What's new

Let's talk about the wage bill

Tucker

Shitehawk
Jul 15, 2013
31,128
146,005
It's increasingly clear that we aren't paying the market rate for our players. That's unsustainable.

So we have a choice, we can either increase the budget and try to keep the players we have.

Or we can see more and more of them leave like Walker and Rose (wants to.) Seemingly we aren't even able to get small deals over the line anymore either. So things could be about to take a nasty downturn.

Basically, we won't be able to compete in the current market for very long unless we pay the going rate.
 

Donki

Has a "Massive Member" Member
May 14, 2007
14,451
18,966
Arsenal

Gate and matchday income £100m
TV and broadcasting £141m
Retail £25m
Commercial £82m
Total £345m

Liverpool

Gate and matchday income £62m
TV and broadcasting £124m
Commercial activities £116m
Total £302m

Chelsea

Broadcasting £143m
Matchday £70m
Commercial £122m
Total £335

City

Gate and Matchday £53m
TV and broadcasting, Uefa £61m
TV and broadcasting, all other £100m
Commercial activities £178m
Total £392

United

Gate and matchday income £107m
TV and broadcasting £140m
Commercial, merchandising and sponsoorship £268m
Total £515

Tottenham

Match receipts £41m
TV and media £94m
All commercial activities £59m
Total £194

Above is a simple breakdown of revenue from the big clubs in England obviously. We are over £100m a season off the rest of our rivals. Does this need any further explanation?
 

mpickard2087

Patient Zero
Jun 13, 2008
21,886
32,512
What we do pretty well as a club is having a relatively similar quality squad on a similar good-high wage scale. Other clubs might throw more money to a headline signing, but then have to pad out their squads with low wage cannon fodder (just look at some of the squad lists from last year...)

The thing is that 99.99% of us have absolutely no clue what our players are paid and the reality of the situation. Our wage bill suggests that, at an average, our players must be exceptionally well paid compared to most other clubs in England, and even Europe/the world. You occasionally see things about Eriksen for example only being on some 'paltry' figure or in the last 24 hours Rose only being on 30k a week, and that just doesn't tally with the wage bill (in stronger terms, its a load of bollocks).

The little snippets we do get suggest we also bump up wages with a pretty good bonus scheme and reward performance. People say we have the CL money, last time (2010) that was swallowed whole by a rise in the wage bill, suggesting that contract triggers or bonuses were paid out. I wouldn't be shocked if we see the same this time around when the figures are out.

And that was on the old contracts... What gets completely overlooked in the 'we've got this much money to spend' debate is that in the last 12 months basically every single squad member has had a new contract (some have had more than one in a 12 month period) - with the wage rises, new bonus schemes, signing fees, agent fees etc. that go with it. And there could well be another CL wage rise that kicks in again! A fair chunk of money will have already gone in the last 12 months in rewarding the squad and trying to keep it together.

We cant plead poverty, but then I don't think we act miserly either when you look at the figures. We spend a healthy amount and always have a pot of money available. Are there clubs that can spend more than us currently? Yes. If any player decides they want to go and earn more money elsewhere then its adios. The club will go on and players get replaced.

This is also where increased use of the academy helps. Bring your own players through and that pot of money can be more focused on wages than transfer fees. Poch/Levy talk about having to be different in order to compete right at the top, I'd suggest that even more resources towards development of players is one way to go about that.
 
Last edited:

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
19,232
57,386
It's increasingly clear that we aren't paying the market rate for our players. That's unsustainable.

So we have a choice, we can either increase the budget and try to keep the players we have.

Or we can see more and more of them leave like Walker and Rose (wants to.) Seemingly we aren't even able to get small deals over the line anymore either. So things could be about to take a nasty downturn.

Basically, we won't be able to compete in the current market for very long unless we pay the going rate.


And yet we've been the most successful team on an averaged out basis over the past 2 season whilst those around us have thrown mountains of money at transfers and wages with no discernable improvement.
 

Gassin's finest

C'est diabolique
May 12, 2010
37,341
87,796
That is interesting. I wonder if there truly is a bubble.

The TV deals are reportedly on the way down after competition between BT and Sky. If the TV bubble bursts then we'll be in a very strong position.

Sky and BT's average viewing figures for live matches last season, were less than S****horpe's average attendance. The cable TV model is redundant, and despite Sky restructuring to sport specific channels, the way people watch television and sports has fundamentally changed. It's not so much the bubble will burst, but rapidly get sucked back into the plug hole.

What will remain are the oil rich clubs who will either withdraw investment due to the reduction in commercial income, or break off and do their own thing.
 

bobby_stills

Active Member
Jan 3, 2007
119
137
Levy is an extremely shrewed business man. He undoubtly has his long term plan in operation. As fans we may be incredulous as to why the club is seemingly not willing to spend to capitlaise on our current position, particularly as we appear to be so close but I think as far as Levy is concerned his agenda is still on track. A training ground, then stadium and the continued increase in the value of the club. All likely to be a precursor to an eventual sale.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2010
30,006
29,551
Sorry @WalkerboyUK, but we have to protect against the bubble bursting.
Bubble wont burst at least for another 3-4 seasons, the indications are that the next tv deal will see a slight increase in domestic money but a big increase in foreign tv money for the premier league
 

Maxtremist

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2014
1,530
3,300
Well it is that simple. Either do it or don't. Build on what we have or lose it.

Liverpool's turnover isn't that much more than ours but their wage bill is £120m per season higher than ours. We have the lowest wages to turnover in the league, so there's clearly plenty of room for manoeuvre.

I suspect DL will be putting the club on the market as soon as the stadium's built so I don't think he really cares that much about anything else.

Well you say that as if increasing the wage bill is the only way to build on what we have. What we have done is used our money to invest in our training facilities so we've got one of if not the best facilities in Europe and we're also investing in our new stadium. So we've as a club decided to spend our money there rather than purely on wages. Which shows it's not that simple.

As for bringing up Liverpool, Liverpool pay the higher wages but look where that gets them. Below us season after season. So... your point on that one is what exactly?

That's not to say we shouldn't look into our wage bill, there's certainly something worth looking into and it does help us bring in SOME talent (not the only way but one way). But we also need to keep in mind that a lot around us are overpaying. Like seriously overpaying. It's not the norm. It's the top 5 or 6 clubs seriously overpaying throughout the entire club with a couple of other clubs overpaying to make sure they don't lose their one prized possession. We, arguably, are paying the norm or some kind of average (which is still on the high end of the scale in Europe lets not forget).

TLDR no, it's not that simple. We can't just start splashing the cash and overpaying or paying what some see as the 'going rate'
 

evoid

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2005
322
576
I think it's true what Levy said towards the end of last season, something along the lines of "If we had had a poor season, the players wouldn't be asking for decreases" when being asked if there were new contracts in the pipeline.

However there has to be some middle ground, because if we are to continue to challenge we have to pay above what we currently offer. Otherwise it's just going to be a constant cycle, buy young player > young player gets good > sell player when he kicks off wanting more money. What we've done the last 2 seasons just isn't sustainable with our current structure, you only have to look at the Walker & Rose situations to see that.

As others have said, the players will come and go but we will still be here at the end of it. I have to admit though, I have become a bit disillusioned this summer with the money being spent, we obviously can't compete with the top clubs. So what's the point in trying?
 

kr1978

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
5,322
8,463
Well it is that simple. Either do it or don't. Build on what we have or lose it.

Liverpool's turnover isn't that much more than ours but their wage bill is £120m per season higher than ours. We have the lowest wages to turnover in the league, so there's clearly plenty of room for manoeuvre.

I suspect DL will be putting the club on the market as soon as the stadium's built so I don't think he really cares that much about anything else.

Liverpool are massively ahead of us on turnover, we are narrowing the gap but as it stands we are a lot closer to the likes of Everton and West Ham in turnover
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,985
81,903
Well it is that simple. Either do it or don't. Build on what we have or lose it.

Liverpool's turnover isn't that much more than ours but their wage bill is £120m per season higher than ours. We have the lowest wages to turnover in the league, so there's clearly plenty of room for manoeuvre.

I suspect DL will be putting the club on the market as soon as the stadium's built so I don't think he really cares that much about anything else.

Why do you want us to compete with a team we consistently finish above?
 

Dougal

Staff
Jun 4, 2004
60,344
129,918
Bubble wont burst at least for another 3-4 seasons, the indications are that the next tv deal will see a slight increase in domestic money but a big increase in foreign tv money for the premier league
And where will Spurs be if we try to match the top spending clubs for another 3-4 seasons? We either accept the situation as it is or we look for our own bottomless pit owner. And everything that we love about how the club is 'doing things the right way' flies out the window. Who wants to be the next Chelsea. Champions but what is that club about? They disgust me.
 

kr1978

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
5,322
8,463
People keep saying we should put money into our existing players wages. How exactly are we to do this?

If we gave our 10 best performers a £10k a week pay rise we'd be paying out an extra £50m on wages a year.

Considering the likes of Utd, City and Chelsea are paying players well over double our current players this wouldn't be enough to keep players should money be their determining motivator anyway.

I don't think there is a short-term option. If we pay the same wages as our rivals then we will be operating well over budget.

I think we just carry on as we are. We are doing well and competing where it matters, on the pitch.

Continue to do that and in time our finances will improve further and we'll competing in other areas too.

It would be an extra £5.2m not £50m a year, but your point stands as we would be looking at more like 50-100k a week increases for a lot of our players if they went elsewhere and that we can't afford to do.
 

joelstinton14

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2011
1,295
3,429
nt, we obviously can't compete with the top clubs. So what's the point in trying?

Unless i misread your post (and sorry if i have) despite not being able to financially compete with Utd, Chelsea, City, Arsenal, and Liverpool, we've almost won the league. Twice. Leicester Won the league despite not having financially clout of others. Spending money isn't the only way. People may argue if we had spent a bit more we may have won the league, but, perhaps, despite our league record in recent years we have over achieved. And there is nothing wrong with that. It is something to be proud off. It is a shame that we didn't win the league because it shows there are other ways to win the league. People have certainly forgotten Leicester though, ut i guess that is down the media and its obsession with money too. But overall It actually suggests that Levy's long term plan for the club is working and when we have our new stadium we will be in an extremely good position.

It is easy to be sucked in to what others are doing, but we shouldn't lose our heads either. But i guess it is perhaps a time to also recognise that something may have to change within the club - but without going overboard as well. Certainly worth looking at least.
 

Tucker

Shitehawk
Jul 15, 2013
31,128
146,005
The oil clubs are the bubble. We've just seen the world record transfer fee double. This can't keep happening.

City and PSG are owned by countries. They aren't funded by individual wealth, or by TV money. They are the playthings of princes and kings. The main reason they are owned by Qatar and Abu Dhabi is to present those two countries as powerful, wealthy and having an influence on Western culture.

If the TV bubble bursts, we will be even further behind them than we are now. In fact, going by the figures posted earlier in the thread the TV money is the only thing keeping us within spitting distance. Even when we have the stadium, we will still be far behind in other commercial interests.

We have a long way to go financially before we are level with the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool commercially. And I doubt we'd ever get close to United in that regard. It would take a sustained period of dominance that would put the Fergie era in the shade to do that.
 

Styopa

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2014
5,136
14,177
As mentioned above, even if we increase our wages significantly our best players will still know they could receive higher wages elsewhere. Would increasing Danny Rose's wages to £100k a week be paying him the 'market value' when he sees his erstwhile teammate Kyle Walker being paid £130k a week at Manchester City? Will Dele Alli be content with a new £150k a week contract when he sees Paul Pogba is being paid £290k a week?
 

Dougal

Staff
Jun 4, 2004
60,344
129,918
City and PSG are owned by countries. They aren't funded by individual wealth, or by TV money. They are the playthings of princes and kings. The main reason they are owned by Qatar and Abu Dhabi is to present those two countries as powerful, wealthy and having an influence on Western culture.

If the TV bubble bursts, we will be even further behind them than we are now. In fact, going by the figures posted earlier in the thread the TV money is the only thing keeping us within spitting distance. Even when we have the stadium, we will still be far behind in other commercial interests.

We have a long way to go financially before we are level with the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool commercially. And I doubt we'd ever get close to United in that regard. It would take a sustained period of dominance that would put the Fergie era in the shade to do that.
So what do we do? Get our own country? It's either that or run things within budget.
 

evoid

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2005
322
576
Unless i misread your post (and sorry if i have) despite not being able to financially compete with Utd, Chelsea, City, Arsenal, and Liverpool, we've almost won the league. Twice. Leicester Won the league despite not having financially clout of others. Spending money isn't the only way. People may argue if we had spent a bit more we may have won the league, but, perhaps, despite our league record in recent years we have over achieved. And there is nothing wrong with that. It is something to be proud off. It is a shame that we didn't win the league because it shows there are other ways to win the league. People have certainly forgotten Leicester though, ut i guess that is down the media and its obsession with money too. But overall It actually suggests that Levy's long term plan for the club is working and when we have our new stadium we will be in an extremely good position.

It is easy to be sucked in to what others are doing, but we shouldn't lose our heads either. But i guess it is perhaps a time to also recognise that something may have to change within the club - but without going overboard as well. Certainly worth looking at least.

Sorry mate, I meant financially compete. I'm just a bit fucked off about it all, we challenge for 2 seasons, and then because we can't financially compete with the top teams we're likely to have all of our top talent poached by them as and when they kick up a fuss. I just find it so disheartening that from everything we're building, eventually money wins. Whether it's trophies, wages or signing players...Apologies if I didn't get that across.
 
Top