|
|
Post by FullerMagic on May 1, 2014 15:56:29 GMT
Guardian1. Man City £233m (86% of turnover) 2. Man Utd £181m (50%) 3. Chelsea £179m (69%) 4. Arsenal £154m (54%) 5. Liverpool £152m (64%) 6. Spurs £96m (65%) 7. QPR £78m (128%) 8. Aston Villa £72m (85%) 9. Fulham £67m (92%) 10. Everton £63m (73%) 11. Newcastle £62m (65%) 12. Stoke £60m (90%)13. Sunderland £58m (76%) 14. West Ham £56m (62%) 15. WBA £54m (77%) 16. Norwich £51m (68%) 17. Swansea £49m (73%) 18. Southampton £47m (65%) 19. Reading £46m (78%) 20. Wigan £44m (79%) QPR and Everton are an interesting contrast!
|
|
|
|
Post by hancock7 on May 1, 2014 15:57:42 GMT
hopefully shave it down ready for some new arrivals soon (with kightly, jerome and any other dead wood going)
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on May 1, 2014 16:02:50 GMT
90% of turnover.
Slightly worrying to say the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by drfishy on May 1, 2014 16:03:13 GMT
The biggest concern is the actual % of turnover being the third highest. And we were supposed to pay low wages so does that mean we just had too large a squad compared to other teams?
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on May 1, 2014 16:06:04 GMT
Turnover should leap from £67m to £95m+ this year with the increased TV deal - so it'll be interesting (to say the least) to see where this goes...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 16:10:43 GMT
The biggest concern is the actual % of turnover being the third highest. And we were supposed to pay low wages so does that mean we just had too large a squad compared to other teams? Our turnover is shite. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 1, 2014 16:18:06 GMT
The biggest concern is the actual % of turnover being the third highest. And we were supposed to pay low wages so does that mean we just had too large a squad compared to other teams? Signing on fees (as opposed to transfer fees) are counted as wages, as they are subject to income tax. So they will be included in the wage bill and we may have paid a few big (one off) signing on fees in the year in question so that may account in part for the unreasonably large wage bill. But, you are right, we could not go on at those sort of levels. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 1, 2014 16:31:32 GMT
In looking at the figures it's worth noting that Wigan, Reading and QPR are no longer in the PL., and Norwich, Fulham and Sunderland may not be for much longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on May 1, 2014 16:40:24 GMT
In looking at the figures it's worth noting that Wigan, Reading and QPR are no longer in the PL., and Norwich, Fulham and Sunderland may not be for much longer. Why is that worth noting? It is inevitable that 3 of those teams are no longer in the PL and that a further 3 are about to leave it. If you could expand on your point it would be helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 1, 2014 16:44:49 GMT
Legacy
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 16:46:50 GMT
The people responsible for contracts and wages are still here. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 1, 2014 16:48:15 GMT
It sort of suggest to me that teams whose wage bills are under £70m seem to be the ones at greatest risk of relegation, therefore Stoke's £60m would surely have to be maintained.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on May 1, 2014 16:49:05 GMT
Turnover should leap from £67m to £95m+ this year with the increased TV deal - so it'll be interesting (to say the least) to see where this goes... Why even ask the question.........straight into players pockets as always. It certainly isn't going to be used to reduce gate prices as players get greedier and greedier. The first £500k a week PL player isn't far off. This Premier League gets shittier and shittier every season and the sooner it all implodes the better football will be in the long run. IMO |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 1, 2014 16:52:56 GMT
The people responsible for contracts and wages are still here. Not all of them. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 1, 2014 17:00:45 GMT
Was it 53 million for the season before? And a graphic to warm Mr Scholes' (is that better Tone) heart......  |
|
|
|
Post by ianstokie on May 1, 2014 17:12:07 GMT
We need to buy more scarves, hats, pencils etc
I sometimes think Stoke has 90% of my turnover too.
|
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on May 1, 2014 17:12:53 GMT
I am surprised by those figures, particularly in respect to Sunderland.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on May 1, 2014 17:16:11 GMT
I really would take them figures with a pinch of salt.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 1, 2014 17:20:49 GMT
I really would take them figures with a pinch of salt. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on May 1, 2014 17:23:05 GMT
I really would take them figures with a pinch of salt. Why? Like most financial reports the people at the top massage the figures so they let you see what they want you to see. |
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on May 1, 2014 17:24:56 GMT
The biggest concern is the actual % of turnover being the third highest. And we were supposed to pay low wages so does that mean we just had too large a squad compared to other teams? Our turnover is shite. Well unless people are happy paying higher season ticket prices - which must be amongst the lowest in the Prem, our turnover will remain poor. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 18:46:14 GMT
I'm with Lawrie on this one!
|
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on May 1, 2014 18:58:59 GMT
Crazy money spent at the top. How can other teams expect to compete with that? Everton are the exception but even they are a huge club based in a favourable area. Competition is dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on May 1, 2014 19:08:58 GMT
The biggest concern is the actual % of turnover being the third highest. And we were supposed to pay low wages so does that mean we just had too large a squad compared to other teams? Generally speaking I think it's because we have a squad of middle aged and older, more dependable pros. We need a few more'kiddies' who are generally paid a lot less. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 1, 2014 19:15:51 GMT
The biggest concern is the actual % of turnover being the third highest. And we were supposed to pay low wages so does that mean we just had too large a squad compared to other teams? Our turnover is shite. What do you think it should be? Looks very similar to WBA - which is probably a good comparison for us. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 1, 2014 19:19:10 GMT
So we paid for 12th and got 12th for five seasons, what's the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on May 1, 2014 19:34:54 GMT
Well unless people are happy paying higher season ticket prices - which must be amongst the lowest in the Prem, our turnover will remain poor. Think that's way off the mark mate. Stokes matchday receipts have been steady at around £8m for many seasons which is only about 10% of turnover. So increased prices will not increase turnover by much. Besides Stoke's prices may be lowest in PL they are still day light robbery IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 19:37:10 GMT
So we paid for 12th and got 12th for five seasons, what's the problem? No problem. We just want to aim higher. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 1, 2014 19:39:40 GMT
So we paid for 12th and got 12th for five seasons, what's the problem? No problem. We just want to aim higher. Like a Cup final and Europe?  |
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on May 1, 2014 19:45:36 GMT
12th highest wage bill and a 13th place finish in the table.
The owners have said that they want the club to be self-sufficient. There are different ways of achieving that aim.
Personally I'd go for a slightly smaller squad with the fringe players being better quality.
|
|
