Our Wages Are Now The 4th Highest (apparently)

[TCIB]

Just read it, here is the link for those wanting it thanks to @FootballSense https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...league-finances-club-by-club?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[manchester blue]

Surprised that the rags are the top players, for some reason I assumed they would be 6th.

Brilliant

 

[trevorriley]

Brilliant

hahahaha !

 

[cptaidan88]

There's a number of inaccuracies in your post. The accounts for CFG & the other two companies are freely available on the Companies House website.

Second, it's some non-playing staff who are paid by those companies and not all.

Third, they charge us a fee for what they do so it barely affects the bottom line. There's no rules about the percentage of wages v turnover so it really doesn't matter whether we show them in the wage figure or not.

Finally I don't know where you got the idea we pay image rights into those companies. We don't. The most likely route for those payments is to companies owned by the players themselves.

1) Yep - I've subsequently found the consolidated accounts for CFG on Companies House. Employee Costs are £254m which although will include MCWFC, NYCFC, and Melbourne, the bulk would have been incurred without them. I'd estimate around £230m but that is just an educated guess without looking at each set of accounts.

2) I'd say its most non-playing staff rather than some. Commercial, marketing, scouting, some coaching, data, executive, finance, HR, and some others that I've no doubt missed could all be included. Basically anyone that could reasonably claim to represent more than one club within CFG.

3) Agreed. There is no suggestion there is anything wrong with what we've done, I just wanted to point out the comparison showing us as 4th highest spenders isn't a fair reflection because the other clubs would generally have to include the non-playing staff costs.

4) Not sure, but I think you've contradicted yourself. Agree we would pay companies owned by the players themselves and this would be an expense rather than an employee cost. Image rights is probably the wrong terminology as HMRC aren't keen on that phrase, but service fees of sorts. Eg a fee relating to appearing in advertisements and their face being used in a marketing campaign of a CFG sponsor.

 

[Jacko1956]

Brilliant

Uniteds have jumped mainly because of that crippled Swede didn't have a fee attached so the paid him a fortune, also some of the kids have been given huge raises to ensure they keep them. When you think they only finished 6th they've got problems as they have a lot of deadwood to get rid of and won't be easy if there on huge salaries.

 

[jamesha]

Surprising figure for me was Arsenal being just below us. It puts their whinging about us into perspective. If they keep Sanchez and Ozil their wage bill will probably top ours.

Hypocrites!!!!!

 

[kinkyisno.1]

Can't be true I have heard no mention on talksport this morning

I wouldnt give that thing the the minutest time of day.