The Wage Bill

[Guest alex]

I know of a few people who aren't Spurs fans and don't even live near London, but go to 3 or 4 Spurs games a season as a neutral because they never have problems getting tickets.

 

A few months back in FourFourTwo, there was a Spurs fan who claimed to speak for others who said that he would only go to Spurs matches if each seat had its own television with Sky+ features that he could use to analyse everything.

 

So while Jol points out that Spurs sell out, it is all a bit of a plastic sell out and at risk of going belly up at any moment.

 

You say that, yet I know a Spurs fan who struggles massively to get tickets even for the shit games.

 

Perhaps they go in the away end then or something.

So these friends of yours apply via the away club to go to watch Spurs? Ok.

 

Well they used to go to Southampton games before the relegation, and now they go to Spurs because Portsmouth is impossible. You have to take into account that the South West corner of the country don't have Premier League football, so those that want to watch games go to London or Birmingham in a neutral capacity, and sometimes make a lot of effort to do so.

 

Not impossible at all to get Pompey tickets. Know a few people who have never been ST holders or members who find it very easy to get tickets inc. the Wembley semi final.

More bullshit from James? Surely not.

[Guest devlin_adl]

Couple of points, this 50% turnover to wage ratio was first branded about around 5 or 6 years ago, back then anything above that level would quite right have had the alarm bells ringing. However turnover since then has shot up, due largely to increased TV revenue, the costs outside of wages have not risen at anywhere near the same rate. Therefore you have to look at a different % and that % changes with each club. For ourselves, taking into account the debt (or lack of it), the other liabilities we have and liklehood of our revenue falling, I would say we could possibly get away with a % of around 70%, we wouldn't be very competetive in the transfer market but at the same time we'll not have the baillifs knocking at the doors either.

If we are at 80%, as the media would have us believe, then we are in serious trouble and we'll have difficulty mainting or PL status next season if Ashley has decided that he'l not be dipping further into his personal fortune. I don't believe for a second we are, I think it's closer to the 70% mark.

 

There are no figures available for the 2007/8 season (which as far as the club is concerned doesn't end until the end of June).

 

However, according to this link posted ealier:

 

http://www.newcastlefcweb.co.uk/Latest-Newcastle-News/Newcastle_United_finances_laid_bare_.php

 

"The club’s wage bill was £62.5m, up more than £10m from 2006, due to the signing of Damian Duff, Obafemi Martins, Joey Barton and David Rozenhal.

 

That means 72% – nearly three-quarters – of the money earned by the Magpies is shelled out in wages. Experts say businesses should have a wage bill of no more than 50% of revenue. And the situation could have been even worse had the FA not paid £6.7m in compensation to United after the £17m striker Michel Owen was injured."

 

In other words, if the club had not been receiving compensation from the FA, the wage bill for the 2006/7 season would have been 80%.

 

Given the additions to the squad made by Allardyce, I have no doubt that the wage bill for the 2007/8 season will be even higher. The only question is whether revenues have risen faster.

 

80% does look realistic...

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Couple of points, this 50% turnover to wage ratio was first branded about around 5 or 6 years ago, back then anything above that level would quite right have had the alarm bells ringing. However turnover since then has shot up, due largely to increased TV revenue, the costs outside of wages have not risen at anywhere near the same rate. Therefore you have to look at a different % and that % changes with each club. For ourselves, taking into account the debt (or lack of it), the other liabilities we have and liklehood of our revenue falling, I would say we could possibly get away with a % of around 70%, we wouldn't be very competetive in the transfer market but at the same time we'll not have the baillifs knocking at the doors either.

If we are at 80%, as the media would have us believe, then we are in serious trouble and we'll have difficulty mainting or PL status next season if Ashley has decided that he'l not be dipping further into his personal fortune. I don't believe for a second we are, I think it's closer to the 70% mark.

 

There are no figures available for the 2007/8 season (which as far as the club is concerned doesn't end until the end of June).

 

However, according to this link posted ealier:

 

http://www.newcastlefcweb.co.uk/Latest-Newcastle-News/Newcastle_United_finances_laid_bare_.php

 

"The clubs wage bill was £62.5m, up more than £10m from 2006, due to the signing of Damian Duff, Obafemi Martins, Joey Barton and David Rozenhal.

 

That means 72% nearly three-quarters of the money earned by the Magpies is shelled out in wages. Experts say businesses should have a wage bill of no more than 50% of revenue. And the situation could have been even worse had the FA not paid £6.7m in compensation to United after the £17m striker Michel Owen was injured."

 

In other words, if the club had not been receiving compensation from the FA, the wage bill for the 2006/7 season would have been 80%.

 

Given the additions to the squad made by Allardyce, I have no doubt that the wage bill for the 2007/8 season will be even higher. The only question is whether revenues have risen faster.

 

80% does look realistic...

 

You can't apply the 50% rule to football clubs imo, any business of this nature (and most service providers) are very labour intensive and wages naturally account for more than this.

 

They have minimal stock in existence so to speak so can (and need to) have a higher wages:turnover ratio

[fredbob]

Couple of points, this 50% turnover to wage ratio was first branded about around 5 or 6 years ago, back then anything above that level would quite right have had the alarm bells ringing. However turnover since then has shot up, due largely to increased TV revenue, the costs outside of wages have not risen at anywhere near the same rate. Therefore you have to look at a different % and that % changes with each club. For ourselves, taking into account the debt (or lack of it), the other liabilities we have and liklehood of our revenue falling, I would say we could possibly get away with a % of around 70%, we wouldn't be very competetive in the transfer market but at the same time we'll not have the baillifs knocking at the doors either.

If we are at 80%, as the media would have us believe, then we are in serious trouble and we'll have difficulty mainting or PL status next season if Ashley has decided that he'l not be dipping further into his personal fortune. I don't believe for a second we are, I think it's closer to the 70% mark.

 

There are no figures available for the 2007/8 season (which as far as the club is concerned doesn't end until the end of June).

 

However, according to this link posted ealier:

 

http://www.newcastlefcweb.co.uk/Latest-Newcastle-News/Newcastle_United_finances_laid_bare_.php

 

"The club’s wage bill was £62.5m, up more than £10m from 2006, due to the signing of Damian Duff, Obafemi Martins, Joey Barton and David Rozenhal.

 

That means 72% – nearly three-quarters – of the money earned by the Magpies is shelled out in wages. Experts say businesses should have a wage bill of no more than 50% of revenue. And the situation could have been even worse had the FA not paid £6.7m in compensation to United after the £17m striker Michel Owen was injured."

 

In other words, if the club had not been receiving compensation from the FA, the wage bill for the 2006/7 season would have been 80%.

 

Given the additions to the squad made by Allardyce, I have no doubt that the wage bill for the 2007/8 season will be even higher. The only question is whether revenues have risen faster.

 

80% does look realistic...

 

So we need to be cutting approx. £20m off our wage bill per annum whilst being able to add players? Unenviable task, suggest to me (captain obvious) that the clubs best route would be to increase revenue as means of balancing it out.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Anders Rye]

But we also sold some players who earned a lot this sesason like Dyer, Luque and Solano. So I don't think the wage have risen this year.

[Wallace]

Just curious as to the income v wage bill ratio of Portsmouth.

 

I know Redknapp likes to wheel and deal but some of those players must be on big wages and their ground only holds around 20,000 and their corporate facilities are limited.  So how can they afford the wages?  Is their owner putting his own money into the club?

 

 

[Mowen]

Just curious as to the income v wage bill ratio of Portsmouth.

 

I know Redknapp likes to wheel and deal but some of those players must be on big wages and their ground only holds around 20,000 and their corporate facilities are limited.  So how can they afford the wages?  Is their owner putting his own money into the club?

 

 

 

I don't know, but according to my Pompey supporting housemate they pay massive wages. Campbell is apparently on £105k.

[James]

Gaydamak doesn't run Pompey as a business so doesn't worry too much about wage bills and the like.

[relámpago blanco]

Gaydamak doesn't run Pompey as a business so doesn't worry too much about wage bills and the like.

Aye but he's not exactl;y massively rich in comparison to say Ashley although his family probably are.

[James]

Gaydamak doesn't run Pompey as a business so doesn't worry too much about wage bills and the like.

Aye but he's not exactl;y massively rich in comparison to say Ashley although his family probably are.

 

Ashley's richer, but it is tied down in his businesses. Gaydamak earns a more steady amount of hard cash each year.

[KaKa]

Someone like Campbell might be getting a lot in wages but this is possible because he was signed on a free ditto for Distin.

[Disco]

Just curious as to the income v wage bill ratio of Portsmouth.

 

I know Redknapp likes to wheel and deal but some of those players must be on big wages and their ground only holds around 20,000 and their corporate facilities are limited.  So how can they afford the wages?  Is their owner putting his own money into the club?

 

 

 

they don't even have any corporate boxes at Fratton Park.

[relámpago blanco]

Someone like Campbell might be getting a lot in wages but this is possible because he was signed on a free ditto for Distin.

True.  Transfers don't work like they used to anyway.  If you buy someone you generally pay the balance of the transfer over the period of the players contract.  Michael Owen being an example.  For Michael Owen we are basically paying 208000 Sterling per week if the figures are to be believed.  So its entirley possible aclub like Portsmouth could afford to do that with Campbell.  It's no different to him being on 50k per weeek with a  fee of 5m.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Someone like Campbell might be getting a lot in wages but this is possible because he was signed on a free ditto for Distin.

True.  Transfers don't work like they used to anyway.  If you buy someone you generally pay the balance of the transfer over the period of the players contract.  Michael Owen being an example.   For Michael Owen we are basically paying 208000 Sterling per week if the figures are to be believed.  So its entirley possible aclub like Portsmouth could afford to do that with Campbell.  It's no different to him being on 50k per weeek with a  fee of 5m.

 

Think you are confusing paying for a player and recognising the cost of the player in the accounts there

[relámpago blanco]

Someone like Campbell might be getting a lot in wages but this is possible because he was signed on a free ditto for Distin.

True.  Transfers don't work like they used to anyway.  If you buy someone you generally pay the balance of the transfer over the period of the players contract.  Michael Owen being an example.   For Michael Owen we are basically paying 208000 Sterling per week if the figures are to be believed.  So its entirley possible aclub like Portsmouth could afford to do that with Campbell.  It's no different to him being on 50k per weeek with a  fee of 5m.

 

Think you are confusing paying for a player and recognising the cost of the player in the accounts there

No I'm not.  Alot of transfers are conducted like that.  Real Madrid still owed us money for woodgate when we got Owen so they knocked it off the fee.

 

Edit:

 

Also I believe you are talking about player amortisation which is not what you said.  Each year you have to estimate the depreciation on the players value.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Someone like Campbell might be getting a lot in wages but this is possible because he was signed on a free ditto for Distin.

True.  Transfers don't work like they used to anyway.  If you buy someone you generally pay the balance of the transfer over the period of the players contract.  Michael Owen being an example.   For Michael Owen we are basically paying 208000 Sterling per week if the figures are to be believed.  So its entirley possible aclub like Portsmouth could afford to do that with Campbell.  It's no different to him being on 50k per weeek with a  fee of 5m.

 

Think you are confusing paying for a player and recognising the cost of the player in the accounts there

No I'm not.  Alot of transfers are conducted like that.  Real Madrid still owed us money for woodgate when we got Owen so they knocked it off the fee.

 

Edit:

 

Also I believe you are talking about player amortisation which is not what you said.  Each year you have to estimate the depreciation on the players value.

 

I hope to god you are not an accountant, fundamentally wrong I'm afraid

[relámpago blanco]

Someone like Campbell might be getting a lot in wages but this is possible because he was signed on a free ditto for Distin.

True.  Transfers don't work like they used to anyway.  If you buy someone you generally pay the balance of the transfer over the period of the players contract.  Michael Owen being an example.   For Michael Owen we are basically paying 208000 Sterling per week if the figures are to be believed.  So its entirley possible aclub like Portsmouth could afford to do that with Campbell.  It's no different to him being on 50k per weeek with a  fee of 5m.

 

Think you are confusing paying for a player and recognising the cost of the player in the accounts there

No I'm not.  Alot of transfers are conducted like that.  Real Madrid still owed us money for woodgate when we got Owen so they knocked it off the fee.

 

Edit:

 

Also I believe you are talking about player amortisation which is not what you said.  Each year you have to estimate the depreciation on the players value.

 

I hope to god you are not an accountant, fundamentally wrong I'm afraid

Good job I'm not.  I just read it off a website that's absolute bollocks.  I checked another one and found myself to look like a retard for that post.  Still maintain my point about the way transfers are conducted.

[Guest Heneage]

I was always under the impression that we got Martins on a very reasonable wage packet as he was only on £5000 a week at Inter.

 

He's on around the £50,000 a week mark at a guess.

Not even close double it. Lad ITK with Martins says the boys on big bucks before he even steps on the pitch, and more so if he plays well.

 

Smith needs chopping I'd reduce Duka's wage give him a goal bonus. Duff is on stupid money as well probably.

[Guest scottishmag54]

I dont know how we can chop anyone though no one is going to take smith on his current wage or duff wont be easy

[Teasy]

I was always under the impression that we got Martins on a very reasonable wage packet as he was only on £5000 a week at Inter.

 

He's on around the £50,000 a week mark at a guess.

Not even close double it. Lad ITK with Martins says the boys on big bucks before he even steps on the pitch, and more so if he plays well.

 

Smith needs chopping I'd reduce Duka's wage give him a goal bonus. Duff is on stupid money as well probably.

 

You're trying to tell us Martins is on £100,000 per week? 

 

This ITK crap is starting to get out of hand, its turning into a Spuds forum..

[Dave]

This ITK crap is starting to get out of hand, its turning into a Spuds forum..

 

Absolutely.

[madras]

This ITK crap is starting to get out of hand, its turning into a Spuds forum..

 

Absolutely.

give it time....within as week or two it'll be so outlandish it'll be entertaining.

[Guest Heneage]

I was always under the impression that we got Martins on a very reasonable wage packet as he was only on £5000 a week at Inter.

 

He's on around the £50,000 a week mark at a guess.

Not even close double it. Lad ITK with Martins says the boys on big bucks before he even steps on the pitch, and more so if he plays well.

 

Smith needs chopping I'd reduce Duka's wage give him a goal bonus. Duff is on stupid money as well probably.

 

You're trying to tell us Martins is on £100,000 per week? 

 

This ITK crap is starting to get out of hand, its turning into a Spuds forum..

 

Mate i'm telling you, why would I lie? I've nowt to gain from it, the guy bought a Ferrari a few months back for christ sake, I'm telling you arsenal came sniffing and they bumped his deal up. He's on a deal thats 26 + M for 5 years ? Do the breakdown its about 5M a year. The lad is on 90k.

[Baggio]

I was always under the impression that we got Martins on a very reasonable wage packet as he was only on £5000 a week at Inter.

 

He's on around the £50,000 a week mark at a guess.

Not even close double it. Lad ITK with Martins says the boys on big bucks before he even steps on the pitch, and more so if he plays well.

 

Smith needs chopping I'd reduce Duka's wage give him a goal bonus. Duff is on stupid money as well probably.

 

You're trying to tell us Martins is on £100,000 per week? 

 

This ITK crap is starting to get out of hand, its turning into a Spuds forum..

 

Mate i'm telling you, why would I lie? I've nowt to gain from it, the guy bought a Ferrari a few months back for christ sake, I'm telling you arsenal came sniffing and they bumped his deal up. He's on a deal thats 26 + M for 5 years ? Do the breakdown its about 5M a year. The lad is on 90k.

 

They were in talks according to his agent but I don't think he signed anything, the club haven't said anything anyway if he has.

[Guest Heneage]

Well I'm quoting a lad that knows baba very well they are nigh brothers, he knew about the Galaxy deal way ahead. (Yes I know he was released)