HankMarvin Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Adds more weight to the little old Leicester are where they should be argument when we was near bottom by the media
Tielemans63 Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Shows just how impressive Atletico's achievements are when you see how low their wage bill is.
foxy boxing Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Shows even average Premier League clubs pay way loads for rubbish while clubs like Dortmund and Atletico get more value for their money!
Guest WarehamFox Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Is that about 70 million pound profit for the owners/Club?
AmarteyAndChill Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 How are we below Swansea, Stoke & Southampton? We have 3 players on £100k p/w & about 5 others earning 50k-70k p/w.
Guest WarehamFox Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Sorry I missed all those Clubs above us who have won nothing for years! Ha ha
st albans fox Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 2 minutes ago, AmarteyAndChill said: How are we below Swansea, Stoke & Southampton? We have 3 players on £100k p/w & about 5 others earning 50k-70k p/w. They have been PL established far longer than us so all their squad is on 40k/50k+ we still have plenty of squad members on 20/30 k
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Ours more than Atletico!!! And as for Sunderland
Sol thewall Bamba Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Nice graphic, shame they used an out of date club crest for us.
sylofox Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 3 minutes ago, AmarteyAndChill said: How are we below Swansea, Stoke & Southampton? We have 3 players on £100k p/w & about 5 others earning 50k-70k p/w. Bigger squads or higher average wage. But I think that whole list is bollox. Some clubs on that list would have to spend total income to pay those wages. Chelsea sky money 150m and no CL money estimated gate receipts 40m. So 66m short fall sponsorship 66m ? so break even or just above. You still have to pay running costs expenses and player purchases. How can Chelsea comply with FFP?
AmarteyAndChill Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 10 minutes ago, sylofox said: Bigger squads or higher average wage. But I think that whole list is bollox. Some clubs on that list would have to spend total income to pay those wages. Chelsea sky money 150m and no CL money estimated gate receipts 40m. So 66m short fall sponsorship 66m ? so break even or just above. You still have to pay running costs expenses and player purchases. How can Chelsea comply with FFP? I heard man city are trying to sign as many players as possible as they know a transfer ban is imminent.
Dan Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Sunderland's wage bill being higher than Atletico's is everything wrong with English football.
sylofox Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 1 hour ago, HankMarvin said: Adds more weight to the little old Leicester are where they should be argument when we was near bottom by the media I'm so glad they put a KEY so I new the difference between the English clubs and the foreign clubs
Stadt Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 West ham coming in at £95m is the most reflective of English football in my eyes, huge wages, huge turnover of players, scattergun approach to scouting and there's no overarching strategy to anything they do but instead they have money so they're like an 11 year old playing career mode. Clubs abroad (well some anyway) are more intelligent because they can't afford to spend tens of millions of euros on players so they have to find an edge through scouting or development and it can be applied here too, look at Southampton they've achieved more whilst spending a little bit less. The money is there so of course clubs are going to spend it but clubs here are so, so wasteful; everyone thinks Real just spend, spend, spend yet they've got a team full of world class players for a lower wage bill than United.
Ric Flair Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 What this fails to state though is, our league gets an obscene amount of money compared to other leagues and every other nation rinses us of money when we try and sign their players. So it's all relative. Dortmund and Atletico would manage to sign the same player a PL club go for for a fraction of the price we'd get stung. Means very little this.
MPH Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 It's mildly satisfying to me that 12 months after winning the league we are still paying less in wages than a few of the so called 'smaller' prem teams
HankMarvin Posted 2 June 2017 Author Posted 2 June 2017 2 hours ago, Ric Flair said: What this fails to state though is, our league gets an obscene amount of money compared to other leagues and every other nation rinses us of money when we try and sign their players. So it's all relative. Dortmund and Atletico would manage to sign the same player a PL club go for for a fraction of the price we'd get stung. Means very little this. Its about wage bills
one F in Fox Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 12th biggest wage bill in the League and finished 12th. Sounds about right to me!
fazzyfox Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 45 minutes ago, Papasmurf said: So who's on the big money at Sunderland? Defoe was supposedly on 80,000, Borini 60,000, Cata-ha-ha-ha, sorry, struggling with this one, Catermole 55,000, O'Shea 47,500 then Others at 25-40,000. Don't know about Januzaj on loan.
Stadt Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 59 minutes ago, Bluetintedspecs said: I didn't think Griezmann was signing for United
Guest Papasmurf Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 49 minutes ago, fazzyfox said: Defoe was supposedly on 80,000, Borini 60,000, Cata-ha-ha-ha, sorry, struggling with this one, Catermole 55,000, O'Shea 47,500 then Others at 25-40,000. Don't know about Januzaj on loan. Stop it, you're killing me
Fox92 Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 8 minutes ago, Papasmurf said: Stop it, you're killing me Sunderland had been in the top flight for a decade. Aside from Defoe, it's not that much.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.