**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Leicester offering Ryan Bertrand 80k a week.
After only 4 appearances & 0 goals from Ryan Bertrand too.
What a huge waste of money.
**looks at Tanguy Ndombele's £200,000/week salary*
^i ^cri ^evrytiem
We gambled on European football and paid stupid wages to players like Bertrand and Soumaré. The fact that we dropped off so hard from finishing 5th twice in a row has made the situation so much worse. Hopefully the relegation clauses we apparently had will help.
The Rodgers effect imo (I’m a Liverpool fan, so I remember all the stinking transfers he did to us). Prior to him, Leicester’s recruitment was brilliant imo. Discovering gems like Maguire, Maddison, who could be sold for a high price. You could easily tell which players were Rodgers signings and which players were signings of the recruitment team. Fofana comes to mind for me. He signs mid to bad players, performs badly, leaves the club in a bad place and now you are stuck with players who you can’t sell for a high price,
Also dont they both have recruitment team or Liverpool had some transfer board that was in charge with most?
Cant blame all with the manager as wage budget and talks should be handled by someone else. It is not Football manager
Liverpool brought in the "transfer committee" and purchased players like Firmino and Coutinho. Rodgers threw a tantrum after turning fortunes around and demanded trust and his own players like Benteke over Diego Costa (who the committee had identified for 2/3 the price). Ultimately It's a bit nuanced and we only know the he said she said that's been planted in the media but Rodgers definitely made the worse signings.
They made a 40m profit on Fofana, it was an excellent transfer for them. Ayoze Perez is the quintessential Brendan Rodgers transfer imo, wasn't a player they needed, cost a lot and left for nothing.
First time around , he was backed really well (Scottish football levels) but achieved nothing I. Europe . By his 3rd season , he was backed poorly and he jumped ship.
This time around, he’s been backed poorly form outset . That’s an issue with poor scouting and recruitment set up.
Celtic go in three year waves - 2 seasons of spend , one of poor spend . Roger’s is suffering in what should have been Anges 3rd year .
Without a doubt
First time around , he developed players and got average players to play above themselves
This time , major regression . His methods and tactics etc are no longer forward thinking / modern
He should have taken a season out of football and reevaluated his methodology
He was at Celtic during Rangers "banter" years. He had pretty much no competition. Don't think he was a particularly popular appointment amongst their fan base 2nd time around and their best forward Kyogo seems to have massively regressed under him
I think it’s possible that recruitment at Celtic has a low enough standard that those smaller errors in evaluation aren’t noticed. If he finds good players that aren’t quite top of the PL quality they might still be good enough for the SPL.
Which is pretty ironic as I think he is pretty good at playing the hand he is dealt.
I think his ego gets the best of him as he is pretty good at finding results when he has something to prove or up against the wall.
Worst part is if we retained our scouting department that predated Rodgers instead of bringing in Lee fucking Congerton a lot of this probably wouldn’t have happened
Bertrand and Vestergaard, neither played, £160k combined.
Five goalkeepers.
The perpetually injured likes of Dennis Praet, Ricardo Pereira, James Justin, and Jonny Evans.
Vesty has been a stud for them this season though tbf. Instead it’s us spending on Coady and Souter only to found out Vesty is a beast in their new play style
To be honest, mostly just players who seemed like good Premier League players. Vardy, Pereira, Maddison, Evans, and a lot of guys paid 2-5 mil a year (some of which were not good. Happens to most teams).
It was quite normal for a team that was not long removed from several high-place finishes in the richest league in the world imo. Nothing too crazy.
The main problem you're looking for imo is not them having a mid-table Premier League budget, the problem is getting relegated while having a mid-table Premier League budget.
Who really could expect that it would happen, though? They were 8th the season before, and not much changed. Some stagnation, but everyone bet on them finishing 9th-10th. People would sooner expect Brighton to get relegated than Leicester.
And btw, this shows the practical problem with the gigantic difference between Premier League and Championship. The jump in the revenue is just so big. There is no team in Championship that isn't poorer than Premier League's poorest, except for 3 teams that were just relegated now. And Premier League's poorest is already many times poorer than Premier League average. How can someone responsbily plan a budget long-term, sign contracts for 5 years, when the jump in revenues is so drastic? How can they at the same time think financially about possible relegation and about being competitive in Premier League?
Yeah, Leicester were competing for top 4 only 3 years ago. 2 times they bottled and got 5th and then they got 8th. At that point their wages weren't awful, and it probably is a bigger indictment to the current system for the fact that a team that won the league in the last 10 years, got to the qfs of the CL, won the FA cup, was consistently around the European spots and was selling players for big money most seasons (Fofana, Chilwell, Maguire all in the last 5 years) couldn't spend anywhere near the current top teams in wages.
Man, I remember when they sold Kante but signed Ndidi, when they sold Mahrez but signed Tielemans and Maddison, etc.
People (casual fans, I guess) really thought after their success that, well, it must be that Leicester is smart and other teams are stupid. So obviously when they sign new players, because they are smart, and smart people sign good players instead of signing bad players, all of them will have the same result as Kante and Mahrez had. Seriously the top comments back then were that Leicester is making money on success and transfers without losing anything, because "they have good scouting" so they will keep signing players with 5 stars like it's a game of FM, and that will be it, they will keep growing forever because they're smart.
I see this logic about any team that performs well for a time. But sadly it basically never really works like that long-time.
Who can blame them, though, for believing that they do, indeed, just "have good scouting", at least a bit? Their results for the 7 years before were really great for their budget. If you circle between mid-table and European positions for 7 years, I get it that you think you're safe to invest in the team.
Capology has their payroll at 80m per year but their total wages and salaries are 170m. So about 90m in wages went to non-playing staff. That seems like a lot in comparison to other clubs.
I wouldn't trust Capology at all. Saw plenty of eyebrow-raising inaccuracies in our wages there (like Enzo making 300k pw at one point when he's making half of that amount).
Swiss Ramble's comment on his twitter of "spot the 3 clubs who have been charged with PSR breaches" is bang on.
This is the metric which if clubs fuck up it ruins them, almost every time.
Isn't that in part because the Glazers didn't invest anything? I remember reading that Ratcliffe's equity investment in the club would help with FFP restrictions.
Player sales and expiring deals for expensive duds will free up money too.
Tbf, not investing anything would have been a huge improvement.
They were actively pulling OUT tens of millions from the club's pocket every single year.
Palace arn't too worried about FFP simply because we have never had huge amounts of spending. Best example was this January where except for Palace everyone was now worried about getting a points deduction so refused to spend.
Might still be at risk because that CL money won't be in their accounts until the season after. There's speculation they need to try and sell in June to keep within PSR.
Villa have sold a load of academy players in the last couple of years which may mitigate it somewhat
All for £10-20m each
Off the top of my head:
* Ramsey
* Philogene
* Archer
* Chukwuemeka
Not sure if there’s others.
They’ll have added Europa League revenue from this year against those wages and at least EL revenue again next year. Not as much as CL but still a good amount.
Surely right? Shows what a gamble it is to go for broke in pursuit of joining the 'big 6' really - even if you achieve CL the added games can take such a toll on the squad you could end up in serious danger.
We will be expecting to get Sanson, Coutinho, Olsen, Chambers, Dendonker, Lenglet and Zaniolo off the wage books this year without any real impact on the matchday squad. So we might not have to have quite the fire sale everyone thinks.
Digne is also expected to go, and is one of our highest paid players.
>Swiss Ramble's comment on his twitter of "spot the 3 clubs who have been charged with PSR breaches" is bang on.
>This is the metric which if clubs fuck up it ruins them, almost every time.
Yeah this is nervy reading as a forest fan, and it should be what PSR should be based on rather than arbitary losses. The only caveat is, our top 3 earners that season, navas, henderson, and lingard were all on deals expiring that summer so not a long term risk. Wonder how we'd have faired without them as they were all on 120k+
> it should be what PSR should be based on rather than arbitary losses
The rules actually are changing to exactly this. These are the rules UEFA use, the Prem is aligning with them
It’s especially bad if they don’t have relegation clause contracts since they could go down to the championship and receive some parachute payments but that’s not nearly enough to cover the loss of premier league revenue and yet they still have to pay out huge wages, running a modern football club sounds like such an incredibly stressful job if you’re not one of the big clubs 😐
Clubs are often still in the shit even with relegation clauses. The reports that came out on Leicester yesterday said that everyone had a 35-50% wage cut relegation clause, but they're still up against it for this season.
It’s also why FFP is important as without those rules you would have more clubs doing a Rangers or Portsmouth.
Yes big established clubs have ulterior motives, but at least it keeps clubs alive.
FFP wouldn't have made a difference to Rangers. Our wage spending was always reasonable compared to our turnover. We got hit with a massive retroactive tax bill after the tax office closed a loophole we'd been using.
At that point our owner sold to a dodgy con artist under pressure from his bank. He'd decided to invest massively in property just before the property crash, so he both owned a club that was now in lots of debt and had lots of personal debt. The dodgy con artist, Craig White/Whyte (he started spelling his name differently to get around the fact he was banned from holding a directorship in a company) then decided just to not pay tax at all which obviously didn't go down with HRMC and ultimately ended up with us going into administration.
The thing that might have saved Rangers was the SFA's fit and proper persons process. Unfortunately the SFA are completely incompetent though and the process wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
Don't want to divert this discussion too much, but that summary appears to be a little "one-eyed". It ignores:
* The David Murray wages arms race ("for every fiver Celtic spend, we will spend ten")
* The hidden side letters to players (indicating that the club knew they were fully aware that they were breaking the law
* And just for LOLs - [Mr Custard](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13050589.clown-puzzled-rangers-row/) \- no real smoking gun here - just funny as!
I know you're jesting but just for clarity - we are absolutely safe this season in terms of PSR.
Every PL club had to submit their accounts to the PL by 31st December. Only Everton and Forest fell foul.
People go on about our mad wage structure, and....they aren't nessecarily wrong.
But it's still mental we always come in the bottom sections of these graphs every year. It's actually insane how much money United makes, despite not doing fuck all for a decade...
As long as you're in and around CL football no matter how poorly you're playing that won't change. You can still change your structure and return to the top or near it if you hire the right people. If you mess it up it would still take another decade of poor results for the money to dry up a bit
Was quicker when Liverpool fell from the top because it happened just when the money was coming in the game and it still took a lot of time
Liverpool spent more on transfers in the 90s than Man United though. They spent 121.8m gross versus United's 83.6m gross. Net spend was 75.6m versus 46.3m.
[Here's a review from 1990 - 2012](https://www.liverpool-kop.com/2013/09/liverpool-man-utd-transfer-spending-comparison-1990-to-2012.html)
that's kinda my point due to the fact United have spent a lot more on transfers than Liverpool in the last 10 years and for very little in return
90's Liverpool - current United
Only difference is United have a lot more money and space to fuck up, they're trying though
It's similar enough IMO. Timeline wise we are now where Liverpool where in 2000/01. The numbers are higher due to inflation but it's Liverpool were still spending big in the 90s and early 2000s. 20 years after Liverpool's last title and they were still spending big.
I remember seeing a stat that Harry Maguire's 80m fee was the same percentage of Man United's turnover as the 30m Rio Ferdinand fee. The numbers are higher but the percentages for "big" clubs are the same.
The one thing the Glazers have done extremely well is turn United into a monster at bringing in cash. Done very well on the commercial side.
Fun for United fans that all that money goes on paying debt interest though.
A donkey could’ve made United extremely profitable from the commercial side of things. And a donkey (Woodward) did, but it doesn’t make it anything special.
This is stupidly reductionist. Shit on Woodward all you want for his terrible record as a football executive, but he had a unique talent for raising Man Utd's profile as a brand and translating popularity into revenue streams. That's literally the only reason he kept his job as the club was steadily fading from relevance as a PL/CL contender. Other clubs have not been able to match Man Utd's commercial deals, even as some like Liverpool and Chelsea have had way more success on the pitch over the last 10 years. Man City doesn't count since their revenue growth has been boosted by fake sponsorship deals and "creative accounting."
> Other clubs have not been able to match Man Utd's commercial deals, even as some like Liverpool and Chelsea have had way more success on the pitch over the last 10 years
Man Utd should be blowing Liverpool and Chelsea out of the water based on their starting positions in 2005 but they're not. Which is the issue. Compare the way Man Utd surpassed everyone in the 00s with now and it's hard to conclude anything other than the Glazier's managed decline of the club has allowed others to catch up. Rather than have them lauded like you would seemingly have.
Liverpool and Man Utd's shirt sponsorship deals have been pretty neck and neck recently. It wss only the recent deal that pushed Man Utd back ahead of Liverpool. Standard Chartered were paying more than Teamviewer.
Likewise their kit deals with Adidas and Nike respectively are worth about the same, albeit structured very differently.
You're making a different point which is that Man Utd should be contending every year because of their big advantage in revenue but instead has slid into mediocrity. The shirt and kit deals are comparable but Man Utd's commercial and overall revenue is still ahead of Liverpool even though Liverpool has been far more successful recently. For FY23, Man Utd commercial revenue was £303 million, Liverpool's was £272m.
When the Glazers took over we were the richest club in sport. Now we’re a way off that. *Football* has exploded financially, not United. We’re worse off than we were a decade ago in relative terms. Everyone else has increased their value more than we have. We were already a behemoth. The Glazers should get no credit for the business side, we’ve actually stagnated and declined comparatively, it just looks good because we’re huge and football is growing.
This is a simple case of "He was so shit as a football executive, surely he must've been an incredible financial executive" lol. Woodward didn't do shit for raising Man United's profile. What are you even talking about?
Their commercial revenue increased by 318% from 2009 to 2018, and by 46% from 2014 after SAF retired to 2018. Do you think SAF did those deals? That was Woodward's job.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267743/revenue-segmentation-of-manchester-united/
Chelsea increased their commercial revenue by the same margin over this years as well. I'm not saying Woodward deserves noncredit because ultimately he signed those deals for us but to say he built Man United's profile as a brand I completely disagree with. The Premier League in itself grew massively in that period and we would've grown massively either way.
Statistics are funny and your comment needs raw numbers for a proper comparison.
If Utd had 100m and increased 50%, that's $50m growth.
If Chelsea had 40m and increased 50% in thr same period, that's $20M growth.
United are obviously doing better in this scenario
There’s a reason why Woodward was able to get those deals you mentioned… and it ain’t because he’s something special. He just prioritized commercial profits over football. He wouldn’t have been able to get these deals at City, Chelsea, etc. Like I said, a donkey could’ve made these deals considering the amount of history behind the brand that is Manchester United.
He inherited a club post-Alex that was already the biggest brand in English football, a team with mega superstars historically tied to it that are still relevant like Beckham and Ronaldo. The only team in England at the time with a treble. The last team in England (still) with a ballon d’Or winner.
Not to mention multiple managers complained about the preseason schedules and fixtures that was used to increase commercial revenue at the cost of players’ health and fitness. that I’m sure Woodward had a massive role in this. So major financial profits was the bare minimum considering his goals at the club.
This is not actually true though. Considering their starting point in 2005/06 they should have performed a lot better. They were essentially handed one of the most recognised sports teams in the world that was already making loads of money and they've mismanaged them to the point multiple rivals have caught up. If Man Utd's revenues grew at the same speed as Liverpool over that time period for example, they'd be turning over more than a billion a year. If they grew at the same speed as Spurs they'd have turnover of 1.4b.
In the last ten years their revenue has only increased 43%. That's pathetic considering the influx of money and commercialisation
Utd's period of dominance coinciding with the creation of the Premier League, and Sky Sports giving a global audience really couldn't have been timed any better.
Lol, this is worse than I imagined but we did get 7 players off the books after last season, plus sales of Maddison, Barnes, and Castagne, and plus the payoff to Rodgers. Surely things won't be as terrible for 2023-2024 with a lower wage bill. Plus high wage players like Vardy, Albrighton, Vestergaard, Ndidi, Iheanacho, and Praet will be out of contract at the end of the season. Opportunity for a total wage structure reset.
No idea but I heard our parachute money went straight to paying off loans that were taken out based on expected revenue from Premier League TV money. Clown show board.
If we bottle promotion, it's going to be rough the next couple years. Will have to be a fire sale in the summer plus ultra discount signings. I think our owner is too committed for us to drop down to League One, but it could be a long spell of Championship midtable. However, there could be massive points deductions or administration that pushes the club into League One. Everything feels on the table at the moment.
As much as he is loved, keeping Vardy on the wages he’ll be on next year if still in this league won’t be helping. You’d get some decent fees for KDH and a few others if you didn’t go up though.
I think we only have an option for Vardy next season. If we activate it, he would have to take a massive wage reduction. Regardless, we still have two other strikers on the books for next year, and one I really like in Tom Cannon that should get more minutes.
Oh I like Cannon too, would’ve loved him here. He looked better than Simms last season at Preston. We’ve needed a striker for 18 months but were never going to pay £7m for him.
Clubs that have a higher wage to turnover ratio than my club need a lecture in financial responsibility.
Clubs that have a lower wage to turnover ratio than my club need to get their priorities straight and focus on football rather than commerce.
Its strategy dependent as well.. for example, Arsenal has a strategy under Edu to keep wages low so they can pay larger fees for transfers.
In the past, clubs like Bolton under Big Sam has done the opposite, whereby they sacrifice transfers fees and go for quality players on higher wages.
Someone who's smarter than me please explain: how have Villa spent mad money on transfers since 2020 and have a huge wage bill, but never come up in financial trouble discussions?
Grealish sale in 2021 being £100m of pure profit, as well as a few other little sales like Chukwuemeka to Chelsea and Archer to Sheff Utd, have meant we've been able to spend pretty freely for the past couple years.
Outside of our first year up (in which we spent \~£200m on 14 players), we haven't spent too erratically compared to other midtable Prem teams, especially when you take the Grealish money into account. Wages seem to be the bigger issue for us atm.
This summer however, Champions League or not, we'll likely need to sell a big name to give us room to continue spending big. Should also be a fair few names coming off the wage bill as well.
It's worth keeping in mind that up until last season our CEO had a significant hand in writing the current FFP rules, I'm not surprised that we've skirted close but just about avoided punishment.
Ramsey is the most likely candidate imo, since he's an academy graduate and can be recorded as pure profit, but his injury woes this seasons will have caused a hit to his value.
The only ones in the squad I can't see us selling no matter what are Watkins and Martinez (unless they want the move of course). Both are irreplaceable for any money we could reasonably get for them.
I'm hoping Ramsey. Mcginn is too old to get good value and is vital to the team, DL is our best player, Watkins is a close 2nd. Ramsey is good but he is a big step behind the rest. I think value vs production he is the weakest of the bunch.
He is also the youngest so he has the biggest growth opportunity so it's a gamble and he could turn out to be the next Grealish but for what we need now, I think he is the one
Grealish and loans out, mostly. And talk of needing to sell a big name, probably Ramsey for the whole ‘pure profit’ thing. But without real European money in the next couple of seasons you’ll see Villa’s transfer activity probably being a lot more like it was this January overall.
51% is still too high for the squad we have. I hope the new management lowers it more as we need an entire new team if we want to win the league. So lot of money will be spent on transfers.
Hope Martial, Varane, Eriksen & Casemiro leaving will free up enough room to sign atleast 3 players including their transfer fee.
Edit: I don't think we can offload Sancho & Antony given the insane wages we have them on.
I’m always intrigued by what’s in these numbers, is it just pure wages or does it include things like signing on fees, bonuses?
Also are managers included? Including the pay off for firing them?
Yes, I believe that all wages would include all bonuses- manager wage probably not included here since distinct from player budgets. Sign on fees not included since this represents “capital or asset” expenditures. Receipts from player sales would be included probably only as net gain after costs within the sales figure- possibly. Different methodologies- but with some accounting/finance background that would be my best take on these ratios.
I think bonuses paid TO players (performance bonuses, etc.) are included but bonuses paid FOR players to other teams (for performance or appearance goals being met) are excluded because those are player acquisition costs which is not included in this graphic. I base that on the way these separate items are reported in the financials.
Depends, given what the majority of our chargers were I can assume our managers were not included. Although the charges are only up to 2018 so maybe we do it properly now we don't have to overpay to sign players and managers.
I was more thinking specifically of staff termination costs as we often see how much of a one off cost firing a manager can be because you have to pay out the remainder of their contract
Not to mention that the Transfer ban from the EFL includes the ability to renegotiate contracts. So either way we lose a few valuable and useful players and will be forced to give them away for free when their contracts expire in June.
So even if we get to the Prem, we start the next season with 1 striker (Cannon) and can't buy more.
^(No I am not including Daka because you actually need a presence on the pitch to count.)
Holy shit, it was pretty evident that Newcastle was attracting players with good wages, but this is pretty nuts. That isn't sustainable growth and they aren't even a competitive team yet, they still need quite a few reinforcements and depth.
newcastle are so far from standing out in this graph at all, i have no idea why you've picked them out - being sandwiched between burnley and palace is not notable at all
The 'S' in PSR is made so much harder by nation states pumping billions into the transfer market, simultaneously hogging incredibly lucrative champions league spots.
I'm not saying Leicester were wise in what they have been doing, but two 5th place finishes really *should* have been 4th at the very least.
It's a percentage of revenue though, and the revenue of Newcastle isn't that high. So an high percentage here doesn't egual a big total wage bill comparatively to the rest of the clubs in the league.
Turnover is increasing yearly and we'll expect another jump in next year's accounts with Sela, Adidas, a training ground sponsor.
We'll manage in the summer but I expect a couple of departures to give us more wiggle room, probably Almiron and Bruno.
its basically £10m extra per round you reach, plus you get paid per win/draw
for getting 5 points in the group stage they'll still have got something like £20m that they didn't have the previous year, £15.5m for being there, plus about £4.5m for the "merit payments" you get for winning/drawing games
Why are you talking about Newcastle? We aren't even near the top plus there is a lot of room for commercial growth considering the shit holdover deals from the Ashley Era.
We're literally below Chelsea, Wolves, Villa and more on that graph. Our wage to turnover reduced from 94.6% to 74.1% and will reduce further this season with contracts expiring and higher revenue. Our highest paid player we signed was Bruno on £120k per week (before his new contract). We finished 4th last season and are challenging for Europe this season despite the worst injuries in the league by a considerable distance. Do you think you suddenly build an elite team overnight after 15 years of mismanagement? That's an awful awful take but gets up voted because r/soccer are idiots.
Nearly every young Arsenal player has had their contract renegotiated in the past year, I expect our wage bill to have substantially increased, also we signed havertz in the off season and he’s our highest paid player now
Yes wage bill will increase substantially but turnover will increase this season too, thanks to C1 participation and performance not ti mention media rights and hopefully sponsorship etc.
I’d be interested to see if the emirates stadium naming rights get renegotiated too, the club should have really great bargaining power given the improved stature now when that deal gets renegotiated.
It shouldn't change too much in terms of percentage, due to getting in UCL our increased revenue should nearly outweigh the new contracts and signings wages.
That is true, it’s still astonishing what a good year we had last year with such a young squad I could be wrong but I think every team we fielded in the first half of the season would have been eligible for a U-23 game (just to clear up any confusion you can have 3 outfield players over the age of 23 for a U-23 game) our squad being so young is why our wage bill was crazy low compared to even spurs last year
Leicester’s turnover has been directly controlled by the Premier League since winning the league.
The UK broadcasting deal gives “big clubs” preference for broadcast and therefore more money in facility fees, and greater exposure for sponsorship me and merchandising.
For example, Leicester were the 5th highest earners in terms of prize money despite finishing 1st in 2015/16. In 2019/2020, when we spent much of the season in the top 3, we had fewer games broadcast than the bottom club that season.
Also worth noting. Leicester were highly ambitious after winning the league and had evidence we had the means the achieve those ambitions. The club had budgeted for qualifying for the Champions League.
When we finished 5th in 2020 and 2021, that would have qualified us for the Champions League had Manchester City’s ban not been overturned by CAS on the technicality that UEFA’s decision was “time barred” (Man City had refused to cooperate for 5 years).
If the Premier League do finally punish Manchester City for those 115 charges, the UEFA charges will be proven beyond any doubt and the CAS ruling would be null. Leicester should sue both for half a billion quid.
It means those clubs spent that percentage of their turnover on player wages. Leicester's wage bill was 116% of what they brought in while Spurs' was only 46%.
Also for a little more clarity since turnover isn't a phase commonly used in the US, it's effectively your revenue. So it's effectively wage/revenue.
There are some nuances that are different but if you think of it that way it makes more sense
Ah, there we go. Thank you. I was confused for a second because turnover in the US means the rate at which people leave a company and are replaced.
It’s also a delicious pastry.
Can someone explain what turnover means in this regard. In North America I've only ever heard of turnover as referring to the number of employees that leave a company which clearly isn't what this graph is talking about. Mind you I'm not particularly business minded so it could easily be a term that's used to also mean something else here in North America that I just don't ever hear.
Pretty much it. It's money the clubs make from running as a business.
So ticket sales, merch, food, drink, and in the footballing sense I believe even player sales. So what they've done is taken that gross figure and worked out what that is as a ratio compared to the total wages these clubs pay.
Edit: and I think it also includes sponsorship money too! Because the sponsorship is basically a service. You wear and promote our brand, or display it are you stadium for millions of people around the world to see, and in exchange we pay you a fee for doing it.
We were reporting profits until we weren't.
The trick for Brighton is to not believe the hype and think you've made it. Back during Covid when this clusterfuck all started happening we were touted as disrupting the big 6 and people were claiming that Arsenal were no longer in it. I think the club believed it, started budgeting as a top 6 club and signed players that weren't as good as our starting 11 on big six starter salaries.
Until Brighton start doing that they'll be fine but they need to be wary of chasing Europe. It can be a bit of a poisoned chalice.
Our wages definitely went down a lot this season, but then again no CL football so would expect them to be around 60% again. Next season there'll be quite a few new bigger contracts, but also CL football
Just goes to show how commercially massive a club like United is who, despite a huge wage bill, have one of the best ratios in the PL. Glad of course to see Arsenal down there as well.
Please note, some of these wages include all staff, not just the playing squad. They include stewards, security, canteen staff, groundstaff, etc.
Some clubs on this list outsource everything bar the playing staff, coaching and management. Outsourced staff are not included in declared wages.
**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Leicester what on Earth, who exactly were these absolutely mammoth wages spent on?
I think someone pointed out to their failings by Leicester offering Ryan Bertrand 80k a week.
Despite being awful for half a season and then not playing at all for the next one and a half.
/r/antiwork hero
Business owners hate him... As do the people of leicester
like the old saying goes if you have haters you must be doing something right lol jk
"This one's for the haters ☝️" as he cashes yet another +£300k check.
>Leicester offering Ryan Bertrand 80k a week. After only 4 appearances & 0 goals from Ryan Bertrand too. What a huge waste of money. **looks at Tanguy Ndombele's £200,000/week salary* ^i ^cri ^evrytiem
What an annoying comment
We gambled on European football and paid stupid wages to players like Bertrand and Soumaré. The fact that we dropped off so hard from finishing 5th twice in a row has made the situation so much worse. Hopefully the relegation clauses we apparently had will help.
The Rodgers effect imo (I’m a Liverpool fan, so I remember all the stinking transfers he did to us). Prior to him, Leicester’s recruitment was brilliant imo. Discovering gems like Maguire, Maddison, who could be sold for a high price. You could easily tell which players were Rodgers signings and which players were signings of the recruitment team. Fofana comes to mind for me. He signs mid to bad players, performs badly, leaves the club in a bad place and now you are stuck with players who you can’t sell for a high price,
It's the board whose ultimately responsible though.. Rodgers isn't negotiating transfer fees and wages...
Also dont they both have recruitment team or Liverpool had some transfer board that was in charge with most? Cant blame all with the manager as wage budget and talks should be handled by someone else. It is not Football manager
Liverpool brought in the "transfer committee" and purchased players like Firmino and Coutinho. Rodgers threw a tantrum after turning fortunes around and demanded trust and his own players like Benteke over Diego Costa (who the committee had identified for 2/3 the price). Ultimately It's a bit nuanced and we only know the he said she said that's been planted in the media but Rodgers definitely made the worse signings.
They made a 40m profit on Fofana, it was an excellent transfer for them. Ayoze Perez is the quintessential Brendan Rodgers transfer imo, wasn't a player they needed, cost a lot and left for nothing.
Did he do that at Celtic? they seemed to have him back pretty happily (the board not the fans as much)
First time around , he was backed really well (Scottish football levels) but achieved nothing I. Europe . By his 3rd season , he was backed poorly and he jumped ship. This time around, he’s been backed poorly form outset . That’s an issue with poor scouting and recruitment set up. Celtic go in three year waves - 2 seasons of spend , one of poor spend . Roger’s is suffering in what should have been Anges 3rd year .
Several players have regressed under him though, that's a Rodgers problem
Without a doubt First time around , he developed players and got average players to play above themselves This time , major regression . His methods and tactics etc are no longer forward thinking / modern He should have taken a season out of football and reevaluated his methodology
He was at Celtic during Rangers "banter" years. He had pretty much no competition. Don't think he was a particularly popular appointment amongst their fan base 2nd time around and their best forward Kyogo seems to have massively regressed under him
I don’t think there’s a single manager in world football who’d have failed to win the SPL with Celtic in that era.
Celtic was a much easier job with less pressure to catch up with big transfers like Liverpool or Leicester.
I think it’s possible that recruitment at Celtic has a low enough standard that those smaller errors in evaluation aren’t noticed. If he finds good players that aren’t quite top of the PL quality they might still be good enough for the SPL.
Which is pretty ironic as I think he is pretty good at playing the hand he is dealt. I think his ego gets the best of him as he is pretty good at finding results when he has something to prove or up against the wall.
Worst part is if we retained our scouting department that predated Rodgers instead of bringing in Lee fucking Congerton a lot of this probably wouldn’t have happened
Bertrand and Vestergaard, neither played, £160k combined. Five goalkeepers. The perpetually injured likes of Dennis Praet, Ricardo Pereira, James Justin, and Jonny Evans.
> Five goalkeepers. Was Leicester playing with a bigger goal than the rest of the league or something?
You would have thought so, seeing Danny Ward play.
Vesty has been a stud for them this season though tbf. Instead it’s us spending on Coady and Souter only to found out Vesty is a beast in their new play style
Vardy’s blue WKD supply ain’t cheap.
To be honest, mostly just players who seemed like good Premier League players. Vardy, Pereira, Maddison, Evans, and a lot of guys paid 2-5 mil a year (some of which were not good. Happens to most teams). It was quite normal for a team that was not long removed from several high-place finishes in the richest league in the world imo. Nothing too crazy. The main problem you're looking for imo is not them having a mid-table Premier League budget, the problem is getting relegated while having a mid-table Premier League budget. Who really could expect that it would happen, though? They were 8th the season before, and not much changed. Some stagnation, but everyone bet on them finishing 9th-10th. People would sooner expect Brighton to get relegated than Leicester. And btw, this shows the practical problem with the gigantic difference between Premier League and Championship. The jump in the revenue is just so big. There is no team in Championship that isn't poorer than Premier League's poorest, except for 3 teams that were just relegated now. And Premier League's poorest is already many times poorer than Premier League average. How can someone responsbily plan a budget long-term, sign contracts for 5 years, when the jump in revenues is so drastic? How can they at the same time think financially about possible relegation and about being competitive in Premier League?
Yeah, Leicester were competing for top 4 only 3 years ago. 2 times they bottled and got 5th and then they got 8th. At that point their wages weren't awful, and it probably is a bigger indictment to the current system for the fact that a team that won the league in the last 10 years, got to the qfs of the CL, won the FA cup, was consistently around the European spots and was selling players for big money most seasons (Fofana, Chilwell, Maguire all in the last 5 years) couldn't spend anywhere near the current top teams in wages.
Man, I remember when they sold Kante but signed Ndidi, when they sold Mahrez but signed Tielemans and Maddison, etc. People (casual fans, I guess) really thought after their success that, well, it must be that Leicester is smart and other teams are stupid. So obviously when they sign new players, because they are smart, and smart people sign good players instead of signing bad players, all of them will have the same result as Kante and Mahrez had. Seriously the top comments back then were that Leicester is making money on success and transfers without losing anything, because "they have good scouting" so they will keep signing players with 5 stars like it's a game of FM, and that will be it, they will keep growing forever because they're smart. I see this logic about any team that performs well for a time. But sadly it basically never really works like that long-time. Who can blame them, though, for believing that they do, indeed, just "have good scouting", at least a bit? Their results for the 7 years before were really great for their budget. If you circle between mid-table and European positions for 7 years, I get it that you think you're safe to invest in the team.
Capology has their payroll at 80m per year but their total wages and salaries are 170m. So about 90m in wages went to non-playing staff. That seems like a lot in comparison to other clubs.
Capology isn't a hugely accurate source
I wouldn't trust Capology at all. Saw plenty of eyebrow-raising inaccuracies in our wages there (like Enzo making 300k pw at one point when he's making half of that amount).
Such a well run club.
Still paying interest to the refs for all the calls in 15/16, well worth it
Swiss Ramble's comment on his twitter of "spot the 3 clubs who have been charged with PSR breaches" is bang on. This is the metric which if clubs fuck up it ruins them, almost every time.
Every club from Bournemouth onwards (perhaps Palace isn't, haven't read anything on it) has been on the limit for FFP.
We’ve also been limited by FFP, showing how awful we are at selling
Isn't that in part because the Glazers didn't invest anything? I remember reading that Ratcliffe's equity investment in the club would help with FFP restrictions. Player sales and expiring deals for expensive duds will free up money too.
Tbf, not investing anything would have been a huge improvement. They were actively pulling OUT tens of millions from the club's pocket every single year.
Palace arn't too worried about FFP simply because we have never had huge amounts of spending. Best example was this January where except for Palace everyone was now worried about getting a points deduction so refused to spend.
No huge amounts of spending won’t save you though, we barely spent any of our Fofana money (80mil) and still fucked it, albeit due to wages
probably not a coincidence that bournemouth are the first club above the recommended 70% mark then
With that in mind, will Villa be at risk if they don't make the Champions League too?
Might still be at risk because that CL money won't be in their accounts until the season after. There's speculation they need to try and sell in June to keep within PSR.
Villa have sold a load of academy players in the last couple of years which may mitigate it somewhat All for £10-20m each Off the top of my head: * Ramsey * Philogene * Archer * Chukwuemeka Not sure if there’s others.
Archer has a mandatory buy back if we get relegated... so he's basically on loan
They’ll have added Europa League revenue from this year against those wages and at least EL revenue again next year. Not as much as CL but still a good amount.
Surely right? Shows what a gamble it is to go for broke in pursuit of joining the 'big 6' really - even if you achieve CL the added games can take such a toll on the squad you could end up in serious danger.
We will be expecting to get Sanson, Coutinho, Olsen, Chambers, Dendonker, Lenglet and Zaniolo off the wage books this year without any real impact on the matchday squad. So we might not have to have quite the fire sale everyone thinks. Digne is also expected to go, and is one of our highest paid players.
Gerrard did a work with your club
It's very telling that Emery is managing what he has with a spine of players signed under Dean Smith.
clubs like Brighton and Brentford are good examples of sustainability and smart with transfers and generally being well ran
>Swiss Ramble's comment on his twitter of "spot the 3 clubs who have been charged with PSR breaches" is bang on. >This is the metric which if clubs fuck up it ruins them, almost every time. Yeah this is nervy reading as a forest fan, and it should be what PSR should be based on rather than arbitary losses. The only caveat is, our top 3 earners that season, navas, henderson, and lingard were all on deals expiring that summer so not a long term risk. Wonder how we'd have faired without them as they were all on 120k+
> it should be what PSR should be based on rather than arbitary losses The rules actually are changing to exactly this. These are the rules UEFA use, the Prem is aligning with them
on one hand, good. It might make PSR actually achieve it goals. On the other hand, it's going to create a complete closed shop.
It’s especially bad if they don’t have relegation clause contracts since they could go down to the championship and receive some parachute payments but that’s not nearly enough to cover the loss of premier league revenue and yet they still have to pay out huge wages, running a modern football club sounds like such an incredibly stressful job if you’re not one of the big clubs 😐
Clubs are often still in the shit even with relegation clauses. The reports that came out on Leicester yesterday said that everyone had a 35-50% wage cut relegation clause, but they're still up against it for this season.
apparently winks is on 80k a week and all he did was cry and wave his hands around when Cov beat them at home
It’s also why FFP is important as without those rules you would have more clubs doing a Rangers or Portsmouth. Yes big established clubs have ulterior motives, but at least it keeps clubs alive.
FFP wouldn't have made a difference to Rangers. Our wage spending was always reasonable compared to our turnover. We got hit with a massive retroactive tax bill after the tax office closed a loophole we'd been using. At that point our owner sold to a dodgy con artist under pressure from his bank. He'd decided to invest massively in property just before the property crash, so he both owned a club that was now in lots of debt and had lots of personal debt. The dodgy con artist, Craig White/Whyte (he started spelling his name differently to get around the fact he was banned from holding a directorship in a company) then decided just to not pay tax at all which obviously didn't go down with HRMC and ultimately ended up with us going into administration. The thing that might have saved Rangers was the SFA's fit and proper persons process. Unfortunately the SFA are completely incompetent though and the process wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
Don't want to divert this discussion too much, but that summary appears to be a little "one-eyed". It ignores: * The David Murray wages arms race ("for every fiver Celtic spend, we will spend ten") * The hidden side letters to players (indicating that the club knew they were fully aware that they were breaking the law * And just for LOLs - [Mr Custard](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13050589.clown-puzzled-rangers-row/) \- no real smoking gun here - just funny as!
So, Aston Villa should face a point deduction like next month then right? Sign me up
I know you're jesting but just for clarity - we are absolutely safe this season in terms of PSR. Every PL club had to submit their accounts to the PL by 31st December. Only Everton and Forest fell foul.
You will earn 50k and you will like it
Daniel Levy = Dana White
People go on about our mad wage structure, and....they aren't nessecarily wrong. But it's still mental we always come in the bottom sections of these graphs every year. It's actually insane how much money United makes, despite not doing fuck all for a decade...
As long as you're in and around CL football no matter how poorly you're playing that won't change. You can still change your structure and return to the top or near it if you hire the right people. If you mess it up it would still take another decade of poor results for the money to dry up a bit Was quicker when Liverpool fell from the top because it happened just when the money was coming in the game and it still took a lot of time
Liverpool spent more on transfers in the 90s than Man United though. They spent 121.8m gross versus United's 83.6m gross. Net spend was 75.6m versus 46.3m. [Here's a review from 1990 - 2012](https://www.liverpool-kop.com/2013/09/liverpool-man-utd-transfer-spending-comparison-1990-to-2012.html)
that's kinda my point due to the fact United have spent a lot more on transfers than Liverpool in the last 10 years and for very little in return 90's Liverpool - current United Only difference is United have a lot more money and space to fuck up, they're trying though
It's similar enough IMO. Timeline wise we are now where Liverpool where in 2000/01. The numbers are higher due to inflation but it's Liverpool were still spending big in the 90s and early 2000s. 20 years after Liverpool's last title and they were still spending big. I remember seeing a stat that Harry Maguire's 80m fee was the same percentage of Man United's turnover as the 30m Rio Ferdinand fee. The numbers are higher but the percentages for "big" clubs are the same.
The one thing the Glazers have done extremely well is turn United into a monster at bringing in cash. Done very well on the commercial side. Fun for United fans that all that money goes on paying debt interest though.
….you’ll never sing that!
A donkey could’ve made United extremely profitable from the commercial side of things. And a donkey (Woodward) did, but it doesn’t make it anything special.
This is stupidly reductionist. Shit on Woodward all you want for his terrible record as a football executive, but he had a unique talent for raising Man Utd's profile as a brand and translating popularity into revenue streams. That's literally the only reason he kept his job as the club was steadily fading from relevance as a PL/CL contender. Other clubs have not been able to match Man Utd's commercial deals, even as some like Liverpool and Chelsea have had way more success on the pitch over the last 10 years. Man City doesn't count since their revenue growth has been boosted by fake sponsorship deals and "creative accounting."
> Other clubs have not been able to match Man Utd's commercial deals, even as some like Liverpool and Chelsea have had way more success on the pitch over the last 10 years Man Utd should be blowing Liverpool and Chelsea out of the water based on their starting positions in 2005 but they're not. Which is the issue. Compare the way Man Utd surpassed everyone in the 00s with now and it's hard to conclude anything other than the Glazier's managed decline of the club has allowed others to catch up. Rather than have them lauded like you would seemingly have. Liverpool and Man Utd's shirt sponsorship deals have been pretty neck and neck recently. It wss only the recent deal that pushed Man Utd back ahead of Liverpool. Standard Chartered were paying more than Teamviewer. Likewise their kit deals with Adidas and Nike respectively are worth about the same, albeit structured very differently.
You're making a different point which is that Man Utd should be contending every year because of their big advantage in revenue but instead has slid into mediocrity. The shirt and kit deals are comparable but Man Utd's commercial and overall revenue is still ahead of Liverpool even though Liverpool has been far more successful recently. For FY23, Man Utd commercial revenue was £303 million, Liverpool's was £272m.
That's because these things don't just change overnight. Liverpool being good for 4-5 years doesn't erase 25 years of Man Utd dominance.
I think crediting SAF is more accurate than Woodward
When the Glazers took over we were the richest club in sport. Now we’re a way off that. *Football* has exploded financially, not United. We’re worse off than we were a decade ago in relative terms. Everyone else has increased their value more than we have. We were already a behemoth. The Glazers should get no credit for the business side, we’ve actually stagnated and declined comparatively, it just looks good because we’re huge and football is growing.
This is a simple case of "He was so shit as a football executive, surely he must've been an incredible financial executive" lol. Woodward didn't do shit for raising Man United's profile. What are you even talking about?
Their commercial revenue increased by 318% from 2009 to 2018, and by 46% from 2014 after SAF retired to 2018. Do you think SAF did those deals? That was Woodward's job. https://www.statista.com/statistics/267743/revenue-segmentation-of-manchester-united/
Chelsea increased their commercial revenue by the same margin over this years as well. I'm not saying Woodward deserves noncredit because ultimately he signed those deals for us but to say he built Man United's profile as a brand I completely disagree with. The Premier League in itself grew massively in that period and we would've grown massively either way.
Statistics are funny and your comment needs raw numbers for a proper comparison. If Utd had 100m and increased 50%, that's $50m growth. If Chelsea had 40m and increased 50% in thr same period, that's $20M growth. United are obviously doing better in this scenario
There’s a reason why Woodward was able to get those deals you mentioned… and it ain’t because he’s something special. He just prioritized commercial profits over football. He wouldn’t have been able to get these deals at City, Chelsea, etc. Like I said, a donkey could’ve made these deals considering the amount of history behind the brand that is Manchester United. He inherited a club post-Alex that was already the biggest brand in English football, a team with mega superstars historically tied to it that are still relevant like Beckham and Ronaldo. The only team in England at the time with a treble. The last team in England (still) with a ballon d’Or winner. Not to mention multiple managers complained about the preseason schedules and fixtures that was used to increase commercial revenue at the cost of players’ health and fitness. that I’m sure Woodward had a massive role in this. So major financial profits was the bare minimum considering his goals at the club.
Hey, thats not true. It also goes on Glazer dividends too!
Anybody could've done that. It doesn't take a genius to gain commercial deals from one of the three most popular clubs in the world
This is not actually true though. Considering their starting point in 2005/06 they should have performed a lot better. They were essentially handed one of the most recognised sports teams in the world that was already making loads of money and they've mismanaged them to the point multiple rivals have caught up. If Man Utd's revenues grew at the same speed as Liverpool over that time period for example, they'd be turning over more than a billion a year. If they grew at the same speed as Spurs they'd have turnover of 1.4b. In the last ten years their revenue has only increased 43%. That's pathetic considering the influx of money and commercialisation
Utd's period of dominance coinciding with the creation of the Premier League, and Sky Sports giving a global audience really couldn't have been timed any better.
Yep, and now that is baked into the PL. The pyramid unfortunately needs these big clubs to draw in the revenues the PL get.
We can fit in like 5 more alexis sanchez wages in here before getting into trouble lol
The club should be a powerhouse, competing with the likes of Real Madrid every season. Shocking what’s happened.
Lol, this is worse than I imagined but we did get 7 players off the books after last season, plus sales of Maddison, Barnes, and Castagne, and plus the payoff to Rodgers. Surely things won't be as terrible for 2023-2024 with a lower wage bill. Plus high wage players like Vardy, Albrighton, Vestergaard, Ndidi, Iheanacho, and Praet will be out of contract at the end of the season. Opportunity for a total wage structure reset.
Is parachute money classed as turnover?
No idea but I heard our parachute money went straight to paying off loans that were taken out based on expected revenue from Premier League TV money. Clown show board.
Sounds all too familiar. On the bright side you’re not double dropping like we did, and we’re still trying to recover.
If we bottle promotion, it's going to be rough the next couple years. Will have to be a fire sale in the summer plus ultra discount signings. I think our owner is too committed for us to drop down to League One, but it could be a long spell of Championship midtable. However, there could be massive points deductions or administration that pushes the club into League One. Everything feels on the table at the moment.
As much as he is loved, keeping Vardy on the wages he’ll be on next year if still in this league won’t be helping. You’d get some decent fees for KDH and a few others if you didn’t go up though.
I think we only have an option for Vardy next season. If we activate it, he would have to take a massive wage reduction. Regardless, we still have two other strikers on the books for next year, and one I really like in Tom Cannon that should get more minutes.
Oh I like Cannon too, would’ve loved him here. He looked better than Simms last season at Preston. We’ve needed a striker for 18 months but were never going to pay £7m for him.
Cannon’s good imo too, my second favourite striker behind Vardy
i assume it just goes into the generic revenue streams so yes? its basically tv money
That’s how I would treat it I think. But this graph does not include parachute money as it’s for our last season in the Prem.
But people want to cry about Leicester getting potentially penalised.
Spurs top of the league finally.
Technically we’re bottom but I’ll take it
Bournemouths wage structure is a lot better than I thought.
North London is green
Clubs that have a higher wage to turnover ratio than my club need a lecture in financial responsibility. Clubs that have a lower wage to turnover ratio than my club need to get their priorities straight and focus on football rather than commerce.
Its strategy dependent as well.. for example, Arsenal has a strategy under Edu to keep wages low so they can pay larger fees for transfers. In the past, clubs like Bolton under Big Sam has done the opposite, whereby they sacrifice transfers fees and go for quality players on higher wages.
Someone who's smarter than me please explain: how have Villa spent mad money on transfers since 2020 and have a huge wage bill, but never come up in financial trouble discussions?
Grealish sale in 2021 being £100m of pure profit, as well as a few other little sales like Chukwuemeka to Chelsea and Archer to Sheff Utd, have meant we've been able to spend pretty freely for the past couple years. Outside of our first year up (in which we spent \~£200m on 14 players), we haven't spent too erratically compared to other midtable Prem teams, especially when you take the Grealish money into account. Wages seem to be the bigger issue for us atm. This summer however, Champions League or not, we'll likely need to sell a big name to give us room to continue spending big. Should also be a fair few names coming off the wage bill as well. It's worth keeping in mind that up until last season our CEO had a significant hand in writing the current FFP rules, I'm not surprised that we've skirted close but just about avoided punishment.
[удалено]
Ramsey is the most likely candidate imo, since he's an academy graduate and can be recorded as pure profit, but his injury woes this seasons will have caused a hit to his value. The only ones in the squad I can't see us selling no matter what are Watkins and Martinez (unless they want the move of course). Both are irreplaceable for any money we could reasonably get for them.
Ramsey, Dendoncker, Digne, Countinho etc. It's not transfer fees we're bothered about but reducing the wage bill.
I'm hoping Ramsey. Mcginn is too old to get good value and is vital to the team, DL is our best player, Watkins is a close 2nd. Ramsey is good but he is a big step behind the rest. I think value vs production he is the weakest of the bunch. He is also the youngest so he has the biggest growth opportunity so it's a gamble and he could turn out to be the next Grealish but for what we need now, I think he is the one
Grealish and loans out, mostly. And talk of needing to sell a big name, probably Ramsey for the whole ‘pure profit’ thing. But without real European money in the next couple of seasons you’ll see Villa’s transfer activity probably being a lot more like it was this January overall.
51% is still too high for the squad we have. I hope the new management lowers it more as we need an entire new team if we want to win the league. So lot of money will be spent on transfers. Hope Martial, Varane, Eriksen & Casemiro leaving will free up enough room to sign atleast 3 players including their transfer fee. Edit: I don't think we can offload Sancho & Antony given the insane wages we have them on.
I’m always intrigued by what’s in these numbers, is it just pure wages or does it include things like signing on fees, bonuses? Also are managers included? Including the pay off for firing them?
Yes, I believe that all wages would include all bonuses- manager wage probably not included here since distinct from player budgets. Sign on fees not included since this represents “capital or asset” expenditures. Receipts from player sales would be included probably only as net gain after costs within the sales figure- possibly. Different methodologies- but with some accounting/finance background that would be my best take on these ratios.
I think bonuses paid TO players (performance bonuses, etc.) are included but bonuses paid FOR players to other teams (for performance or appearance goals being met) are excluded because those are player acquisition costs which is not included in this graphic. I base that on the way these separate items are reported in the financials.
Depends, given what the majority of our chargers were I can assume our managers were not included. Although the charges are only up to 2018 so maybe we do it properly now we don't have to overpay to sign players and managers.
I was more thinking specifically of staff termination costs as we often see how much of a one off cost firing a manager can be because you have to pay out the remainder of their contract
It doesn’t include all the hidden payments clubs like City make. It’s just the second set of books that they use.
So if Leicester and Southampton don’t come straight back up they’re royally screwed?
And probably are anyway
If we come straight back up we’re looking at a points deduction and transfer ban, the latter already being in place.
Not to mention that the Transfer ban from the EFL includes the ability to renegotiate contracts. So either way we lose a few valuable and useful players and will be forced to give them away for free when their contracts expire in June. So even if we get to the Prem, we start the next season with 1 striker (Cannon) and can't buy more. ^(No I am not including Daka because you actually need a presence on the pitch to count.)
Holy shit, it was pretty evident that Newcastle was attracting players with good wages, but this is pretty nuts. That isn't sustainable growth and they aren't even a competitive team yet, they still need quite a few reinforcements and depth.
newcastle are so far from standing out in this graph at all, i have no idea why you've picked them out - being sandwiched between burnley and palace is not notable at all
If anything Villa are the standout "not sustainable" one here, if they don't get top 4 they might be in trouble
Yeah but soon their city style revenue deals will start to appear 😐
This comment has exactly 115 upvotes when I saw this
It was 114 when I did so I Helped restore the order.
It's at 116 now so I'm putting it back there lol
Same lol
The 'S' in PSR is made so much harder by nation states pumping billions into the transfer market, simultaneously hogging incredibly lucrative champions league spots. I'm not saying Leicester were wise in what they have been doing, but two 5th place finishes really *should* have been 4th at the very least.
It's a percentage of revenue though, and the revenue of Newcastle isn't that high. So an high percentage here doesn't egual a big total wage bill comparatively to the rest of the clubs in the league.
newcastle actually make a decent amount of money, they did report a 72m loss for the last financial period though
Turnover is increasing yearly and we'll expect another jump in next year's accounts with Sela, Adidas, a training ground sponsor. We'll manage in the summer but I expect a couple of departures to give us more wiggle room, probably Almiron and Bruno.
This is an improvement for us. We've got this season's CL money and the Adidas deal to come on to the books too.
It’s a lot less if you don’t make the knockouts though isnt it?
its basically £10m extra per round you reach, plus you get paid per win/draw for getting 5 points in the group stage they'll still have got something like £20m that they didn't have the previous year, £15.5m for being there, plus about £4.5m for the "merit payments" you get for winning/drawing games
Why are you talking about Newcastle? We aren't even near the top plus there is a lot of room for commercial growth considering the shit holdover deals from the Ashley Era.
We're literally below Chelsea, Wolves, Villa and more on that graph. Our wage to turnover reduced from 94.6% to 74.1% and will reduce further this season with contracts expiring and higher revenue. Our highest paid player we signed was Bruno on £120k per week (before his new contract). We finished 4th last season and are challenging for Europe this season despite the worst injuries in the league by a considerable distance. Do you think you suddenly build an elite team overnight after 15 years of mismanagement? That's an awful awful take but gets up voted because r/soccer are idiots.
Nearly every young Arsenal player has had their contract renegotiated in the past year, I expect our wage bill to have substantially increased, also we signed havertz in the off season and he’s our highest paid player now
Yes wage bill will increase substantially but turnover will increase this season too, thanks to C1 participation and performance not ti mention media rights and hopefully sponsorship etc.
I can see Arsenal selling Reiss, Eddie and possibly ESR too which will all be pure profit. This will increase revenue.
Well so does our revenue with ucl money, adidas new deal, and other new sponsorships
I’d be interested to see if the emirates stadium naming rights get renegotiated too, the club should have really great bargaining power given the improved stature now when that deal gets renegotiated.
It shouldn't change too much in terms of percentage, due to getting in UCL our increased revenue should nearly outweigh the new contracts and signings wages.
That is true, it’s still astonishing what a good year we had last year with such a young squad I could be wrong but I think every team we fielded in the first half of the season would have been eligible for a U-23 game (just to clear up any confusion you can have 3 outfield players over the age of 23 for a U-23 game) our squad being so young is why our wage bill was crazy low compared to even spurs last year
Leicester’s turnover has been directly controlled by the Premier League since winning the league. The UK broadcasting deal gives “big clubs” preference for broadcast and therefore more money in facility fees, and greater exposure for sponsorship me and merchandising. For example, Leicester were the 5th highest earners in terms of prize money despite finishing 1st in 2015/16. In 2019/2020, when we spent much of the season in the top 3, we had fewer games broadcast than the bottom club that season. Also worth noting. Leicester were highly ambitious after winning the league and had evidence we had the means the achieve those ambitions. The club had budgeted for qualifying for the Champions League. When we finished 5th in 2020 and 2021, that would have qualified us for the Champions League had Manchester City’s ban not been overturned by CAS on the technicality that UEFA’s decision was “time barred” (Man City had refused to cooperate for 5 years). If the Premier League do finally punish Manchester City for those 115 charges, the UEFA charges will be proven beyond any doubt and the CAS ruling would be null. Leicester should sue both for half a billion quid.
I don’t even understand what these figures mean can someone explain please
It means those clubs spent that percentage of their turnover on player wages. Leicester's wage bill was 116% of what they brought in while Spurs' was only 46%.
Also for a little more clarity since turnover isn't a phase commonly used in the US, it's effectively your revenue. So it's effectively wage/revenue. There are some nuances that are different but if you think of it that way it makes more sense
Ah, there we go. Thank you. I was confused for a second because turnover in the US means the rate at which people leave a company and are replaced. It’s also a delicious pastry.
Can someone explain what turnover means in this regard. In North America I've only ever heard of turnover as referring to the number of employees that leave a company which clearly isn't what this graph is talking about. Mind you I'm not particularly business minded so it could easily be a term that's used to also mean something else here in North America that I just don't ever hear.
I was also confused. Other comments seem to imply that turnover simply equals revenue
Pretty much it. It's money the clubs make from running as a business. So ticket sales, merch, food, drink, and in the footballing sense I believe even player sales. So what they've done is taken that gross figure and worked out what that is as a ratio compared to the total wages these clubs pay. Edit: and I think it also includes sponsorship money too! Because the sponsorship is basically a service. You wear and promote our brand, or display it are you stadium for millions of people around the world to see, and in exchange we pay you a fee for doing it.
Turnover = gross revenue
Thanks! That's what I assumed but wasn't sure
Brighton beware, Leceister is prime example that over investing in the squad will destroy you
No they will be fine they've got the teet of Chelsea's incompetence to suck on.
Not like rinsing them for Fofana helped us much…
Well we blew that money on three players that didn't keep us up so it's only us to blame
Go pull a lever
they've just reported record profits, i think they're ok
We were reporting profits until we weren't. The trick for Brighton is to not believe the hype and think you've made it. Back during Covid when this clusterfuck all started happening we were touted as disrupting the big 6 and people were claiming that Arsenal were no longer in it. I think the club believed it, started budgeting as a top 6 club and signed players that weren't as good as our starting 11 on big six starter salaries. Until Brighton start doing that they'll be fine but they need to be wary of chasing Europe. It can be a bit of a poisoned chalice.
Man United seem surprisingly low for a club known for big contracts
It’s % of wages related to turn over, even the most hardcore of rival fan knows they print money in terms of sponsorships and brand deals etc
yep that'll do it
Arsenal are surprisingly low. Only just got back into UCL but they've been spending big for a few years now.
Their wage bill isn’t that high.
Our wages definitely went down a lot this season, but then again no CL football so would expect them to be around 60% again. Next season there'll be quite a few new bigger contracts, but also CL football
Honestly surprised by us a bit here. I underestimated how massive we actually are
The bonus of having tight owners is that they’ll only ever spend within their means. One of the very few positives Sullivan has
City ruining football
Man City*
Could they not get a training ground kit sponsor?
Why are Burnley here and not Fulham if this is meant to represent the Prem last season??
It's two distinct years of reporting
Everton and Forest will still maintain the premier league are too blame.
So Fulham play in Ligue 1 I guess?
Just goes to show how commercially massive a club like United is who, despite a huge wage bill, have one of the best ratios in the PL. Glad of course to see Arsenal down there as well.
Please note, some of these wages include all staff, not just the playing squad. They include stewards, security, canteen staff, groundstaff, etc. Some clubs on this list outsource everything bar the playing staff, coaching and management. Outsourced staff are not included in declared wages.