Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Paully said:

Outrageous - lucky bastards!

 

 

Gabriel is possibly the olayer I hate most in the league, let alone in that Arsenal team. Absolute snidy cunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

Hit me up with the facts then.

 

Not educated guesswork

or estimates based on what the media says individual players get paid

or how many non-football staff are employed and what their wages are

or how many non-football staff are outsourced

or how much Directors might be getting paid who aren't the ones listed as the highest earning Director

or many of the Director salaries are excluded from the club accounts

and so on and so on.

 

If you have cold, hard, officially published factual evidence on what the annual player wages are at each Premier League club, then share them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The facts are in the annual reports.

 

You can quibble over the amount spent on cleaners and marketing people and if they are included or not if you want :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The facts are in the annual reports.

 

You can quibble over the amount spent on cleaners and marketing people and if they are included or not if you want :lol:

 

Player wages are not in the annual reports.

 

That's a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Newcastle closing in rightly on the "cartel." :bluestar:

 

@Yorkie Pretty much paying the same wages as Spurs last year and that's before adding Elanga, Ramsey, Woltemade, Wissa and Ramsey who are all reported to be on £100,000+ each. Thiaw also reported to be on £75k. 

 

£70m a year behind us and that's before we got rid of Sancho, Rashford, Onana, Antony, Hojlund, Lindelof, Eriksen, Evans etc. off the wage bill which is significantly more than £70m. 

 

Thoughts?


There was discussion about this on one of the Spurs podcasts. We know that wage spend is a better indicator of success than transfer spend - they pointed out that we’ve been low wage forever but recently started spending more on transfers. They expressed surprise that Man U seem to be heading the same way - reducing wage spend while still spending a lot in transfer fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leffe186 said:

There was discussion about this on one of the Spurs podcasts. We know that wage spend is a better indicator of success than transfer spend - they pointed out that we’ve been low wage forever but recently started spending more on transfers. They expressed surprise that Man U seem to be heading the same way - reducing wage spend while still spending a lot in transfer fees.

 

We have had no other choice to be fair. The contracts handed out by Woodward and co. were insane.

 

Thankfully we're under a wage structure now where the last of the mental contracts should end this summer and everyone else will be <£200k a week except for Bruno Fernandes who could be on a billion a week and still be underpaid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

They are literally included in the annual reports.

 

No they're not.

 

Annual reports include the entire wage bill for everyone employed by the entire football club. The only specific wage that is documented is the wage of the highest paid Director, if that person is employed directly by the football club.

 

There is no officially reported extrapolation of players wages versus non-players wages. 

 

You'd have to be a complete moron to argue against that, because it's literally in the annual reports, have a look at NUFC's if you don't believe me.

 

You can take an educated guess at player salaries, but you can't say for sure because of all the variables at each club. Which is what I've said all along.

 

Screenshot-2026-05-06-115211.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by bobbydazzla

Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

@leffe186 this is what AI says about "squad cost" in the NUFC accounts:

 

Short answer: they show what has been spent (net of amortisation), not what the squad is “worth” on the market.

Here’s how to read these accounts in practical terms, using the specific Newcastle United figures.

What the accounts do show

 

1. Historic cost of buying players (spread over contracts)

Under UK accounting rules (FRS 102), players are treated as intangible assets and recorded at cost, not market value.

Transfer fees (plus directly attributable costs) are capitalised

That cost is then amortised evenly over the length of the player’s contract

So the accounts capture what the club paid, allocated over time — not what the players could be sold for today. 

 

2. Current “book value” of the squad

The key figure is here:

“The intangible asset that is material to the financial statements is the first team squad.
The carrying value of the squad is £281.1m.” 

That £281.1m represents:

Original transfer costs

minus cumulative amortisation

minus any impairment

Think of this as the unwritten-down portion of past spending, not a valuation.

 

3. How much has recently been spent

From the notes on intangible assets:

Additions in 2024/25: £40.3m

Amortisation & impairment: £99.8m

Net book value fell from £350.0m → £281.1m

 

This tells you that:

Recent recruitment spending was relatively modest

Existing contracts are being run down year by year through amortisation


Much appreciated. Yeah that makes it a useful measure - it shows the actual hit to the books. Like, presumably as Bentancur cost £15M or so in Jan 2022 his squad cost is about £4M, whereas Gallagher’s squad cost this year will be the full £35M or whatever we spent on him.

 

Chelsea’s figure for that is completely insane. West Ham’s is dangerously high too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it makes it (relatively) interesting to look at the percentage of revenue versus the sum of wages & squad cost to look at sustainability on the football side:

 

Chelsea 491 - 359 - 1510 = -1378

Newcastle 335 - 243 - 581 = -489

Man City 694 (lol) - 408 - 1330 = -1044

Man U 667 - 313 - 1102 = -748

Spurs 565 - 256 - 697 = -388

West Ham 228 - 176 - 481 = -429

Aston Villa 378 - 273 - 540 = -435

 

Chelsea man. Fucking hell. I really hope Boehly doesn't know what he's doing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Drewboy74 said:

I rooting for the team that can twat Arsenal in the final. Don't know which one is best to do that though.

Bayis Saint Munich.

 

 

Edited by Joe1984

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...