Jump to content
davieG

'We're limited' – Brendan Rodgers makes Leicester City transfer admission

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Beechey said:

This is an understatement, we have the second highest wage to revenue ratio in the entire division. In 2018/19 it was 84% of all money our club made went to salaries, behind only Everton at 85%.

 

Yet Everton are still spending big.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Yet Everton are still spending big.

SO F******* WHAT?

 

They have owners who are pumping in silly money to fund the club. We do not have that and there isn't a string of billionaires sat out there waiting to not only buy  us, but put in money, year after year after year. Because that's what it takes, consistent huge investment. If the owners don't want to do that, then that's up to them. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair it could just be BR playing mind games with other clubs who think we have an endless pot of money - the likes of Fofana and St Etienne holding out on us as they feel we will cough up more than we say. Also we do have a massive commitment to the new training facilities too so we cannot really compare ourselves to Everton who don't have that. I think we have some money, but we wont have our trousers taken down by clubs like what Manchester United have had in the past for example. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Of course I know about our wages, it's probably the main reason I expect more from this club and don't buy the same guff as others about finishing 12th being decent. I'm just not buying the idea that this is why we are now supposedly some kind of poverty outfit. 

Seriously, what are you even talking about. You know we spent most of our money paying huge wages and that's why you expect more. Literally makes no sense. Without paying that money players like Vardy, Kasper, Maddison would probably be casting envious eyes at pretty shit (in big club terms) outfits like Everton and Spurs. As it is, we can keep players like that away from them by paying the big money and keeping players happy. 

 

11 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Villa, Leeds and Newcastle are historically bigger clubs but at this point in time? We've been up for 6 seasons straight, they've all been in the Championship during that time. This higher leap in income is receiving the same money we've been receiving for 5 years. We have higher revenues now because we are presently a bigger deal. It shouldn't be taboo to think that.

We've spent the money we've been receiving for the last 5 years, it's gone. We're all in the same league now, and if they could get fans in the ground they wouldn't be far off what we earn. The only thing making our turnover higher is where we finished. If we finished 7th and them 8th, 9th and 10th. All of their turnovers would be higher than ours, pretty much guaranteed. Because they have more fans, sell more shirts, will probably be on TV more as Sky just want viewers. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

We have billionaire owners, it's not unreasonable to expect them to put their hands in their pockets. If we're not aspiring to be better what's the point? The problem with circling the drain is eventually you fall in.

Everyone aspires to be better. Hence why we're spending £100m on a training complex, expanding the ground, spend huge sums on wages that others don't. Their smart club management is worth more than someone pumping £80m a season with no idea of what to do with it. 

 

Their way is slow and steady growth measured in decades, not financial doping of the club. That ended when we left the championship.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hejammy said:

To be fair it could just be BR playing mind games with other clubs who think we have an endless pot of money - the likes of Fofana and St Etienne holding out on us as they feel we will cough up more than we say. Also we do have a massive commitment to the new training facilities too so we cannot really compare ourselves to Everton who don't have that. I think we have some money, but we wont have our trousers taken down by clubs like what Manchester United have had in the past for example. 

I doubt it's mind games, there could easily be a £50m black hole in our accounts compared to a normal season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I thought it was just before you get to Lutterworth?

 

The opposite end would be Melton.

Is this why my post keeps going missing? 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hejammy said:

£50m? - how much do you think lcfc tickets are?

£15m Tickets

£26m sponsorship and advertising

£7m Commercial turnover

£3m other

 

Programme sales, shirt sales, programme and stadium advertising, match day sponsors, corporates, boxes, tickets, boards around the ground, adverts on the big screen.

 

Potential rebates on advertising to current sponsors, or giving them "freebies" in other years. Then you have rebates to TV rights owners, such as the Asian market who are now wanting money back. The deferred collective £170m rebate to Sky*

 

I mean I could probably go on and on and on. But anyone thinking this just impacts tickets is massively wrong. 

 

Screenshot 2020-09-24 at 13.58.47.png

 

 

**Not sure if another deal has been done yet, but that's what it was in June. 

Edited by Babylon
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Beechey said:

This is an understatement, we have the second highest wage to revenue ratio in the entire division. In 2018/19 it was 84% of all money our club made went to salaries, behind only Everton at 85%.

I didn't realise it was that much. In that case, things make a lot more sense, and it's even more frustrating we aren't able to ship out players on high salaries that aren't in our plans such as Slimani and Silva.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

I didn't realise it was that much. In that case, things make a lot more sense, and it's even more frustrating we aren't able to ship out players on high salaries that aren't in our plans such as Slimani and Silva.

When they go, I'm guessing money saved on wages is going to be earmarked to part fund the money we'll need to be paying off the loan to KP for the training ground. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Babylon said:

Nobody has spent though really, Wolves have sold £70m+ of players to fund theirs. Everton are bigger than us and bankrolled. Only other one is Villa who spent a bit, but their wage bill isn’t anything like ours yet I’d imagine. 

Genuine question, who have they sold other than jota and Doherty for real money. Just checked the transfers section and didn't see any other double figure ones (that I know of but not really heard of half the expensive foreigners these days 😱🤣, actually didn't even know they'd sold jota (insert Ostrich emoji here) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Babylon said:

£15m Tickets

£26m sponsorship and advertising

£7m Commercial turnover

£3m other

 

Programme sales, shirt sales, programme and stadium advertising, match day sponsors, corporates, boxes, tickets, boards around the ground, adverts on the big screen.

 

Potential rebates on advertising to current sponsors, or giving them "freebies" in other years. Then you have rebates to TV rights owners, such as the Asian market who are now wanting money back. The deferred collective £170m rebate to Sky*

 

I mean I could probably go on and on and on. But anyone thinking this just impacts tickets is massively wrong. 

 

Screenshot 2020-09-24 at 13.58.47.png

 

 

**Not sure if another deal has been done yet, but that's what it was in June. 

I agree its not just tickets, but surely the advertising and sponsorships do not change as there has to be contracts in place. Also you could look at it as some sponsorships could rise do to more games being on live TV. The figures that you have given are for 2018 and 2019 so the difference between them is fairly irrelevant to the conversation. I would say more like £20m if that and potentially not even that depending on the sponsorship deals and also increased TV revenue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mod hero said:

That’s Magna Park mate

See that big structure near Lutterworth, that's a big industrial estate that is 🤣

 

Really, wow. 

 

Ps that is the last dinner party you are invited to 🥴 (cool story bro) 

2decc3068229701fb1e4110c88874d72.jpg

Edited by gw_leics772
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

I said higher spends and higher net spends. Of course I know about our wages, it's probably the main reason I expect more from this club and don't buy the same guff as others about finishing 12th being decent. I'm just not buying the idea that this is why we are now supposedly some kind of poverty outfit. 

 

Villa, Leeds and Newcastle are historically bigger clubs but at this point in time? We've been up for 6 seasons straight, they've all been in the Championship during that time. This higher leap in income is receiving the same money we've been receiving for 5 years. We have higher revenues now because we are presently a bigger deal. It shouldn't be taboo to think that.

 

We have billionaire owners, it's not unreasonable to expect them to put their hands in their pockets. If we're not aspiring to be better what's the point? The problem with circling the drain is eventually you fall in.

How are Newcastle bigger  and Leeds  have been virtually bankrupt for years 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hejammy said:

I agree its not just tickets, but surely the advertising and sponsorships do not change as there has to be contracts in place. Also you could look at it as some sponsorships could rise do to more games being on live TV. The figures that you have given are for 2018 and 2019 so the difference between them is fairly irrelevant to the conversation. I would say more like £20m if that and potentially not even that depending on the sponsorship deals and also increased TV revenue. 

Contracts work both ways, you have to provide the advertising you sold. If someone pays for a crowd facing advertising and it's showing to an empty ground. Or has paid for an advert to tun on the large screen etc, then they are going to want that money back. 

 

How are the figures irrelevant, I'm showing you that our income stems from not just match day tickets. You've got conferencing facilities sat unused, party hire, tours. God I don't know there are 1000's of streams of income that we're currently unable to use or we are going to have to rebate. 

 

£330m was the figure wanted back from TV rights companies, for just one season. £330m divided by the 20 clubs is £16.5m each. That's just TV rights. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hejammy said:

I agree its not just tickets, but surely the advertising and sponsorships do not change as there has to be contracts in place. Also you could look at it as some sponsorships could rise do to more games being on live TV. The figures that you have given are for 2018 and 2019 so the difference between them is fairly irrelevant to the conversation. I would say more like £20m if that and potentially not even that depending on the sponsorship deals and also increased TV revenue. 

There'll be clause after clause in sponsorship deals I would imagine. Both will take some sort of a hit due to covid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

Genuine question, who have they sold other than jota and Doherty for real money. Just checked the transfers section and didn't see any other double figure ones (that I know of but not really heard of half the expensive foreigners these days 😱🤣, actually didn't even know they'd sold jota (insert Ostrich emoji here) 

As part of the Costa deal, Leeds had to pay £15 million for him this summer. After the initial loan. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

And what? Do you want your club to be financially run into the ground!

 

Until Everton are financially run into the ground, or indeed see any adverse consequences, rather than just getting gradually better players and managers in, then this is a nothing point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Foxaholic ME said:

How are Newcastle bigger  and Leeds  have been virtually bankrupt for years 

 

Well quite. But they are historically bigger than us and they both have bigger crowds and fanbases than us. As I said I think we are still a bigger deal today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Foxaholic ME said:

How are Newcastle bigger  and Leeds  have been virtually bankrupt for years 

They both have bigger fanbases and bigger stadiums. We're talking finance here, whether you like it or not they are able to make more money than us when. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...