You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another Thread about debt and turnover but with a link
- Thread starter fbloke
- Start date
The three highest turnover to wage ratios are the three clubs that were promoted. Shows that you have to take a huge risk to get out of the Championship.
The two lowest by some distance? United and Arsenal - the teams that have had the most cash over the years.
Burnley - with wages of 13.4 million are the biggest failures of the UEFAs "financial health" check.
Arsenal - with wages of 104 million are the club who pass with flying colours.
So...Burnley need to reduce their wage bill quickly as it's just not good for football to be spending a tenth of 'prudent' Arsenal's wage bill.
The two lowest by some distance? United and Arsenal - the teams that have had the most cash over the years.
Burnley - with wages of 13.4 million are the biggest failures of the UEFAs "financial health" check.
Arsenal - with wages of 104 million are the club who pass with flying colours.
So...Burnley need to reduce their wage bill quickly as it's just not good for football to be spending a tenth of 'prudent' Arsenal's wage bill.
And more info on the same subject.
If the age of austerity offers City even more of an edge then bring it on ;-)
To inspect the accounts of the 20 Premier League clubs is to peer through a window into their souls.
It is not just the numbers, it is the words. Arsenal are “superbly positioned”, Everton bid to “punch above our weight if you like”, West Ham United’s new board call their inheritance “unsatisfactory”, while Hull City allow their auditors to paint a fairly terrifying picture of the challenges ahead.
Portsmouth, you will not be surprised to discover, have yet to file their latest accounts to Companies House, having been the one club to miss the Premier League’s deadline of March 1 under new financial regulations, but the extent of the disarray at Fratton Park is well known.
What has, until now, been rather less clear is the way in which clubs such as Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Fulham, Sunderland and Wigan Athletic stretch themselves, in most cases using loans — whether from the banks or their benefactors — to allow them to invest in their playing staff and, in most cases, to perform above or in accordance with expectations.
RELATED LINKS
Premier League clubs paid £150m in interest
Blatter criticises levels of debt in Premier League
Fans could be given right to buy clubs
MULTIMEDIA
Graphic: how much the club's owe
The financial landscape of the Premier League could hardly be more varied. Even within the boundaries of Greater Manchester, an area covering 493 square miles, there is the leveraged ownership of the Glazers at Manchester United, the largesse of Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City, the tight ships run by Bolton Wanderers and Wigan Athletic, albeit with assistance behind the scenes. A little farther afield in East Lancashire, there are the mill-town clubs of Blackburn and Burnley, both cutting their cloths in different ways in their bids to sustain top-flight football in the 21st century.
This is the era of austerity in the Premier League, though you would be forgiven for having not noticed. The extravagance of Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City is breathtaking — a pre-tax loss of £89.7 million in the financial year ending May 31, 2009, which does not begin to reflect a net expenditure of £117 million in the transfer market last summer — but elsewhere belts have been tightened in anticipation of an economic crisis. It has not happened yet, of course, with attendances holding firm and broadcast revenues expected to rise again next season, but the downturn of the past 18 months has brought what chairmen and chief executives call “challenges”.
At Portsmouth, the only challenge now is to keep the club afloat. Alexandre Gaydamak, the owner who bankrolled them to FA Cup glory in 2008, lost a fortune in the global economic crisis and soon made it clear he was unwilling to invest any more money in a club that had huge debts to pay to other football clubs, to banks in England and in South Africa and, of course, to Revenue & Customs, who, under the terms of football’s peculiar hierarchy, joined the grocers, the wholesalers and everyone else at the bottom of the list of creditors.
Winding-up petitions have been served and, although the club is now in the safe haven of administration, the few remaining employees at Fratton Park, outside of the dressing-room, know that the battle for survival is only just beginning.
Already, perhaps in view of the calamity that has unfolded on the South Coast, the battle lines have been drawn at Hull City. Hull’s auditor, Deloitte, has, for the second year in a row, raised doubts about the club’s ability to continue as a “going concern”. Liverpool were aggrieved to be subjected to a similar slur in last year’s accounts — this year’s have yet to be submitted to Companies House — but at Hull, nobody is in denial. The difference between survival and relegation in the Premier League over the coming weeks is the difference between hardship and catastrophe.
Hull’s impending financial crisis, which their auditors calculate will leave them with a shortfall of £21 million next year if they are relegated and £16 million if they stay up, is a result of one of football’s deadly sins: overspending.
Three years ago they were a Coca-Cola Championship club with a wage bill of £4 million. That figure rose to £13.7 million in their promotion campaign, 2007-08, then to £33.6 million in the Premier League last term. They stayed up, against all expectations, but their wage bill now is £38 million and, with alarming sums frittered on transfer fees and agents fees, Adam Pearson, their chairman, who returned to the KC Stadium last autumn, has admitted there are very tough times ahead.
The curious thing about the Premier League landscape is that, in an era where big-city clubs, with vast support bases, should surely have become the norm, Bristol, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Southampton are represented in the Championship — or, more shocking still, in League One in the case of Leeds and Norwich — small-town clubs such as Blackburn, Burnley and Wigan are competing in the Premier League.
Blackburn, in many ways, are a phenomenon. They came to prominence, at least in the modern age, under the ownership of a local multi-milllionaire, Jack Walker, and won the Premier League in 1995 with the kind of big-spending philosophy, relatively speaking, that Roman Abramovich has enjoyed at Chelsea and Sheikh Mansour is attempting to impose at Manchester City. Almost ten years after Walker’s death, though, and with his trustees no longer bankrolling the club, Blackburn, a town with a population of 105,000, are somehow tenth in the Premier League.
John Williams, the chairman, knows that his club’s financial policy represents the kind of financial highwire act that football’s authorities are so keen to put a stop to, but the risk, he says, is calculated. “The ratio of wages to turnover is high,” Williams says. “But we are a town where one-fifth of the indigenous population comes to watch us. In absolute terms, our wage bill is significantly lower than many of our peer clubs, including those with 35,000 fans every home match, with season-ticket prices twice as high as ours.
“By good management and by investing in good players. Blackburn Rovers has been around for 135 years. We all know that we are just stewards, just passing through. We think that, with good management, this is the best way to preserve our future.”
And that is the thing about the Premier League. It is not just one rich tapestry. It is 20 rich tapestries. All of them utterly desperate to ensure that they do not end up unravelling. Because if they do, the wider product will not be far behind.
If the age of austerity offers City even more of an edge then bring it on ;-)
To inspect the accounts of the 20 Premier League clubs is to peer through a window into their souls.
It is not just the numbers, it is the words. Arsenal are “superbly positioned”, Everton bid to “punch above our weight if you like”, West Ham United’s new board call their inheritance “unsatisfactory”, while Hull City allow their auditors to paint a fairly terrifying picture of the challenges ahead.
Portsmouth, you will not be surprised to discover, have yet to file their latest accounts to Companies House, having been the one club to miss the Premier League’s deadline of March 1 under new financial regulations, but the extent of the disarray at Fratton Park is well known.
What has, until now, been rather less clear is the way in which clubs such as Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Fulham, Sunderland and Wigan Athletic stretch themselves, in most cases using loans — whether from the banks or their benefactors — to allow them to invest in their playing staff and, in most cases, to perform above or in accordance with expectations.
RELATED LINKS
Premier League clubs paid £150m in interest
Blatter criticises levels of debt in Premier League
Fans could be given right to buy clubs
MULTIMEDIA
Graphic: how much the club's owe
The financial landscape of the Premier League could hardly be more varied. Even within the boundaries of Greater Manchester, an area covering 493 square miles, there is the leveraged ownership of the Glazers at Manchester United, the largesse of Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City, the tight ships run by Bolton Wanderers and Wigan Athletic, albeit with assistance behind the scenes. A little farther afield in East Lancashire, there are the mill-town clubs of Blackburn and Burnley, both cutting their cloths in different ways in their bids to sustain top-flight football in the 21st century.
This is the era of austerity in the Premier League, though you would be forgiven for having not noticed. The extravagance of Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City is breathtaking — a pre-tax loss of £89.7 million in the financial year ending May 31, 2009, which does not begin to reflect a net expenditure of £117 million in the transfer market last summer — but elsewhere belts have been tightened in anticipation of an economic crisis. It has not happened yet, of course, with attendances holding firm and broadcast revenues expected to rise again next season, but the downturn of the past 18 months has brought what chairmen and chief executives call “challenges”.
At Portsmouth, the only challenge now is to keep the club afloat. Alexandre Gaydamak, the owner who bankrolled them to FA Cup glory in 2008, lost a fortune in the global economic crisis and soon made it clear he was unwilling to invest any more money in a club that had huge debts to pay to other football clubs, to banks in England and in South Africa and, of course, to Revenue & Customs, who, under the terms of football’s peculiar hierarchy, joined the grocers, the wholesalers and everyone else at the bottom of the list of creditors.
Winding-up petitions have been served and, although the club is now in the safe haven of administration, the few remaining employees at Fratton Park, outside of the dressing-room, know that the battle for survival is only just beginning.
Already, perhaps in view of the calamity that has unfolded on the South Coast, the battle lines have been drawn at Hull City. Hull’s auditor, Deloitte, has, for the second year in a row, raised doubts about the club’s ability to continue as a “going concern”. Liverpool were aggrieved to be subjected to a similar slur in last year’s accounts — this year’s have yet to be submitted to Companies House — but at Hull, nobody is in denial. The difference between survival and relegation in the Premier League over the coming weeks is the difference between hardship and catastrophe.
Hull’s impending financial crisis, which their auditors calculate will leave them with a shortfall of £21 million next year if they are relegated and £16 million if they stay up, is a result of one of football’s deadly sins: overspending.
Three years ago they were a Coca-Cola Championship club with a wage bill of £4 million. That figure rose to £13.7 million in their promotion campaign, 2007-08, then to £33.6 million in the Premier League last term. They stayed up, against all expectations, but their wage bill now is £38 million and, with alarming sums frittered on transfer fees and agents fees, Adam Pearson, their chairman, who returned to the KC Stadium last autumn, has admitted there are very tough times ahead.
The curious thing about the Premier League landscape is that, in an era where big-city clubs, with vast support bases, should surely have become the norm, Bristol, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Southampton are represented in the Championship — or, more shocking still, in League One in the case of Leeds and Norwich — small-town clubs such as Blackburn, Burnley and Wigan are competing in the Premier League.
Blackburn, in many ways, are a phenomenon. They came to prominence, at least in the modern age, under the ownership of a local multi-milllionaire, Jack Walker, and won the Premier League in 1995 with the kind of big-spending philosophy, relatively speaking, that Roman Abramovich has enjoyed at Chelsea and Sheikh Mansour is attempting to impose at Manchester City. Almost ten years after Walker’s death, though, and with his trustees no longer bankrolling the club, Blackburn, a town with a population of 105,000, are somehow tenth in the Premier League.
John Williams, the chairman, knows that his club’s financial policy represents the kind of financial highwire act that football’s authorities are so keen to put a stop to, but the risk, he says, is calculated. “The ratio of wages to turnover is high,” Williams says. “But we are a town where one-fifth of the indigenous population comes to watch us. In absolute terms, our wage bill is significantly lower than many of our peer clubs, including those with 35,000 fans every home match, with season-ticket prices twice as high as ours.
“By good management and by investing in good players. Blackburn Rovers has been around for 135 years. We all know that we are just stewards, just passing through. We think that, with good management, this is the best way to preserve our future.”
And that is the thing about the Premier League. It is not just one rich tapestry. It is 20 rich tapestries. All of them utterly desperate to ensure that they do not end up unravelling. Because if they do, the wider product will not be far behind.
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
i don't think the fact that if a club gets relegated they will sell the highly paid players(unless theyre silly like newcastle and put them on extortionate wages) and the parachute payments will cover the difference.
so really clubs like burnley and wigan are living within means at the moment.
so really clubs like burnley and wigan are living within means at the moment.
Quote from Martin O'Neill today:
But, while Martin is a clever man, he's talking crap. Villa's wages have risen by a more than £20m a season since he took over - and that's money that's gone out of the club and won't come back.
If Mancini had to sell before he bought for the next three years he could then claim to have spent "none of the owner's money"...but out wage bill is likely to be well over £100m in each of those years and that's a lot higher than our turnover, so the Sheikh would still have to put tens of millions of pounds into the club even if we made a profit on player sales!
The former Celtic manager reminded everyone at Villa Park that his record demands respect. "I must stand up for myself somewhere along the way," he said. "You can be self-effacing all day long. By the time August comes around I will have invested £80m of Mr Lerner's money in the team. That equates to £20m per year. If the chairman so desires, which he has not intimated to me, that the club is choosing to sell four or five players, you would get a return on your money – with interest. I think all that has been forgotten."
But, while Martin is a clever man, he's talking crap. Villa's wages have risen by a more than £20m a season since he took over - and that's money that's gone out of the club and won't come back.
If Mancini had to sell before he bought for the next three years he could then claim to have spent "none of the owner's money"...but out wage bill is likely to be well over £100m in each of those years and that's a lot higher than our turnover, so the Sheikh would still have to put tens of millions of pounds into the club even if we made a profit on player sales!
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Re Blackburn.
When Walker 'popped off' there was an article I read where x millions of pounds were put in a trust fund where the club could draw the interest annually. How much that is in real tearms now is anybodies guess.
When Walker 'popped off' there was an article I read where x millions of pounds were put in a trust fund where the club could draw the interest annually. How much that is in real tearms now is anybodies guess.
JOGAMIGMOG
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2006
- Messages
- 7,183
- Location
- Round at Kate Winslet's
- Team supported
- Manchester City, England and Levante Union Deportiva
shows our turnover to still be relatively low: £20m more than Fulham and £20-odd above Bolton's isn't exactly setting the world alight. :(
Considering Arsenal and the Rags are triple what we turnover just shows how far we need to progress - in the real world. The thing is, we don't operate in the real world at the moment though do we! :)
Considering Arsenal and the Rags are triple what we turnover just shows how far we need to progress - in the real world. The thing is, we don't operate in the real world at the moment though do we! :)
blue b4 the moon said:Re Blackburn.
When Walker 'popped off' there was an article I read where x millions of pounds were put in a trust fund where the club could draw the interest annually. How much that is in real tearms now is anybodies guess.
The man charged with administering Walkers estate removed the support from Blackburn 2 seasons ago in line with the way Walker intended.
Strangely a certain manager then felt he was best suited to a challenge elsewhere.