Football Finance
- Thread starter King Binny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
The Arse have slashed their wage budget to £170m to ours £360m plus. The difference is almost £200m. Seeing that we're now paying over the odds for players past their peak, should the club rethink how it does business, concentrating on bringing in talent on lower wages and moving on players around 28?
Yes, it should, but not in the way you describe. Clubs which not only reach the top but want to stay there will find a way to fund star signings as well as smart bargains. FSG's financial approach served us well until last season, but its limits are now apparent and they need to spend more if they want to maximise their investment. We need both top talent and clever bargains. Seeing it as an either/or choice makes no sense.
Where are you getting this from?
Ours is around 160 and Arsenal at 130 last time I checked.
It’s Bluebell - some random on Twitter or he just made it up.
Our all-in wage bill for 2021-22 was just short of £366m. That includes social security and pension, and is for all staff (not just players). It will also include the player's share of agent fees.
I'd be surprised if the player wage bill in isolation isn't north of £300m. Will probably be lower for last year / coming year given performance factors.
I'd be surprised if the player wage bill in isolation isn't north of £300m. Will probably be lower for last year / coming year given performance factors.
Okay I was wrong at £170m but it's just a tad over £200m. The £170m is the difference between them and United. They still spend £160m less than us on wages.
[article]
How Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham's wage bills compare to rest of Premier League 'big six'
Recent reports have revealed that Arsenal's wage bill during the 2021/22 campaign are the least of the so-called Premier League big six
ARSENAL
By
Aaron Catterson-ReidFootball Trends Writer
- 18:30, 1 MAR 2023
Arsenal wage bill the least of Premier League big six as Man United lead the way. (Photo by Stuart MacFarlane/Arsenal FC via Getty Images) (Image: Stuart MacFarlane/Arsenal FC via Getty Images)
Arsenal currently sit top of the Premier League, two points ahead of second-placed Manchester City and eight ahead of Manchester United in third.
However, a recent report from The Times has revealed that the Gunners have the lowest wage bill when compared to the rest of the so-called English 'big six'. The report, which has compiled figures from club accounts over the course of the 2021/22 campaign, show that Arsenal spent £206 million on players' wages over the season, almost half the figure of the highest wage bill, which belonged to United (£384 million).
Elsewhere, Liverpool and Manchester City paid £366 million and £354 million respectively, with Tottenham Hotspur shelling out slightly more than their north London rivals (£209 million.) Chelsea, meanwhile, spent £333 million during the 2020/21 season, with their figures for the 21/22 campaign yet to be released.
READ MORE:Full Arsenal squad for Everton clash revealed as star striker Gabriel Jesus nears injury return
Since Mikel Arteta took over as Arsenal manager, he has been keen to offload ageing players on inflated wages, allowing the likes of Mesut Ozil and Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang to leave in order to reduce the club's wage bill. Speaking about this plan, Gunners technical director Edu said last year: "When a player’s 26 or older, has a big salary and is not performing, he’s killing you.
“In the past, 80 per cent of the squad had those characteristics and there was no chance anyone would buy them.” He added: "They don’t have a transfer value and are comfortable on a long contract living in London.
"So we needed to clean the squad and if we had to pay some to go, I considered it an investment. It’s better than having them blocking the path of another player.
"It’s not a problem if a player has a big salary and performs. I know it’s strange to go to the board and tell them, ‘Sometimes it’s better to pay a player to leave than to keep them’. I realise that hurts and some people say that it’s expensive — but you have to take the problem out.”
Premier League 'Big Six' wage bill during 2021/22 season
Manchester United - £384 million
Liverpool - £366 million
Manchester City - £354 million
Chelsea - £333 million* (figures from 2020/21 season)
Tottenham - £209 million
Arsenal - £206 million
[/article]
[article]
Liverpool will cut total of almost £1m a week in wages after Saudi transfers
It has been a summer of seismic change at Anfield, and perhaps one more significant than Jurgen Klopp will have hoped for in a single transfer window.
Roberto Firmino opted to depart on a free transfer while the club overruled Klopp when it came to an extension for James Milner, with Naby Keita and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain also released.
There was another departure at the end of June as Arthur‘s loan expired – the midfielder then heading to Fiorentina on his next temporary deal.
Now, both Henderson and Fabinho are joining clubs in the Saudi Pro League, the pair agreeing deals with Al Ettifaq and Al-Ittihad respectively.
In doing so, Liverpool have seen £915,000 a week in wages off their payroll – or a remarkable £47.58 million per year.
Henderson (£200,000 a week), Fabinho (£180,000 a week) and Firmino (£180,000 a week) were among the club’s highest earners, while Keita (£120,000 a week) and Oxlade-Chamberlain (£120,000 a week) also received hefty salaries.
Milner was believed to be earning £60,000 a week after signing a one-year deal last summer, while reports in Italy claimed Liverpool were contributing £55,000 a week towards Arthur‘s wage at Juventus.
That frees up a considerable amount moving forwards – and could even be boosted further if Thiago (£200,000 a week) moves on.
However, the Spaniard is not expected to depart at this stage despite interest from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Spain.
Liverpool have already brought in two new players in the form of Alexis Mac Allister and Dominik Szoboszlai.
Mac Allister is speculated to earn £150,000 a week following his £35 million move from Brighton, while Szoboszlai’s wage has been reliably reported as £120,000 per week.
Even with those additions, Liverpool’s wage bill has still decreased by £645,000 a week, or £33.54 million a year, this summer.
Those funds will be allocated elsewhere, including a contract for likely next signing Romeo Lavia, with Trent Alexander-Arnold among those whose terms will be improved.
Either way, the departures of six senior midfielders plus Firmino have given Liverpool a lot more room for manoeuvre with their finances.
There could be further signings beyond Mac Allister, Szoboszlai and Lavia, too, with another midfielder and a left-sided centre-back on the agenda.
[/article]
Liverpool will cut total of almost £1m a week in wages after Saudi transfers
- July 27, 2023
- Jack Lusby
It has been a summer of seismic change at Anfield, and perhaps one more significant than Jurgen Klopp will have hoped for in a single transfer window.
Roberto Firmino opted to depart on a free transfer while the club overruled Klopp when it came to an extension for James Milner, with Naby Keita and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain also released.
There was another departure at the end of June as Arthur‘s loan expired – the midfielder then heading to Fiorentina on his next temporary deal.
Now, both Henderson and Fabinho are joining clubs in the Saudi Pro League, the pair agreeing deals with Al Ettifaq and Al-Ittihad respectively.
In doing so, Liverpool have seen £915,000 a week in wages off their payroll – or a remarkable £47.58 million per year.
Henderson (£200,000 a week), Fabinho (£180,000 a week) and Firmino (£180,000 a week) were among the club’s highest earners, while Keita (£120,000 a week) and Oxlade-Chamberlain (£120,000 a week) also received hefty salaries.
Milner was believed to be earning £60,000 a week after signing a one-year deal last summer, while reports in Italy claimed Liverpool were contributing £55,000 a week towards Arthur‘s wage at Juventus.
That frees up a considerable amount moving forwards – and could even be boosted further if Thiago (£200,000 a week) moves on.
However, the Spaniard is not expected to depart at this stage despite interest from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Spain.
Liverpool have already brought in two new players in the form of Alexis Mac Allister and Dominik Szoboszlai.
Mac Allister is speculated to earn £150,000 a week following his £35 million move from Brighton, while Szoboszlai’s wage has been reliably reported as £120,000 per week.
Even with those additions, Liverpool’s wage bill has still decreased by £645,000 a week, or £33.54 million a year, this summer.
Those funds will be allocated elsewhere, including a contract for likely next signing Romeo Lavia, with Trent Alexander-Arnold among those whose terms will be improved.
Either way, the departures of six senior midfielders plus Firmino have given Liverpool a lot more room for manoeuvre with their finances.
There could be further signings beyond Mac Allister, Szoboszlai and Lavia, too, with another midfielder and a left-sided centre-back on the agenda.
[/article]
No wonder we are skint with deadwood being paid so much.[article]
Liverpool will cut total of almost £1m a week in wages after Saudi transfers
With the exits of Jordan Henderson and Fabinho to Saudi Arabia, Liverpool will have cut over £900,000 per week from their wage bill this summer.
- July 27, 2023
- Jack Lusby
It has been a summer of seismic change at Anfield, and perhaps one more significant than Jurgen Klopp will have hoped for in a single transfer window.
Roberto Firmino opted to depart on a free transfer while the club overruled Klopp when it came to an extension for James Milner, with Naby Keita and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain also released.
There was another departure at the end of June as Arthur‘s loan expired – the midfielder then heading to Fiorentina on his next temporary deal.
Now, both Henderson and Fabinho are joining clubs in the Saudi Pro League, the pair agreeing deals with Al Ettifaq and Al-Ittihad respectively.
In doing so, Liverpool have seen £915,000 a week in wages off their payroll – or a remarkable £47.58 million per year.
Henderson (£200,000 a week), Fabinho (£180,000 a week) and Firmino (£180,000 a week) were among the club’s highest earners, while Keita (£120,000 a week) and Oxlade-Chamberlain (£120,000 a week) also received hefty salaries.
Milner was believed to be earning £60,000 a week after signing a one-year deal last summer, while reports in Italy claimed Liverpool were contributing £55,000 a week towards Arthur‘s wage at Juventus.
That frees up a considerable amount moving forwards – and could even be boosted further if Thiago (£200,000 a week) moves on.
However, the Spaniard is not expected to depart at this stage despite interest from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Spain.
Liverpool have already brought in two new players in the form of Alexis Mac Allister and Dominik Szoboszlai.
Mac Allister is speculated to earn £150,000 a week following his £35 million move from Brighton, while Szoboszlai’s wage has been reliably reported as £120,000 per week.
Even with those additions, Liverpool’s wage bill has still decreased by £645,000 a week, or £33.54 million a year, this summer.
Those funds will be allocated elsewhere, including a contract for likely next signing Romeo Lavia, with Trent Alexander-Arnold among those whose terms will be improved.
Either way, the departures of six senior midfielders plus Firmino have given Liverpool a lot more room for manoeuvre with their finances.
There could be further signings beyond Mac Allister, Szoboszlai and Lavia, too, with another midfielder and a left-sided centre-back on the agenda.
[/article]
Cannot blame FSG also for that.
A large number on these boards would instinctively do.
[article]
Juventus are kicked out of Europa Conference League by Uefa for breaching FFP rules
Last updated on28 July 202328 July 2023.From the sectionEuropean Football
Juventus reached the semi-finals of last season's Europa League
Juventus have been kicked out of this season's Europa Conference League by Uefa and fined for breaching Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.
European football's governing body has also fined Chelsea for breaching FFP rules as a result of "submitting incomplete financial information".
Uefa says the matter relates to transactions which took place between 2012 and 2019.
Juventus have been fined £17.14m, while Chelsea have been fined £8.57m.
The Italian club will only have to pay half of their fine if their financial records for the next three years comply with regulations, while Chelsea have already agreed to pay the settlement figure.
The Blues have spent around £600m on 19 new players since new owner Todd Boehly took charge of the club in May 2022, but their fine relates to a seven-year period while Roman Abramovich had control of the club.
Uefa said: "Following the club's sale in May 2022, the new ownership identified, and proactively reported to Uefa, instances of potentially incomplete financial reporting under the club's previous ownership."
In a response, Chelsea said they "fully co-operated and assisted Uefa" in their investigations and "entered into a settlement agreement" with the governing body.
"In accordance with the club's ownership group's core principles of full compliance and transparency with its regulators, we are grateful that this case has been concluded by proactive disclosure of information to Uefa and a settlement that fully resolves the reported matters," said the Premier League club.
The Italian Football Federation (FIGC) must now notify Uefa of which club will replace Juve in the third-tier European competition. It is likely to be Fiorentina, who were beaten by West Ham in last year's final, after they finished eighth in Serie A.
The case against Juventus follows a 718,000 euro (£620,000) fine as part of a settlement agreement with Italian football authorities over a case concerning payment of player salaries.
Juventus had also been docked 10 Serie A points last season following a hearing into the club's past transfer dealings.
They were initially handed a 15-point penalty in January but Italy's highest sporting court overturned that decision in April and ordered the case to be re-examined.
They would have finished fourth and qualified for next season's Champions League had they not been sanctioned.
In response to the charge, Juventus said they accept Uefa's decision and will not be lodging an appeal.
Club president Gianluca Ferrero said: "We regret the decision of the Uefa. We do not share the interpretation that has been given of our defence, and we remain firmly convinced of the legitimacy of our actions and the validity of our arguments.
"However, we have decided not to appeal this judgment.
"Lodging an appeal, possibly to other levels of judgement, with uncertain outcomes and timing, would increase the uncertainty with respect to our eventual participation in the 2024/25 Uefa Champions League."
Analysis
BBC football reporter Simon Stone
While they continue to argue their case, Juventus' decision not to appeal against this punishment means it should be the final blow inflicted on the club for trying to manipulate financial rules to cover huge losses and allow them to buy more players.
In addition to May's 10-point deduction, key officials, including former vice-chair Pavel Nedved and sporting director Fabio Paratici, who subsequently moved to Tottenham, were fined by FIGC.
Now Uefa has had its say.
Juventus have activated a major management overhaul since these issues surfaced. They have also signalled an intention to leave the European Super League project, which former chairman Andrea Agnelli was such a believer in.
It does mean they miss out on European football for the first time since 2011-12, although given they won the title instead that season, the first of nine in a row, they may hope it is an omen.
[/article]
Juventus are kicked out of Europa Conference League by Uefa for breaching FFP rules
Last updated on28 July 202328 July 2023.From the sectionEuropean Football
Juventus reached the semi-finals of last season's Europa League
Juventus have been kicked out of this season's Europa Conference League by Uefa and fined for breaching Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.
European football's governing body has also fined Chelsea for breaching FFP rules as a result of "submitting incomplete financial information".
Uefa says the matter relates to transactions which took place between 2012 and 2019.
Juventus have been fined £17.14m, while Chelsea have been fined £8.57m.
The Italian club will only have to pay half of their fine if their financial records for the next three years comply with regulations, while Chelsea have already agreed to pay the settlement figure.
The Blues have spent around £600m on 19 new players since new owner Todd Boehly took charge of the club in May 2022, but their fine relates to a seven-year period while Roman Abramovich had control of the club.
Uefa said: "Following the club's sale in May 2022, the new ownership identified, and proactively reported to Uefa, instances of potentially incomplete financial reporting under the club's previous ownership."
In a response, Chelsea said they "fully co-operated and assisted Uefa" in their investigations and "entered into a settlement agreement" with the governing body.
"In accordance with the club's ownership group's core principles of full compliance and transparency with its regulators, we are grateful that this case has been concluded by proactive disclosure of information to Uefa and a settlement that fully resolves the reported matters," said the Premier League club.
The Italian Football Federation (FIGC) must now notify Uefa of which club will replace Juve in the third-tier European competition. It is likely to be Fiorentina, who were beaten by West Ham in last year's final, after they finished eighth in Serie A.
The case against Juventus follows a 718,000 euro (£620,000) fine as part of a settlement agreement with Italian football authorities over a case concerning payment of player salaries.
Juventus had also been docked 10 Serie A points last season following a hearing into the club's past transfer dealings.
They were initially handed a 15-point penalty in January but Italy's highest sporting court overturned that decision in April and ordered the case to be re-examined.
They would have finished fourth and qualified for next season's Champions League had they not been sanctioned.
In response to the charge, Juventus said they accept Uefa's decision and will not be lodging an appeal.
Club president Gianluca Ferrero said: "We regret the decision of the Uefa. We do not share the interpretation that has been given of our defence, and we remain firmly convinced of the legitimacy of our actions and the validity of our arguments.
"However, we have decided not to appeal this judgment.
"Lodging an appeal, possibly to other levels of judgement, with uncertain outcomes and timing, would increase the uncertainty with respect to our eventual participation in the 2024/25 Uefa Champions League."
Analysis
BBC football reporter Simon Stone
While they continue to argue their case, Juventus' decision not to appeal against this punishment means it should be the final blow inflicted on the club for trying to manipulate financial rules to cover huge losses and allow them to buy more players.
In addition to May's 10-point deduction, key officials, including former vice-chair Pavel Nedved and sporting director Fabio Paratici, who subsequently moved to Tottenham, were fined by FIGC.
Now Uefa has had its say.
Juventus have activated a major management overhaul since these issues surfaced. They have also signalled an intention to leave the European Super League project, which former chairman Andrea Agnelli was such a believer in.
It does mean they miss out on European football for the first time since 2011-12, although given they won the title instead that season, the first of nine in a row, they may hope it is an omen.
[/article]
Right? Ban them from the Champions League the next time they qualify and then we're cooking with gas.
And Chelsea receives a fine for past violations in a year they didn't qualify for Europe at all. Convenient.
The previous deal included stadium naming rights and as well as training and main kit sponsorship... £60m per season seems kind of low for all that.
Ares, just invested $75m to Inter Miami. Wonder why FSG turned down Ares? @Beamrider
[article]
US firm who offered Manchester United investment 'turns to Chelsea and eyes potential deal, with Todd Boehly open to injection of new funds'... as Old Trafford sale rumbles on this summer
The company, Ares Management, are thought to be in talks over a potential injection of funds at Stamford Bridge, with Todd Boehly's consortium open to the approach.
Just a matter of months ago, Ares had been among a number of US-based organisations that pitched funding at United with the Glazer family exploring a sale.
But their takeover saga has continued to rumble on and a host of interested parties have since directed their attention elsewhere, including to United's closest rivals.
Indeed, The Telegraph have claimed that Ares, who now hold a significant presence in sport and a $3.7billion (£3.2bn) warchest to splash out in the industry, have held talks over brokering a deal with Chelsea and owner Boehly.
Should the club take on new funding, the funds would be directed toward a new stadium project and a multi-club expansion, the same outlet add.
Ares had initially targeted raising $1.5billion (£1.1bn) last year but now hold greater spending power, allowing them to table an attractive proposal to Chelsea.
oth Ares and Chelsea have declined to comment.
However, a source has indicated to The Telegraph that the club are regularly approached by investors, with Boehly's preference an equity injection.
Since taking charge of the west London side from Roman Abramovich, Boehly and Clearlake Capital have pumped over £600million on new signings.
Negotiations, meanwhile, are continuing to take place between United and multiple parties with their potential takeover yet to run its course, Mail Sport understands.
[/article]
[article]
US firm who offered Manchester United investment 'turns to Chelsea and eyes potential deal, with Todd Boehly open to injection of new funds'... as Old Trafford sale rumbles on this summer
- Ares Management were among the firms that pitched funding at Man United
- As the takeover saga rumbles on, the company have instead turned to Chelsea
- Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital are open to a potential injection, reports say
The company, Ares Management, are thought to be in talks over a potential injection of funds at Stamford Bridge, with Todd Boehly's consortium open to the approach.
Just a matter of months ago, Ares had been among a number of US-based organisations that pitched funding at United with the Glazer family exploring a sale.
But their takeover saga has continued to rumble on and a host of interested parties have since directed their attention elsewhere, including to United's closest rivals.
Indeed, The Telegraph have claimed that Ares, who now hold a significant presence in sport and a $3.7billion (£3.2bn) warchest to splash out in the industry, have held talks over brokering a deal with Chelsea and owner Boehly.
Should the club take on new funding, the funds would be directed toward a new stadium project and a multi-club expansion, the same outlet add.
Ares had initially targeted raising $1.5billion (£1.1bn) last year but now hold greater spending power, allowing them to table an attractive proposal to Chelsea.
oth Ares and Chelsea have declined to comment.
However, a source has indicated to The Telegraph that the club are regularly approached by investors, with Boehly's preference an equity injection.
Since taking charge of the west London side from Roman Abramovich, Boehly and Clearlake Capital have pumped over £600million on new signings.
Negotiations, meanwhile, are continuing to take place between United and multiple parties with their potential takeover yet to run its course, Mail Sport understands.
[/article]
I think the line "with Boehly's preference an equity injection" implies that these boys are primarily interested in lending, not investing (and "injection of funds" is an ambiguous expression). Not sure they ever approached FSG but if they did I suspect the answer would have been that FSG / LFC could borrow more cheaply from conventional lenders.
They could maybe help out on a leveraged buy out, but I doubt these boys would know their Ares from their LBO.
I hasten to add that the JJ mentioned there isn't me. Just in case anyone was wondering.
Similar threads
