• 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

Bleak, but only to a certain extent - the reduction in revenue is directly related to a drop in revenue from CL - this was known and it’ll bounce back up again this season to a point where we’ll likely be talking about record revenues this time next year.

It might shed some light on why the contract issues are ongoing - we likely aren’t able to “pay them what they want” and remain within FFP guidelines.

I’m sure @Beamrider will be able to pick some holes in it - but it feels like a little bit of over-cooked sensationalist clickbait nonsense.
 
£409m to agents thats probably more than what the French or Dutch League spent on player transfers
@Beamrider I noticed that we always spend quite a lot on agent fees despite not spending much overall. Any particular reasons why? Is it because we are heavily reliant on them?
 
Bleak, but only to a certain extent - the reduction in revenue is directly related to a drop in revenue from CL - this was known and it’ll bounce back up again this season to a point where we’ll likely be talking about record revenues this time next year.

It might shed some light on why the contract issues are ongoing - we likely aren’t able to “pay them what they want” and remain within FFP guidelines.

I’m sure @Beamrider will be able to pick some holes in it - but it feels like a little bit of over-cooked sensationalist clickbait nonsense.
I'm just off out for the day, will take a detailed look later. Key point here is that they are referring to operating losses. Last year the operating loss was £36m - the article says €44m, but bottom line loss was just £9m. The key addition is profit on sales of players.
It looks like the source may have seen the accounts, but they are painting a deliberately bleak picture.
There is also no mention of the Dynasty investment which will have steadied the ship on the cash front.
So not dismissing it as bollocks, but it does look performatively negative to me.
Don't panic.
 
@Beamrider I noticed that we always spend quite a lot on agent fees despite not spending much overall. Any particular reasons why? Is it because we are heavily reliant on them?
Agent fees reported are payments to agents, which are typically in three instalments, so they will reflect transfer and contract negotiation activity over a three-year period. So if we have a quiet transfer window, they can still be high if we were busy the previous 2 years and/or we negotiated contracts (Ramy's fee for Mo's last deal will have been a big one, for example, as they are typically linked to the wages payable).
I also think that Michael Edwards often agreed higher fees with the agents than he needed to in order to keep them sweet for future deals.
 
Why does Spurs have a huge cash reserve and we have one of the smallest?
In a normal year, we target closing cash of around £4m. You need to look at "net debt" - i.e.bank and other debt, less cash balance, for a fairer picture. For example, not sure why, but during covid we drew down the full balance of our debt at year end. We had a huge cash balance, but also high debt. Just window dressing.
 
Didn’t we have prolonged reduced stadium capacity due to the Anny road extension?
It wouldn't have had a huge impact. The Upper Anny was one of the lowest priced stands in the ground and we didn't lose any hospitality capacity - the seats attached to the. Boot Room or the off-site locations like Hilton would have just been moved somewhere else in the ground.
Might have lost a few £m, but not huge figures in the grand scheme.
The delay re-opening would probably have cost more and may have been insured anyway.
 
Whys wages rising so fast? Imagine if tehy sold players rather than allowing them to walk or how much more sto0.0
I'm just off out for the day, will take a detailed look later. Key point here is that they are referring to operating losses. Last year the operating loss was £36m - the article says €44m, but bottom line loss was just £9m. The key addition is profit on sales of players.
It looks like the source may have seen the accounts, but they are painting a deliberately bleak picture.
There is also no mention of the Dynasty investment which will have steadied the ship on the cash front.
So not dismissing it as bollocks, but it does look performatively negative to me.
Don't panic.
Didn't they use the Dynasty Investment to pay off debts owed by the club to them? Still not sure why our wages are so high despite not paying the ludicrous salaries paid by Chelsea and ManU
 
Whys wages rising so fast? Imagine if tehy sold players rather than allowing them to walk or how much more sto0.0

Didn't they use the Dynasty Investment to pay off debts owed by the club to them? Still not sure why our wages are so high despite not paying the ludicrous salaries paid by Chelsea and ManU
The source article says that the website in questions had done a "forecast". These aren't LFC's figures, they are from an analyst, and may be way off the mark. Need to be wary of giving too much credence to them. Last year won't have been great with no CL, but they quote precise figures as if they are accurate. They're not, they're estimates. And they quote in Euros which exaggerates the positon.
 
The source article says that the website in questions had done a "forecast". These aren't LFC's figures, they are from an analyst, and may be way off the mark. Need to be wary of giving too much credence to them. Last year won't have been great with no CL, but they quote precise figures as if they are accurate. They're not, they're estimates. And they quote in Euros which exaggerates the positon.
Fair enough...
According to this our wages as % share of income is higher than Spurs, Arse, ManU and City...
For anyone interested in club-by-club comparison, see below
 
Agent fees reported are payments to agents, which are typically in three instalments, so they will reflect transfer and contract negotiation activity over a three-year period. So if we have a quiet transfer window, they can still be high if we were busy the previous 2 years and/or we negotiated contracts (Ramy's fee for Mo's last deal will have been a big one, for example, as they are typically linked to the wages payable).
I also think that Michael Edwards often agreed higher fees with the agents than he needed to in order to keep them sweet for future deals.
Thanks !

Didnt know about the instalments part. I guess also there's no fixed percentage to be paid to agents, hence we can pay them more?

I suppose that's how we find out about release clauses and if a player is willing to move.
 
Bleak, but only to a certain extent - the reduction in revenue is directly related to a drop in revenue from CL - this was known and it’ll bounce back up again this season to a point where we’ll likely be talking about record revenues this time next year.

It might shed some light on why the contract issues are ongoing - we likely aren’t able to “pay them what they want” and remain within FFP guidelines.

I’m sure @Beamrider will be able to pick some holes in it - but it feels like a little bit of over-cooked sensationalist clickbait nonsense.
OK, I've taken a more detailed look at this now.
It's based on a report from a site called OffThePitch (no, me neither). They've done a "forecast" = made up some numbers, but they did some graphs so it must be genuine. They did this for lots of clubs.
In Euros.
Read that again, Euros. We don't work in Euros buddy, but yeah, reporting numbers in Euros makes them look worse.
The drop-off in revenue from CL to Europa looks to be in the right ball park and was expected.
The reference to travel costs? Seriously? Will add fuck all.
They have amortisation going from €122.6m to €147.2m. I have a detailed, line by line estimate of amortisation. My guess was within about £0.5m of the actual charge for 2023. I have amortisation as flat going into 2024.
They have wages going up despite sales of Fabinho, Milner, Henderson. They take no account of reduced wages for not being in the Champions League.
They make no mention of the Dynasty investment which was used to pay down bank debt, much of which will have come from funding the Annie Road expansion.
They say nothing about reduced transfer expenditure in recent years putting less strain on our cash flow.
There's no doubt that the 2024 figures won't make for great reading, but these guys are way off. Because they have done a sloppy job and haven't paid attention to detail. We'll make a loss for sure, but not on the scale reported.
What does it mean for FFP / PSR?
On FFP, we're on the football costs ratio for UEFA purposes. Because of the drop-off in revenue from no CL, the ratio for 2024 won't have been strong, but it will be below the target (which was a very generous 90% in 2023-24).
PSR won't be an issue. I reckon our adjusted PSR profits for the previous 2 years will have been around £40m+, so we'd need to lose over £145m in 2023-24 to be in trouble. Even these muppets aren't predicting that.
TLDR - bollocks, move on.
And please don't quote uninformed bollocks from the darker corners of the internet at me. Anything that isn't sourced from actual accounts needs to be ignored. Nobody knows who is earning what, except for the Club and the FA, and they won't be putting that info out anywhere. Even the accounts don't split out players and staff so you can't even get it in total. Ditto commercial revenue. You can make an informed stab at media and match day income (but not associated costs of delivery), everything else is pure guess work and should be treated as such.
 
Thanks !

Didnt know about the instalments part. I guess also there's no fixed percentage to be paid to agents, hence we can pay them more?

I suppose that's how we find out about release clauses and if a player is willing to move.
No fixed percentage. Clubs tend to have their own views on it, I reckon our view is generous. FIFA tried to restrict it (new rules would be in place now), agents launched a legal challenge, FIFA backed down. Radio silence since.
NB - when I started, it used to be industry standard that it was 5% of guaranteed wages and image rights. Now it'll be at least double that, and on calculated on much higher wages.
 
Fair enough...
According to this our wages as % share of income is higher than Spurs, Arse, ManU and City...
For anyone interested in club-by-club comparison, see below
This is accounts-sourced stuff so it is reliable.
City's numbers are made-up, state-supported bollocks (and with lots of their wages costs shunted out into other companies as I reported in the 115 vs the World thread.
Man U's wages are higher, but so is their revenue.
Spurs have always low-balled on wages.
Struggling to understand Arsenal's figures TBH, they look a bit off on wages to me.
 
Apparently FIFA is struggling to find a broadcaster for their ridiculous Club World Cup next summer and has said they won’t bankroll it themselves. But they’re carrying on with the draw as if it’s all still happening.
Shame really, would have been nice to see City get handed their arses in the off-season as well.
 
Apparently FIFA is struggling to find a broadcaster for their ridiculous Club World Cup next summer and has said they won’t bankroll it themselves. But they’re carrying on with the draw as if it’s all still happening.
Shame really, would have been nice to see City get handed their arses in the off-season as well.
Surely it’s better that City get their arses handed to them without any tv deal in place so they don’t profit from extra income?
 
Surely it’s better that City get their arses handed to them without any to deal in place so they do t profit from extra income?

Any day now an Abu Dahbi based sponser will be announced for the World Club Cup with £2b mysteriously being paid to City regardless of whether they win by this totally not bankrolled at all by Sheik Mansour company, who totally has never met the son of his who is its Chairman.
 
I think this tournament will be a one off.
I don't understand how the League's involved are accepting this bullshit.
 
Its an awful idea which will hopefully get canned. I'm surprised that teams aren't just coming out and saying that they dont want to participate.
 
Its an awful idea which will hopefully get canned. I'm surprised that teams aren't just coming out and saying that they dont want to participate.
Or just send their youth and reserve players.
It wouldn't surprise me if a few EPL players suddenly get injured before the tournament.
What are FIFA gonna do? Ask for proof?
 
Will be even funnier when the likes of us, Utd and Arsenal will tour the US this summer and everyone will be packed out watching our games rather than the shitty club world football. The premier league should be doing everything they can and throwing money at it by getting a premier league summer tournament out over there in the Summer. Fuck FIFA up the arse (no lube). Would love to see it
 
Or just send their youth and reserve players.
It wouldn't surprise me if a few EPL players suddenly get injured before the tournament.
What are FIFA gonna do? Ask for proof?

I saw that they qualified Inter Miami to this tournament even though they were eliminated from the play offs in the first round. No doubt FIFA wanted them in to have Messi as a posterboy.
 
Or just send their youth and reserve players.
It wouldn't surprise me if a few EPL players suddenly get injured before the tournament.
What are FIFA gonna do? Ask for proof?
It would have to be the injury route as the rules require full strength squads, that's why FIFPRO are kicking off.
But yeah, I can see loads of players limping off for City and Chelsea in the last 5 minutes of the last game of the season when they're pushing to qualify for the Conference League.
 
Its an awful idea which will hopefully get canned. I'm surprised that teams aren't just coming out and saying that they dont want to participate.

Some have informally and have been warned of sanctions ranging from expulsion of Champions League and even transfer bans.

The corruption that is FIFA state the show must go on.

It'll be picked up by BeIN Sports as part of the world cup agreement.

BeIN will have a mysterious cash injection from Saudi to cover the costs.
 
I think this tournament will be a one off.
I don't understand how the League's involved are accepting this bullshit.

I don’t think the plan was for it to be a one-off - the current format of pulling together the winners of each confederation’s club trophy doesn’t really work, because it’s 9 times out of 10 the European winners vs S American winners - here at least there’s multiple European clubs, so it should be more competitive.

The problem is, for me, less about the idea, concept or even format and more about the fact that there’s too many pointless games, particularly with things like international friendlies.

They can’t keep expanding the amount of games in tournaments without reducing games elsewhere.

Killing international friendlies and curtailing the amount of internationals during a season would be a good start.

Having a few tasty beverages,l - which is when I come up with my greatest (stupidest) ideas.

How about we scrap most of the qualifying games for a World Cup and have it all happen at once with significantly expanded teams involved.

There are 210 international teams in the ranking - 32 groups of 4 would be 128 teams - top 32 international teams seeded 1, next 32 seeded 2 and in - next 32 ranked playoff against… well someone else can figure out how to involve the teams outside effectively the top 100 - the impact to top leagues is minimal.

For the record - Norn Iron are currently ranked 71st

Those 32 groups of 4 - stop basing the tournament in countries, have in confederation based - rotate it through Europe, S America, CONCACRF, Asia & Africa (merge Oceania with Asia), with games being spread across that federation.

3 games, group winners only through and straight knockout thereafter -that adds a bit of jeopardy.

You could puff it out to 2 going through and an extra knock out round… but that makes the group stage lower stakes.

That right there would take all those bullshit qualifying games out of the calendar and give half the world national teams involvement in a tournament - they’re already practically doing in by confederation anyway.

I’d sort of do the same with the Euros as well.., fuck off qualifying for most countries - just stick it all in a final tournament.

I dunno… beer and wine are great!!!!
 
I don’t want any player to have injury but clubs who accepted this tournament only have themselves to blame. Chelsea will be fine, they can put a whole new team.
 
Given City & Chelsea are in it I would quite like it to happen so that they start next year knackered
 
I saw that they qualified Inter Miami to this tournament even though they were eliminated from the play offs in the first round. No doubt FIFA wanted them in to have Messi as a posterboy.
That was particularly bad form. It was a clear “we need Americans going to the games” for tv ticketing and marketing purposes. The leagues cup is also poor attended
 
Some have informally and have been warned of sanctions ranging from expulsion of Champions League and even transfer bans.

The corruption that is FIFA state the show must go on.

It'll be picked up by BeIN Sports as part of the world cup agreement.

BeIN will have a mysterious cash injection from Saudi to cover the costs.
You were close mate, they just announced a deal with DAZN.
 
Back
Top Bottom