This stat deserves it's own thread.

[teok]

 

[Adam456]

Sounds about right to me. I read somewhere in last year or two ours was £65m ? And theirs is well above £100m

They are an absolutely disgraceful club and their players should be ashamed

 

[Adam456]

No I'm a bit behind on the numbers.

Swiss Ramble tweet from Apr 2018 says no. Admittedly we've not signed anybody except Moura in 18 months and they would have paid out a tonne of bonuses for the Premier League title plus brought 2-3 in but still:

 

[teok]

So it's actually legit? After I posted the thread I thought I was being duped it sounded so crazy (and I had a few sherberts).

 

[mil1lion]

But really it should be written like "Man City pay so much compared to Spurs..."
It's sad that we're being criticised for running our club this way (Spurs pay so little). I guess they just want the billionaires to be praised for throwing so much money into the sport. We're showing that you can still compete and not pay over the top on wages. How is that a bad thing? Oh and people will still complain about rising costs of Sky and BT, cost of new shirts every season and cost of tickets always rising etc etc. Why do they think the costs to fans have gone up so much over the years?

 

[BringBack_leGin]

But really it should be written like "Man City pay so much compared to Spurs..."
It's sad that we're being criticised for running our club this way (Spurs pay so little). I guess they just want the billionaires to be praised for throwing so much money into the sport. We're showing that you can still compete and not pay over the top on wages. How is that a bad thing? Oh and people will still complain about rising costs of Sky and BT, cost of new shirts every season and cost of tickets always rising etc etc. Why do they think the costs to fans have gone up so much over the years?

The problem is, it's endemic in our own fanbase too, with this site riddled with posters who would rather we ran the club in the same fashion as our rivals rather than being proud of what we are achieving with organic development.

In terms of salaries, the latest season we have a report for is 2016/2017, with the report for last season being available in a couple of months after the tax year finishes I imagine. But for that season we paid 42% of our revenue in player salaries, with Manchester United and Arsenal paying 45% and 47% respectively. This is a far more relevant figure than what our actual wage spend is, because it shows that we are paying a percentage in line with Arsenal, who are famed for a sustainable model, and Manchester United, who have the highest revenue in world football. When you consider that during this season we also have reduced attendances and had begun construction on the new stadium, to suggest that becomes even more ridiculous.

Chelsea and Manchester City spent 60% and 55% respectively, which is dramatically higher than all of us, United and Arsenal, but they are billionaire's projects who are subsidised to the hilt and in no way self sustaining.

The interesting one for me is Liverpool, who while rich don't have that type of backing and spent 57% of their revenue on salaries. On the one hand, you can point to their growth since then and say 'they have done what it takes to win the league', but what if it all went wrong? What if that £208m spent on salaries was misdirected and the club missed out on top four say, two seasons running? Liverpool would be in some deep dung in this instance I imagine. Additionally, I often see posters on this site say we should be competing for the same players as Liverpool for players, but think of it this way: if we matched Liverpool for salary spend, and were paying £208m, or let us just say something in that ball park, round it down to £200m, base on these figures we would be spending 65% of our revenue on player salaries, leaving £106m for everything else, running the club, paying all the other staff (including Pochettino and his team), stadium costs and, oh, building the new ground too.

We just cannot afford to spend what any of our top 6 rivals spend on player salaries. Every single one of our top 6 rivals spends upwards of 65% of our revenue on salaries, or at least that was true of 2016/2017. Until we are in the new ground and have half a decade + playing in the Champions League, we will just not be able to compete on that front.

Since then yes, our revenue has gone up because of the TV deals and our continues involvement in the Champions League. Do you know what else has gone up? Our expenses, because we are paying both to build one stadium and to rent another, while also having rewarded several players with new contracts (as well as manager and coaches) which I can only imagine are more lucrative than their previous deals.

April 2021. That will be the date that reveals what our salary spend to revenue proportions are during the 2019/2020, which will be the first season in the new stadium and hopefully with Champions League football. That will be far more revelatory.

 

[spursfan77]

Teams pay their players too much should be the headline.

Chairmen at other clubs should be looking at us and thinking “if they can do it, why can’t we?” and refuse to pay such high wages. I’m sure they’d rather not pay them as much as they are.

 

[Dougal]

The worst bit is the Sun crediting the stat to Martin Lipton when it was Daniel Storey who came up with it. Thieving ****s.

 

[newbie]

I wonde if some of the big teams are heading for problems, player inflation and wages inflation, for example chlesse have Morata on loan he is 70 million plus wages ( wages prob paid by loan club) Batshui, and then have players on bumping wages past there best Cahil, sideshow bob etc why they can’t shift a few bad signings in he current market could cripple your club.

 

[spids]

I wonde if some of the big teams are heading for problems, player inflation and wages inflation, for example chlesse have Morata on loan he is 70 million plus wages ( wages prob paid by loan club) Batshui, and then have players on bumping wages past there best Cahil, sideshow bob etc why they can’t shift a few bad signings in he current market could cripple your club.

Don't Chelsea have something like 50 players out on loan? That is a lot of assets they can cash in on.

 

[dontcallme]

The worst bit is the Sun crediting the stat to Martin Lipton when it was Daniel Storey who came up with it. Thieving ****s.

Questioning the ethics of The Sun, how dare you.

 

[Tucker]

I’m surprised at United’s being higher than City. They must be paying some donkeys a fortune or something.

 

[spursfan77]

I’m surprised at United’s being higher than City. They must be paying some donkeys a fortune or something.

Lingard and shaw are paid over £100k a week each. They’d be on half of that if they played for us and probably quite rightly. Neither of them are better than Rose or Dele.

 

[knilly]

There was a video clip in the Arsenal thread that explained because of FFP and the percentage of wage rises that the club could only bring in loan signings.

Paying star players superstar wages will only speed up a clubs decline, especially when those players are like Özil and Sanchez and the money is just being thrown away.

 

[Armstrong_11]

Any idea about bonus? Think our bonus plan is better then the others in the top 6. That that will fluctuate due to performances.

Think most teams do spend alot on the bench and players they send out on loan and pay part of their wages. We don't have too much in terms of backup. Hopefully with the new stadium... things will change.

 

[Dougal]

Questioning the ethics of The Sun, how dare you.

They think ethics is where Stansted is.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

Any idea about bonus? Think our bonus plan is better then the others in the top 6. That that will fluctuate due to performances.

Think most teams do spend alot on the bench and players they send out on loan and pay part of their wages. We don't have too much in terms of backup. Hopefully with the new stadium... things will change.

Not sure but those figures are based on how much we reported having paid those players during that season, so those figures include bonuses paid.

 

[Lighty64]

But really it should be written like "Man City pay so much compared to Spurs..."
It's sad that we're being criticised for running our club this way (Spurs pay so little). I guess they just want the billionaires to be praised for throwing so much money into the sport. We're showing that you can still compete and not pay over the top on wages. How is that a bad thing? Oh and people will still complain about rising costs of Sky and BT, cost of new shirts every season and cost of tickets always rising etc etc. Why do they think the costs to fans have gone up so much over the years?

because of the delays, and Eriksen, Toby and Jan stalling I do believe 5-6 players signed new deals in the summer and their wages near on doubled. if the stadium had been finished or we had moved in by the Liverpool match, I honestly believe a lot more would of renewed and we would be a lot closer to Arsenal

 

[Lighty64]

The problem is, it's endemic in our own fanbase too, with this site riddled with posters who would rather we ran the club in the same fashion as our rivals rather than being proud of what we are achieving with organic development.

In terms of salaries, the latest season we have a report for is 2016/2017, with the report for last season being available in a couple of months after the tax year finishes I imagine. But for that season we paid 42% of our revenue in player salaries, with Manchester United and Arsenal paying 45% and 47% respectively. This is a far more relevant figure than what our actual wage spend is, because it shows that we are paying a percentage in line with Arsenal, who are famed for a sustainable model, and Manchester United, who have the highest revenue in world football. When you consider that during this season we also have reduced attendances and had begun construction on the new stadium, to suggest that becomes even more ridiculous.

Chelsea and Manchester City spent 60% and 55% respectively, which is dramatically higher than all of us, United and Arsenal, but they are billionaire's projects who are subsidised to the hilt and in no way self sustaining.

The interesting one for me is Liverpool, who while rich don't have that type of backing and spent 57% of their revenue on salaries. On the one hand, you can point to their growth since then and say 'they have done what it takes to win the league', but what if it all went wrong? What if that £208m spent on salaries was misdirected and the club missed out on top four say, two seasons running? Liverpool would be in some deep dung in this instance I imagine. Additionally, I often see posters on this site say we should be competing for the same players as Liverpool for players, but think of it this way: if we matched Liverpool for salary spend, and were paying £208m, or let us just say something in that ball park, round it down to £200m, base on these figures we would be spending 65% of our revenue on player salaries, leaving £106m for everything else, running the club, paying all the other staff (including Pochettino and his team), stadium costs and, oh, building the new ground too.

We just cannot afford to spend what any of our top 6 rivals spend on player salaries. Every single one of our top 6 rivals spends upwards of 65% of our revenue on salaries, or at least that was true of 2016/2017. Until we are in the new ground and have half a decade + playing in the Champions League, we will just not be able to compete on that front.

Since then yes, our revenue has gone up because of the TV deals and our continues involvement in the Champions League. Do you know what else has gone up? Our expenses, because we are paying both to build one stadium and to rent another, while also having rewarded several players with new contracts (as well as manager and coaches) which I can only imagine are more lucrative than their previous deals.

April 2021. That will be the date that reveals what our salary spend to revenue proportions are during the 2019/2020, which will be the first season in the new stadium and hopefully with Champions League football. That will be far more revelatory.

I thought to fit into FFP you was only allowed to use 55% of your turnover in wages.

or is there a restriction hen it comes to purchases?

 

[Lighty64]

I wonde if some of the big teams are heading for problems, player inflation and wages inflation, for example chlesse have Morata on loan he is 70 million plus wages ( wages prob paid by loan club) Batshui, and then have players on bumping wages past there best Cahil, sideshow bob etc why they can’t shift a few bad signings in he current market could cripple your club.

if ever the TV deal crashes there will be a lot of teams in trouble