• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Football Finance

King Binny

Part of the Furniture
Honorary Member


FKDRAchXwAsDWte


[article]Tottenham Hotspur have more empty seats than any other club in the Premier League this season, new research has found.

A study examining average attendances this season shows that Tottenham have 5,000 more empty seats than any other side.

Chelsea are well short of full houses for many home games, too. According to the research, they are averaging around 3,000 empty seats.

Spurs' average is 8,284 empty seats per matchday, according to research from bookmaker OLBG.com, which makes its calculations based on the cheapest available ticket.

Tottenham's stadium - which cost £1billion - is regarded as the finest in the Premier League with multiple unique selling points.

Its seats are less than five metres from the pitch to the single-tier south stand, closer than any other Premier League ground. But the club are still struggling to hit the heights they achieved under Mauricio Pochettino and Sunday's match at Stamford Bridge revealed the gulf between them and Chelsea.

Southampton and Burnley were the third and fourth-placed clubs for unsold ticket revenue. Champions Manchester City were fifth. Crystal Palace, Watford, Leeds United, West Ham United and Newcastle United round out the top 10.

The failure to sell out is in part a result of a reluctance by some to attend games during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Leicester City are faring best by this measure, with very few unsold seats in the Premier League - the Foxes leaving just 251 free on a typical matchday. The King Power Stadium has a capacity of 32,312, which is far from being the smallest in the division.

The research used the cost of the cheapest ticket to calculate money lost by empty seats. It suggested that Spurs were losing £165,000 per game, Chelsea £155,000 and Leicester a mere £6,526.

But a Chelsea spokesman said that the empty home seats were held by season ticket holders so had already been paid for, with the only lost revenue being a result of no-shows not spending on food and drinks.[/article]



[article]Juventus are the only Italian club in the top 10 when it comes to the most jerseys sold in Europe in 2021, but still more than Barcelona, Chelsea, PSG and Manchester City.

The results were calculated by Euromerica Sport Marketing, who are certified by FIFA, who found that Bayern Munich sold 3.2 million shirts last year on the continent, more than any other football club.

Real Madrid came in second place, with 3 million jerseys, followed by Liverpool on 2.4m shirts and Manchester United with 1.95m.

Juventus are the only Italian side in the top 10, coming in fifth place after selling 1.42 million jerseys.

They beat Barcelona into sixth, with 1.34m, then Champions League winners Chelsea sold 1.31m and Borussia Dortmund 1.18m.

Paris Saint-Germain
no doubt got a boost with the arrival of Lionel Messi, but still sold only 1.18m shirts and Manchester City shifted 1.087m units.

With stadium restrictions during the pandemic, shirt sales have become one of the more important revenue streams for European clubs.[/article]
 
The capacity issue could be misleading. It's should be based on how many unsold tickets they have per game.
I noticed its total shirt sales on the continent not worldwide, so wonder what that would be?
 
You can be assured that Man City are fudging their figures - probably by forcing, on pain of death or something, companies in the UAE to buy unsold tickets without ever being able to attend just to help make their financial doping look a tiny bit less obvious.
 
Clubs regularly give out free tickets to local charities when they are well below capacity. Chances are there are a lot more “unsold” tickets than shown.
I also wouldn’t rely too heavily on the attendance figures either. They’re not properly audited and I do recall one stadium manager who just used to estimate a slightly different figure every week on the basis that the ground looked to be near capacity.
 
These figures are from Statista 2018/2019 season
Characteristic Number of shirts sold
Manchester United 3,250,000
Real Madrid 3,120,000
Bayern Munich 2,575,000
Barcelona 1,925,000
Liverpool 1,670,000
Juventus 1,615,000
Chelsea 1,525,000
Borussia Dortmund 1,205,000
Paris St Germain (PSG) 1,146,000
Manchester City 1,085,000
 
The impact of Ronaldo will see Man United outpace every one this year. A lot of their shirts sales go through their website and club shop
 
Clubs regularly give out free tickets to local charities when they are well below capacity. Chances are there are a lot more “unsold” tickets than shown.
I also wouldn’t rely too heavily on the attendance figures either. They’re not properly audited and I do recall one stadium manager who just used to estimate a slightly different figure every week on the basis that the ground looked to be near capacity.
Was it the Emirates a few seasons ago when the stadium was clearly less than half full (camera kept panning around showing it), yet the official attendance had it at nearly 90% capacity?

I remember an England friendly they did the same too.
 
If the figures were right, and I have seen the posts above which suggest not, then one reason for spurs will be the small crowds they got for the third string European shite being averaged out
 
Attendance figures is something the fume fume about.

Is there anything they don’t fume at?

Without even looking, I’d be certain there’s a thread where they’re fuming about transfer inactivity and not spending enough..
 
Is there anything they don’t fume at?

Without even looking, I’d be certain there’s a thread where they’re fuming about transfer inactivity and not spending enough..

they have a 2500 page / 8 year old thread about their finances
 
Tickets can also be sold and then people can't attend due to COVID, etc, so there's no financial implication to the club. There's also no mention of the cost difference between seats. A thousand cheaper empty seats may cost the club less than a few hundred more premium seats. It all seems pretty flawed.

That said, it's funny Spurs have built a hugely expensive stadium they can't fill when they're got the best striker and manager in their recent history. All their projections will likely be based on the that ground being fuller than it currently is. They could really be in the shit in a few years if they fall out the CL consistently. Arsenal are still paying the price.
 
Tickets can also be sold and then people can't attend due to COVID, etc, so there's no financial implication to the club. There's also no mention of the cost difference between seats. A thousand cheaper empty seats may cost the club less than a few hundred more premium seats. It all seems pretty flawed.

That said, it's funny Spurs have built a hugely expensive stadium they can't fill when they're got the best striker and manager in their recent history. All their projections will likely be based on the that ground being fuller than it currently is. They could really be in the shit in a few years if they fall out the CL consistently. Arsenal are still paying the price.

Good - fuck ‘em… both of ‘em
 
A reminder (not that it's necessary :p) that transfers cost more than reported transfer fees.

 
If that's the case, fine. State it. Tweet it. As it stands it's just a sum that doesn't work. Journalists shouldn't be publishing figures that don't add up. Also, who the fuck else gets their contract offers described this way? When did this start? Just go with the gross.
 
If that's the case, fine. State it. Tweet it. As it stands it's just a sum that doesn't work. Journalists shouldn't be publishing figures that don't add up. Also, who the fuck else gets their contract offers described this way? When did this start? Just go with the gross.

At least the salary is being quoted annually instead of weekly which is so irritating
 
If that's the case, fine. State it. Tweet it. As it stands it's just a sum that doesn't work. Journalists shouldn't be publishing figures that don't add up. Also, who the fuck else gets their contract offers described this way? When did this start? Just go with the gross.
 
Back
Top Bottom