less £20 Million is a lot of money to pay. especially as Ayew is not an out and out striker and West Ham will still need to fork out for the 20 goal a season striker they so desire, but realistically the value of players doubled as soon as the new TV deal kicked in, this is apparent throughout the Barclays Premier League and has the obvious knock on effect in Europe.
One of the key elements involved with signing players like Andre Ayew is the fiscal manoeuvering that financial fair play rules necessitate, meaning you can pay a fortune for a player (usually in three monthly installments) but be better off from an FFP perspective so long as the wages are not too high, hence paying so much for Ayew is offset by the differential between player value and player cost in wages. It is a bit of a financial conundrum, but a clever accountant could sit you down and explain how it works in detail, that is if you have the time or inclination to want to know, failing that it is best just to accept that these are crazy times in football financially, those clubs who don't 'bite the bullet' financially risk being left behind. We are not advocating irresponsible spending that the likes of Leeds United and Rangers embarked on, merely keeping abreast of the competition, because it is plain for anyone to see that clubs cannot afford to stand still in the transfer market just to prove a point, they need to be pro-active rather than re-active.
Today's £20 Million is £2 Million from ten years ago. - Ed