now that was good!
-
-
Just had a quick flick through the Deloitte Football Finance Guide. Seems Rafa was right about the difference in money - my highlighting:
I thought Arsenal were, according to the media and everyone else, running everything cheaply. I say this every year, why the media lie about the "wage structure"?Wage costs in the Premier League exceeded £1 billion
for the first time in 2007/08, reaching £1.2 billion.
The increase in total wage costs of £227m (23%
is
the biggest annual absolute increase recorded by the
Premier League.
• Premier League clubs’ increase in total wages of
£342m in the two years to 2007/08 is broadly
equivalent to the £351m increase in their broadcast
revenue over this period repeating the experience of
previous significant increases in broadcasting deals.
• Despite the increase in wage costs, the surplus of
revenue over wages for Premier League clubs has
increased to a record high of £736m (2006/07:
£561m). The wages/revenue ratio for the Premier
League fell slightly to 62% in 2007/08 (2006/07: 63%),
as revenue growth of 26% outpaced wages growth.
• Chelsea, with wage costs of £172m remains the
highest spender by some distance, over £50m above
the next highest club, Manchester United, who spent
£121m. The other top five wages spenders in 2007/08
are, for the sixth season in succession, Arsenal £101m,
Liverpool £90m, and Newcastle United £75m.Comment
-
Thats grim reading for Newcastle fans, there's no way they can sustain that sort of wage bill after relegation.
What those figures don't tell you is how much money is coming in. The figure that most people use is the percentage of club income that goes on wages, and my understanding is that Arsenal are pretty low down on that list.Comment
-
Yeah, I think their wage bill was something like 75% of their turnover. Seeing as they're going to have a massive drop in turnover thanks to relegation they're gonna need to dump big wages earners real sharpish.
Could be very nasty if a few of the big earners decide to sit back and see out their contracts.Comment
-
Wages are incredibly complex and aren't always reflective of what they're currently spending.
Some put on loan players onto their wage bills (even though they get the money) and there are things like at Chelsea, having to pay off two managers. It's very easy to manipulate those figuresComment
-
Smurfy,It is easy to manipulate - so it is a good thing it has been done, as stated, by a respected, international audit firm with access to, and ability to analyse, all the data available.
The figure do not show revenue as I did not put them in (I only have highlights of the report - report itself costs £600!)as not about LFC but this is what it says:
I was surprised by this again my highlighting and this is GROSS so does not take into account sales:• In 2006/07, Manchester United were the first English
club to earn revenue of over £200m in a season. In
2007/08 they increased revenues by 21% to a record
£257m, with both Arsenal and Chelsea also breaking
the £200m threshold.
Who did we buy 2007-8? Torres (22ish), Babel (12ish), I guess Skrtel(6ish) & Masch(16ish) counts then too giving 56ish. Who else did we get in 07/08?• Chelsea became the first club to report over £80m
gross transfer spending in one season. Three others,
Liverpool (£70m), Manchester City (£62m)
and Portsmouth (£53m) had gross transfer
spend in excess of £50m.Comment
-
Benayoun, Insua and Lucas.Comment
-
Their analysis is based off of the figures released by the clubs in their financial reports, not from going through their books themselves. They only have access to public data.Originally posted by saif View PostComment
-
I know how they do it (I do work for them after all) and the guys involved are VERY knowledgable about how accounts are produced smurfy. Dan Jones, the partner involved, is a sports club specialist and Deloitte are deeply involved in almost all of the important financial analysis done globally, not just the UK. I have a feeling that they may know how to do comparisons like-for-like mate.
Even if your assertion that it is weighted against Chelsea as they account more realistically than the publicly owned companies, £50m more than MU is not a small amount is it? It would take a 25% error to take CFC to MU levels!!! They spend not that far off DOUBLE Liverpool in that year.
I thought Insua and Yossi were frees - guess I was wrong.Comment
-
Insua deal is a bit funky as it involved Palleta going the other way, it comes pretty close to being free though. Yossi was about ?5m.Comment
-
As an example, Chelsea wage bills for those years include compensation given to grant and mourinho (?25m). There's lots of little things like that which are debatable for if they can be classed as fair representations of wage costs, on loan players were an example I gave before.Originally posted by saif View PostComment
-
Money, money, money......
Good to see the club paying for our illustrious owners to travel around at such luxury.
Rumours abound that Masch is getting fined for his agents Barca chat.
I will be gutted if Alonso leaves, gutted if Javier leaves.
Pirlo is the only other player I canthink of that could do for us what XA does - Masch is irreplaceable for LFC imho.Comment
-
The Guardian is worse than certain tabloids for football coverage - sensationalist nonsense from a once socialist paper. **** em.
Liverpool do not have to sell. One or Two players in of genuine quality to compliment a fine squad.Comment
-
I agree about the coverage from the guardian - it has been covered elsewhere though and is not made up like their transfer b**locks.
It is not a case of having to sell, but when players' heads are turned, it is a problem - not one we have dealt with in awhile as I strongly believe the club fosters very strong links with the top players.
Real are idiots anyway - it is obvious to all that Masch would be a much more useful player to them than XA.Comment
-
If we only have ?15-20m to spend as has been reported, then we probably need to sell, because that is unlikely to buy one player of genuine quality, let alone two.Comment
Comment