The Wage Bill

[Teasy]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

 

Look at the difference in the wage bill between Tottenham and Newcastle. There's your answer.

 

(It's even worse than it looks because the figure quoted for Newcastle doesn't include £6.7m of Owen's salary, as the club received compensation from the FA for that amount.)

 

yeah i get the wage bill part but what about the actual spend?  16m or so in january on 2 players, 20m on modric or whatever and the indications are they've not finished yet...last summer didn't they spend about 40m on bent, kaboul, zokora etc...?

 

just wondering like...the cash can't come from nowhere can it?

 

They've taken on about £32 million of debt in recent seasons.

[Teasy]

 

Your figures are way off for Newcastle. The wage bill was £62.4m (excluding the £6.7m payment from the FA for Owen's injury). The turnover was £87.1m.

 

So wages were either 72% of turnover or 79%, depending on whether you include Owen or not.

 

62% was the premiership average.

 

The payment from the FA won't deduct from the wage bill surely, if its included in the 2006-2007 accounts at all then it'll be part of the turnover.  The total wage bill including all of Owen's wages was £62.5 million so the wage to turnover ratio was indeed 72%.  The reason IMO for the difference in those figures is probably because Deloitte listed revenue figures in dollars at the 2007 exchange rate.  So people using todays exchange rates to convert them to pounds are getting slightly higher revenue numbers (in which case just add a few percent to every club in the list getcarter posted).

[UV]

This is supposedly the wages as a  percentage of turnover. Above 60% is supposed to be unsustainable.

 

Derby County 125%

Aston Villa 93%

Fulham 80%

Middlesbrough 80%

Blackburn Rovers 77%

West Ham 77%

Everton 75%

Bolton 70%

Chelsea 69%

Portsmouth 69%

Birmingham City 67%

Newcastle 62%

Reading 62%

Wigan 59%

Liverpool 58%

Manchester City 56%

Arsenal 51%

Manchester United 44%

Sunderland 44%

Tottenham Hotspur 42%

 

Ours dont look too bad in comparison to some of the other wasters.

 

Your figures are way off for Newcastle. The wage bill was £62.4m (excluding the £6.7m payment from the FA for Owen's injury). The turnover was £87.1m.

 

So wages were either 72% of turnover or 79%, depending on whether you include Owen or not.

 

62% was the premiership average.

 

As it includes Derby, Birmingham and the mackems, I assume this table is for the 07-08 season. Though I don't know where the data would be sourced from as the clubs wont have published their accounts yet.

[Guest johnnyappleseed]

no the data is from the 2006-07 season.

[thomas]

So those are their figures coming in from the championship

[Colos Short and Curlies]

 

Your figures are way off for Newcastle. The wage bill was £62.4m (excluding the £6.7m payment from the FA for Owen's injury). The turnover was £87.1m.

 

So wages were either 72% of turnover or 79%, depending on whether you include Owen or not.

 

62% was the premiership average.

 

The payment from the FA won't deduct from the wage bill surely, if its included in the 2006-2007 accounts at all then it'll be part of the turnover.  The total wage bill including all of Owen's wages was £62.5 million so the wage to turnover ratio was indeed 72%.  The reason IMO for the difference in those figures is probably because Deloitte listed revenue figures in dollars at the 2007 exchange rate.  So people using todays exchange rates to convert them to pounds are getting slightly higher revenue numbers (in which case just add a few percent to every club in the list getcarter posted).

 

Nah it wouldn't come in as turnover.

 

Probably an exceptional 'income' netted off operating costs.

 

Jist is right though that it wouldn't show in these wages figures - Deloittes will have gone as high as possible on them (whilst not making them up) as they know this figure will be picked up on by the media

[Teasy]

So those are their figures coming in from the championship

 

Yes.

[Dokko]

Club          Wage  League  Wage  Change

              Rank      Pos    Costs

                                          £M 

 

Chelsea          1    2    132.8  17%

Man Utd          2    1    92.3    8%

Arsenal          3    4    89.7    8%

Liverpool        4    3    77.5  13%

Newcastle        5    13    62.5  20%

Prem Lge avg    5.5  10.5  48.5  13%

West Ham        6    15    44.2  41%

Tottenham        7    5    43.8    8%

Aston Villa      8    11    43.2  13%

Everton          9    6    38.4    4%

Middlesbro      10    12    38.3  n/a

Portsmouth      11    9    36.9  49%

Blackburn      12    10    36.7  10%

Man City        13    14    36.4    6%

Fulham          14    16    35,2  17%

Charlton        15    19    34.3    0%

Bolton          16    7    30.7    8%

Reading        17    8    29.8  109%

Wigan          18    17    27.5  34%

Sheffield Utd  19    18    22.4  48%

Watford        20    20    17.6  76%

 

 

[Dokko]

Disgusting to think our wage bill is at £1.2m a week, it shouldn't even be half that.

 

 

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

I know they're just rumours but it annoys me to read in the media the likes of Milner and N'Zogbia being linked with moves away from NUFC supposedly to cut the wage bill. I very much doubt either of those players are on anything near the wages of Smith or Duff. I know who I'd rather get rid of. Smith and Duff are on massive wages and contribute next to nothing. Milner and N'Zogbia are probably on average wages and do a lot more on the pitch than Smith and Duff.

[mrmojorisin75]

I know they're just rumours but it annoys me to read in the media the likes of Milner and N'Zogbia being linked with moves away from NUFC supposedly to cut the wage bill. I very much doubt either of those players are on anything near the wages of Smith or Duff. I know who I'd rather get rid of. Smith and Duff are on massive wages and contribute next to nothing. Milner and N'Zogbia are probably on average wages and do a lot more on the pitch than Smith and Duff.

 

if we offered smith & duff to clubs for free i'd be surprised if we got takers to be honest...wages alone will prevent most of the league touching them

 

smith is the more likely of the two to be picked up as he's "versatile" but duff?  jesus, stevie wonder knows he's finished in any position, probably ray charles too

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

I know they're just rumours but it annoys me to read in the media the likes of Milner and N'Zogbia being linked with moves away from NUFC supposedly to cut the wage bill. I very much doubt either of those players are on anything near the wages of Smith or Duff. I know who I'd rather get rid of. Smith and Duff are on massive wages and contribute next to nothing. Milner and N'Zogbia are probably on average wages and do a lot more on the pitch than Smith and Duff.

 

if we offered smith & duff to clubs for free i'd be surprised if we got takers to be honest...wages alone will prevent most of the league touching them

 

smith is the more likely of the two to be picked up as he's "versatile" but duff?  jesus, stevie wonder knows he's finished in any position, probably ray charles too

Let's hope the rumour of Roy Keane wanting Duff is true. Also, his international manager keeps hyping him which can only help!

[mrmojorisin75]

I know they're just rumours but it annoys me to read in the media the likes of Milner and N'Zogbia being linked with moves away from NUFC supposedly to cut the wage bill. I very much doubt either of those players are on anything near the wages of Smith or Duff. I know who I'd rather get rid of. Smith and Duff are on massive wages and contribute next to nothing. Milner and N'Zogbia are probably on average wages and do a lot more on the pitch than Smith and Duff.

 

if we offered smith & duff to clubs for free i'd be surprised if we got takers to be honest...wages alone will prevent most of the league touching them

 

smith is the more likely of the two to be picked up as he's "versatile" but duff?  jesus, stevie wonder knows he's finished in any position, probably ray charles too

Let's hope the rumour of Roy Keane wanting Duff are true. Also, his international manager keeps hyping him which can only help!

 

moving duff on would be akin to a miracle...i thought we did well shipping dyer last year, this one will go down in the history books!!!

[Guest Heneage]

Terrible.

[Teasy]

Disgusting to think our wage bill is at £1.2m a week, it shouldn't even be half that.

 

 

 

Slight exaggeration there

[Guest Heneage]

Whats Pompeys?

[Teasy]

There wage bill is 710,000 per week.  There seems to be some confusion with there wages to turnover ratio  An article I read suggested it was around 90% or more, but the list in this thread says 69%.  I don't know there turnover for the 2006-2007 season so I'm not sure.  But there turnover for the two seasons before that was £36 million each time.  So the 90%+ number seems more likely then 69%, unless there turnover increased to £52 million in the 2006-2007 season.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

How many Premier League clubs have folded as a result of not meeting these load of shite % figures?

[Teasy]

Load of s*** % figures?..   Man they're not some pointless statistic, the turnover is the total money the club brings in.  If your spending say 90% of the total amount the club earns on wages you then have almost nothing left to run the club (unless your making a huge turnover like Manure or Chelsea, even then its a bad situation to be in).  And those wages are fixed unless you sell/release players.  Leeds folded with a 80-90% ratio.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

They are a pointless statistic though, the 60% thing is an absolute joke.

 

All those clubs over it going to fold are they?

 

& Leeds' predicament is down to far more than their wages, getting relegated for a start.

[buzza]

The difference between our club and the 4-5 above us on the highest wage payers is that they all have european football (7-30 million income if reaching later stages) and are in the top six of the prem (7-10 million - *500.000 per placing)... and we aren't!!!

[Teasy]

They are a pointless statistic though, the 60% thing is an absolute joke.

 

All those clubs over it going to fold are they?

 

How can it be a pointless statistic?!..  It tells you how much of the clubs total yearly budget has to be spent before all the costs of running the club/buying players ect.  Its not the definitive way to guage a clubs finances obviously, but its pretty f'ing important..  Nobody said 60% would make anyone have to fold either, or I certainly didn't anyway.

[thomas]

The "60% thing" isn't a set-in-stone-incontrovertible-fact-of-the-universe point at which every single club who goes beyond it instantly folds. 

 

It's used as a general rule of thumb and an indicator.  That's all. 

 

Jesus christ.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

They are a pointless statistic though, the 60% thing is an absolute joke.

 

All those clubs over it going to fold are they?

 

How can it be a pointless statistic?..   It tells you how much of the clubs total yearly budget has to be spent before all the costs of running the club/buying players ect.  Nobody said 60% would make anyone have to fold, I certainly didn't did I?

 

What I mean is every time they peddle this stuff, they say anything over 60% is unsustainable, which is rubbish.

 

The arrival of the millionaire / billionaire private owners have made it even less relevant, but it was the over 60% bit I was criticising mostly.

[Teasy]

The "60% thing" isn't a set-in-stone-incontrovertible-fact-of-the-universe point at which every single club who goes beyond it instantly folds. 

 

It's used as a general rule of thumb and an indicator.  That's all. 

 

Jesus christ.

 

Who in this thread even mentioned any 60% figure in the first place?