Deloitte Money List

[Thespence]

Whoever was saying spurs are doing so well in this list because they command excellent transfer fees when they sell is wrong according to SSN. The list doesnt take into account revenue from player sales.

 

Spurs do well because of the immense ticket prices they can charge, being in London.

 

Having a small ground that they can fill means they can drive up the prices now due a load of people wanting in  & when they move to the bigger ground that price is  then classed as the norm.

[leffe186]

Whoever was saying spurs are doing so well in this list because they command excellent transfer fees when they sell is wrong according to SSN. The list doesnt take into account revenue from player sales.

 

Spurs do well because of the immense ticket prices they can charge, being in London.

 

...but clever and commerical management too. Check out this link for a little more info - Spurs and Newcastle's "commercial" turnover was almost the same in 2003-4, the discrepancy coming in matchday (SJP being far bigger) and TV money (much better performance on the field - the season given was right at the beginning of Martin Jol's reign when we finished 14th or thereabouts).

 

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedKingdom/Local%20Assets/Documents/DeloitteFootballMoneyLeague2005.pdf

 

I think it is fair to say that a fantastic position was pissed away by a combination of FFS and some of his Managers. Matchday income was always going to be massive, commerciality seemed together and a nucleus was there to keep a strong squad near the top. Vast wages and unfortunate management choices didn't help.

[macca888]

Shepherd's biggest problem, and for that matter, SJH too, was that they really wanted NUFC to be all Newcastle orientated, judging by their comments of a team full of geordies, run by geordies, for the geordies and this struck me personally as particularly niave, especially when you consider his comments coming from the toongate affair, especially about geordie lasses (maybe he missed the best looking lass in the UK, Cherly Tweedy).

 

His treatment of Bobby was shameful although SBR should have been moved upstairs into an advisory role after that draw at Liverpool on the final day of the season.

 

In April 2005, I think, I had returned from Australia with my wife to see family in Newcastle and I went into Shearers bar one afternoon to book a table for the family for dinner the following night, in the restaurant. Shepherd and Souness were there, obviously discussing club matters, near the bar. As I walked up to arrange a booking, I said good afternoon to both and whilst Souness was extremely gratious, Shepherd looked down his nose at me as though I was a cretin. (I know, some of you might think I am, but I am not, actually). I asked about booking a table and Shepherd told me the restaurant wasnt available to the likes of oprdinary fans like me. Souness looked very embarrassed but I diplomatically advised Shepherd that whilst I was living in Australia and only here on holiday, I am a past youth team NUFC player from the early 70s, a lifelong fan, both whilst in the UK and Australia, having paid my dues to the club over many years. I am also well versed in business and do not expect to be treat with such a lack of respect by the club chairman. Souness  was excellent and took me away to another area of the restaurant from an extremely embarrassed chairman and arranged dinner for 10 members of my family, including wine and beer, at his expense. I was impressed with Siuness's customer service but you can stick any good reference about Freddie Shepherd up mthe black hole of calcutta that represents his backside.

[Village Idiot]

Lots of stories I have heard about people meeting Souness seem to indicate that he was a very gracious person outside football, funnily.

[quayside]

Lots of stories I have heard about people meeting Souness seem to indicate that he was a very gracious person outside football, funnily.

 

I've met Souness twice and on both occasions he was extremely courteous, he is a decent guy imo, not what I'd expected at all.

[UV]

Anyway, Sir Bobby spent his first two years balancing the books and getting the wage bill under control (the old board not having run things as flawlessly as some on this thread have been suggesting), and, if you average it out, got less to spend per annum than the managers before him and after.

 

You mean that after an unsuccessful push you can actually reign in costs and then rebuild leading to a relatively successful team WITHOUT getting relegated or going into administration? Well I never. I'm sure I read that once you got into a position of having a debt of around £70m and a high wages to turnover ratio it was almost unavoidable that debts would continue to increase and wages would "spiral out of control" ending up inevitably in administration unless you fortunately get a generous benefactor to take you over and "turn round the finances" by getting the club relegated and continuing to run the business at a massive loss year after year.

 

If only Ashley could have taken us over in '99 or 2000, maybe he could have brought in someone like Vinny Jones to buy the players for Robson and saved us from the pain of the following years...

 

 

 

No surprise that the inevitable suspects have derailed yet another thread into the same tired old Shepherd bashing.

 

the straws to which some will grasp !

 

Indeed madras, indeed.

 

share dividends above the going rate,executive payscales above the going rate,warehouse rentals above the going rate.

No cash dividends since 2004 (didn't you say you were happy with the running of the club until then?).

Mort cost more than Shepherd and D Hall combined, I doubt Llambias is on much less than Mort, maybe more. Even Dennis Wise was on double what the old chairman got.

What is the going rate for running the warehousing facility for a multi-million pound commercial enterprise? Should it be significantly less than the £150k per year that bankrupt the club? I honestly don't know.

 

 

Back on track, the thread is about the money the club brings in not how it's spent. The only reason that has anything at all to do with the old board now would be to mention the head start it gave Ashley over most of the other clubs now in the league above us, and to serve as a benchmark of what has been shown the club can achieve. If you think the old board ran the commercial side of the club badly, and it was easy to achieve that commercial income, then that's great because it should also be easy to surpass it.

 

How about we discuss how well Ashley is doing on this side of things? Let's start with the new sponsorship deals...

 

[brummie]

I don't know how they've managed that list when half of the clubs won't even have submitted accounts for that year yet. I know ours aren't due till this month.

[UV]

Only just noticed these figures were in Euros, I thought it was £101m as that's about what Llambias claimed it was in Feb of last year when he went to the supporters meeting. So despite an £18m increase in TV money, the club's revenue last year was only £4m more than the year prior to him taking over. Turning round the finances indeed.

 

Just listened to Llambias on BBC Newcastle. (he actually had the gall to say the words "We've been honest"  ). The money list was mentioned and he of course used it as an opportunity to increase the amounts "Mike pumped in", but he also predicted revenue this year will only be £48m. I can understand them predicting that figure at the start of the season, but with attendances being as high as they have been that's surprised me again. There's a massive reduction in the TV money of course, but with the parachute payment doesn't that only account for around £26m of the drop? A drop of 7k in attendances of ordinary punters equates to around 14%, say a drop of £5-6m in matchday revenues. That still leaves another £10m+ gone from matchday & commercial revenue. How many revenue streams have they worked their magic on? Let's just hope it all returns when we get promoted, but I fear some of it may be gone to stay (until something is done to build it back up again).

[fredbob]

Anyway, Sir Bobby spent his first two years balancing the books and getting the wage bill under control (the old board not having run things as flawlessly as some on this thread have been suggesting), and, if you average it out, got less to spend per annum than the managers before him and after.

 

You mean that after an unsuccessful push you can actually reign in costs and then rebuild leading to a relatively successful team WITHOUT getting relegated or going into administration? Well I never. I'm sure I read that once you got into a position of having a debt of around £70m and a high wages to turnover ratio it was almost unavoidable that debts would continue to increase and wages would "spiral out of control" ending up inevitably in administration unless you fortunately get a generous benefactor to take you over and "turn round the finances" by getting the club relegated and continuing to run the business at a massive loss year after year.

 

If only Ashley could have taken us over in '99 or 2000, maybe he could have brought in someone like Vinny Jones to buy the players for Robson and saved us from the pain of the following years...

 

 

 

No surprise that the inevitable suspects have derailed yet another thread into the same tired old Shepherd bashing.

 

Assuming that your are of the belief that Ashley should of spent spent spent his way out of trouble, do you think that that is the same course of action that West Ham and Pompey should take to avoid the trouble they are in? Or is the fact that we fill our stadium regulary make our situations completely different in all ways possible?

[UV]

Anyway, Sir Bobby spent his first two years balancing the books and getting the wage bill under control (the old board not having run things as flawlessly as some on this thread have been suggesting), and, if you average it out, got less to spend per annum than the managers before him and after.

 

You mean that after an unsuccessful push you can actually reign in costs and then rebuild leading to a relatively successful team WITHOUT getting relegated or going into administration? Well I never. I'm sure I read that once you got into a position of having a debt of around £70m and a high wages to turnover ratio it was almost unavoidable that debts would continue to increase and wages would "spiral out of control" ending up inevitably in administration unless you fortunately get a generous benefactor to take you over and "turn round the finances" by getting the club relegated and continuing to run the business at a massive loss year after year.

 

If only Ashley could have taken us over in '99 or 2000, maybe he could have brought in someone like Vinny Jones to buy the players for Robson and saved us from the pain of the following years...

 

 

 

No surprise that the inevitable suspects have derailed yet another thread into the same tired old Shepherd bashing.

 

Assuming that your are of the belief that Ashley should of spent spent spent his way out of trouble, do you think that that is the same course of action that West Ham and Pompey should take to avoid the trouble they are in? Or is the fact that we fill our stadium regulary make our situations completely different in all ways possible?

 

Your assumption is wrong, I'm not sure how you arrived at it from a post where I was talking about reigning in costs and rebuilding, but this thread is about INCOME so I wont derail it further by going into spend.

[fredbob]

Anyway, Sir Bobby spent his first two years balancing the books and getting the wage bill under control (the old board not having run things as flawlessly as some on this thread have been suggesting), and, if you average it out, got less to spend per annum than the managers before him and after.

 

You mean that after an unsuccessful push you can actually reign in costs and then rebuild leading to a relatively successful team WITHOUT getting relegated or going into administration? Well I never. I'm sure I read that once you got into a position of having a debt of around £70m and a high wages to turnover ratio it was almost unavoidable that debts would continue to increase and wages would "spiral out of control" ending up inevitably in administration unless you fortunately get a generous benefactor to take you over and "turn round the finances" by getting the club relegated and continuing to run the business at a massive loss year after year.

 

If only Ashley could have taken us over in '99 or 2000, maybe he could have brought in someone like Vinny Jones to buy the players for Robson and saved us from the pain of the following years...

 

 

 

No surprise that the inevitable suspects have derailed yet another thread into the same tired old Shepherd bashing.

 

Assuming that your are of the belief that Ashley should of spent spent spent his way out of trouble, do you think that that is the same course of action that West Ham and Pompey should take to avoid the trouble they are in? Or is the fact that we fill our stadium regulary make our situations completely different in all ways possible?

 

Your assumption is wrong, I'm not sure how you arrived at it from a post where I was talking about reigning in costs and rebuilding, but this thread is about INCOME so I wont derail it further by going into spend.

 

I agree, I to dont want to derail the thread but Im just interested to know how you would of reigned in costs yet progressed on the field with the level of debt and wages to turnover ratio that we had? When SBR and Shepherd did it they didnt have the likes of Owen, Duff, Smith, Viduka or Butt to get rid of, I think the situations are alot different to how they are  now and therefore a neglible comparison, which I'm assuming is the comparison you were trying to make.

 

Like I say, I was just wondering, not really going to get deep into this, just a query.

[quayside]

I don't know how they've managed that list when half of the clubs won't even have submitted accounts for that year yet. I know ours aren't due till this month.

 

Yours are actually overdue, they were due in at the end of February.

[Mick]

Only just noticed these figures were in Euros, I thought it was £101m as that's about what Llambias claimed it was in Feb of last year when he went to the supporters meeting. So despite an £18m increase in TV money, the club's revenue last year was only £4m more than the year prior to him taking over. Turning round the finances indeed.

 

Just listened to Llambias on BBC Newcastle. (he actually had the gall to say the words "We've been honest"  ). The money list was mentioned and he of course used it as an opportunity to increase the amounts "Mike pumped in", but he also predicted revenue this year will only be £48m. I can understand them predicting that figure at the start of the season, but with attendances being as high as they have been that's surprised me again. There's a massive reduction in the TV money of course, but with the parachute payment doesn't that only account for around £26m of the drop? A drop of 7k in attendances of ordinary punters equates to around 14%, say a drop of £5-6m in matchday revenues. That still leaves another £10m+ gone from matchday & commercial revenue. How many revenue streams have they worked their magic on? Let's just hope it all returns when we get promoted, but I fear some of it may be gone to stay (until something is done to build it back up again).

 

The parachute payment isn't handed out in one lump sum and we'll get nothing more than 1 payment if we are promoted this season so we'll get a third of the total as I'm sure it's paid over 3 years.

[UV]

Only just noticed these figures were in Euros, I thought it was £101m as that's about what Llambias claimed it was in Feb of last year when he went to the supporters meeting. So despite an £18m increase in TV money, the club's revenue last year was only £4m more than the year prior to him taking over. Turning round the finances indeed.

 

Just listened to Llambias on BBC Newcastle. (he actually had the gall to say the words "We've been honest"  ). The money list was mentioned and he of course used it as an opportunity to increase the amounts "Mike pumped in", but he also predicted revenue this year will only be £48m. I can understand them predicting that figure at the start of the season, but with attendances being as high as they have been that's surprised me again. There's a massive reduction in the TV money of course, but with the parachute payment doesn't that only account for around £26m of the drop? A drop of 7k in attendances of ordinary punters equates to around 14%, say a drop of £5-6m in matchday revenues. That still leaves another £10m+ gone from matchday & commercial revenue. How many revenue streams have they worked their magic on? Let's just hope it all returns when we get promoted, but I fear some of it may be gone to stay (until something is done to build it back up again).

 

The parachute payment isn't handed out in one lump sum and we'll get nothing more than 1 payment if we are promoted this season so we'll get a third of the total as I'm sure it's paid over 3 years.

 

Unreliable I know, but I was taking it from the horses mouth

 

We've dropped from £100m revenue to £50m. A good chunk of that is TV money from the Premier League - £40m. We get a parachute payment of £12.5m. In the Championship itself you get £2.4m income.

 

Media revenue was actually £41.1m in the 07-08 accounts I believe, so that's where I came up with the £26m drop from. Using Llambias' figures it's a £25m drop. We've been on the TV more than our fair share too, so I assume we'll get a bit more than the £2.4m Llambias is quoting there making the commercial and matchday revenue drops even larger.

[Guest Brummiemag]

Can anyone provide details of the list below 20th place?  Would be interesting to see the top 50 or 100.

 

It would be even more interesting to see how far down the list you have to go before you find a club playing outside the top division who hasn't won a trophy for over 40 years or a domestic trophy for over 50 years.  I suspect there wont be many, if any, in that top 100. 

[Guest Roger Kint]

Dont think they publish outside the top 20

[Village Idiot]

Can anyone provide details of the list below 20th place?  Would be interesting to see the top 50 or 100.

 

It would be even more interesting to see how far down the list you have to go before you find a club playing outside the top division who hasn't won a trophy for over 40 years or a domestic trophy for over 50 years.  I suspect there wont be many, if any, in that top 100.   

 

To be frank, you were in the top flight when this list was made. Will be interesting to see what kind of turnover you retain while in the CCC, though.

[quayside]

I don't know how they've managed that list when half of the clubs won't even have submitted accounts for that year yet. I know ours aren't due till this month.

 

They are available now - turnover of £84 million for the year to 31st May 2009.