Finances

[Babylon]

11 hours ago, splinterdream said:

Is this one a load of rubbish? I've no idea.

It’s a massive load of rubbish. 

[Tom12345]

This is possibly all Rodgers getting his media pals to give him excuses. Blame the players and now the club.

 

The club has invested. Our wage bill is the highest after the Top Six. The squad is so big with so many high earners that we could not even fit Mendy and Praet in amongst the 25 last season. We had Vesty, Bertrand and Hamza etc wasting space and wages. Unless we are Chelsea or Man City, no club can afford such a BIG squad with such a high wage bill. We were like 3 times higher than Villa! What do you expect the club to do. What Rodgers should have done is to use the money wisely and use what he has to the best he can. Yet, he let the likes of Praet and Soumare rot. He let in my opinion one of our best players Nachos wasted on the bench. His training schedule has somehow resulted in massive injury crisis last two seasons (let’s be clear he even brought in his own medical science team). I really don’t see why this is all the club’s fault as he is trying to put it.

 

They backed him but he didn’t deliver. He choked two seasons in a row when we were in the box seat for CL spot. We massively choked and in fact been in decline now for 18 months now with last season’s poor 8th finish a mere carry on from the season before (I already flagged the signs of Rodgers’ failings and negativity back then but apart from a few here who agreed no one listened). This will have long lasting financial impact.

 

The club invested in the training ground and now going on to expand the stadium. Why are we questioning the finances of the club? It is all just sensible to me. Again, I repeat, we are not Chelsea who can let their stars rot in reserves or have them sent out on loans for years.

Edited 3 September 2022 by Tom12345

[Tom12345]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-11173389/amp/Premier-League-clubs-told-look-2BN-transfers-cost-living-crisis.html

 

As a general topic, I think the PL clubs are stupid. They should be using the extra TV money to build a more profitable and sustainable business, invest in the community etc. Instead they create an inflated market by spending outrageous amounts on players so everyone outside of the PL knows they can rip us off by adding a PL tax. We should be smart like the Americans would do. Put a cap on spending and a cap on wages so that other clubs outside of the PL knows there is a limit and can’t put too much PL tax on. This will also help ensure sustainability by limiting competition so that clubs do not feel the need to overspend just to stay in the game. This is all sensible.

 

Instead all the extra TV money hard fought negotiation ends up benefiting feeder clubs from overseas rather than the PL clubs themselves.

Edited 3 September 2022 by Tom12345

[coolhandfox]

Wages has been and is the issue, we have paid good money in the past and present to keep players here and happy.

 

Take in to consideration Vardy and Kasper, they were on some where between 120k-140k a week each, that's 15m a year alone before you think of 23 over squad members.

[dorsetboy]

Agree with above post 

 

There should be a limit on transfers say no more than 50m a player. And a cap on sign on fees and payments to agents around that 50m.

 

Also only 6 players in your whole squad can earn above a certain amount a week .

 

Football is just going to crazy tbh 

[Beechey]

12 hours ago, splinterdream said:

Is this one a load of rubbish? I've no idea.

If that’s supposed to be annual wages, then yes, it’s rubbish. Our wage bill was about £190m in 2020/21.

[Chrysalis]

22 hours ago, splinterdream said:

Is this one a load of rubbish? I've no idea.

Thats definitely not accurate.

 

Edited 3 September 2022 by Chrysalis

[StanSP]

This says our wages went up, but the wages to turnover ratio was actually 85%. 

 

I thought the 105% was current, and this restricted our transfers. What does it need to be within a few years - 70%?

 

[Shane]

eventually the big 6 will ask for a bigger percentage of the tv money, so clubs like ours will have less revenue to cover wages.

 

Edited 12 September 2022 by Shane

[eblair]

5 minutes ago, StanSP said:

This says our wages went up, but the wages to turnover ratio was actually 85%. 

 

I thought the 105% was current, and this restricted our transfers. What does it need to be within a few years - 70%?

 

Last year skewed as turnover recognised in the year cos of covid, but wages were recognised when incurred

 

Probably best to add turnover for both years; and wages for both to work out ratio so around 93%

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, eblair said:

Last year skewed as turnover recognised in the year cos of covid, but wages were recognised when incurred

 

Probably best to add turnover for both years; and wages for both to work out ratio so around 93%

The was deferred wages also in last year, not just deferred income.

 

 

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, eblair said:

Last year skewed as turnover recognised in the year cos of covid, but wages were recognised when incurred

 

Probably best to add turnover for both years; and wages for both to work out ratio so around 93%

The only issue with adding the two together is that 20/21 has around 12m lost income dues to stadium closure which pushes up the ratio.

 

If we had like for like match day income for the 20/21 the ratio for the 2 years would be 90%

 

Still far too high when you consider we add Bertrand, Vestiguardd, Daka and Soumare the following summer, plus any new contracts. 

 

I suppose they are offset by Morgan, Fuchs, Ghezzel and Benkovic moving on.

 

 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

This says our wages went up, but the wages to turnover ratio was actually 85%. 

 

I thought the 105% was current, and this restricted our transfers. What does it need to be within a few years - 70%?

 

Ignore the complete red herring about it just being squad spaces restricting transfers. It's neither that nor the fact wages are too high (although that's part of it). Simply the money is not there!

[snoopy87]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Ignore the complete red herring about it just being squad spaces restricting transfers. It's neither that nor the fact wages are too high (although that's part of it). Simply the money is not there!

Heard the same over the weekend. Wouldn't say the source is high up, but may still get info out of the club, and he's willing to tell anyone who'll listen! We basically don't have a pot to pi$$ in, big contracts on bang average players being the biggest issue, coupled with a manager, who I quote "has lost the plot".

 

Essentially, we're stuffed

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Ignore the complete red herring about it just being squad spaces restricting transfers. It's neither that nor the fact wages are too high (although that's part of it). Simply the money is not there!

It's always been about money, or lack off.

 

The only way to keep spending is for the owner put more money in, which he is unwilling to do at the moment. 

 

 

 

 

[cropstonfox]

11 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

It's always been about money, or lack off.

 

The only way to keep spending is for the owner put more money in, which he is unwilling to do at the moment. 

 

 

 

 

This is due to not trusting the manager

[coolhandfox]

31 minutes ago, cropstonfox said:

This is due to not trusting the manager

How do you know? 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, snoopy87 said:

Heard the same over the weekend. Wouldn't say the source is high up, but may still get info out of the club, and he's willing to tell anyone who'll listen! We basically don't have a pot to pi$$ in, big contracts on bang average players being the biggest issue, coupled with a manager, who I quote "has lost the plot".

 

Essentially, we're stuffed

There aren’t too many reasons that this can be true

 

a) the owner would normally provide funds but he’s currently unwilling/unable to do so 

 

b) king power have called in some loans 

 

i can’t see what else can be true - nothing that has happened between May 2021 and June 2022 was a surprise financially and certainly not to the extent that we seem to have re losses.  If we accept that a £50m loss would be not unreasonable in the financial year to end June 22, where has the additional £70m come from?  And it just have been known that we were to make a six figure m loss ahead of the season so why spend what we did last summer ?

 

in respect of this I have concluded that the two options above are valid

 

anyone else have any ideas ??

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

There aren’t too many reasons that this can be true

 

a) the owner would normally provide funds but he’s currently unwilling/unable to do so 

 

b) king power have called in some loans 

 

i can’t see what else can be true - nothing that has happened between May 2021 and June 2022 was a surprise financially and certainly not to the extent that we seem to have re losses.  If we accept that a £50m loss would be not unreasonable in the financial year to end June 22, where has the additional £70m come from?  And it just have been known that we were to make a six figure m loss ahead of the season so why spend what we did last summer ?

 

in respect of this I have concluded that the two options above are valid

 

anyone else have any ideas ??

...we spent £60m last season without selling anyone to improve the team!!!

 We sold Fofana when we had no plans to, without Chelsea's insistence he would still be here. The idea that it is all down to lack of funds does not support these two decisions by the club.But then again, £27m spent this summer and the reluctance to follow through with the termination of Rodgers contract, makes you consider there is no smoke without fire.

  The club is either styling out a bad financial situation or we are pretty solvent and the board has a plan.

 

[Ginger_Filbert]

https://www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11661/12742070/premier-league-clubs-agree-new-financial-rules-with-efl-sides-to-be-offered-increased-payments