Football Finance
- Thread starter King Binny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I suspect the guaranteed 25K prize money is dwarfed by the share of gate receipts?AND what acctington stanley wage bill looks like
Emirates FA Cup prize fund
The Emirates FA Cup prize fund listed round-by-round for season 2024-25www.thefa.com
Accrington Stanley 2025 Wages | Player & Team totals
Accrington Stanley's total wage bill per year is £1,517,360 and £29,180 per week | Search the most comprehensive salary and contract database.salarysport.com
They'll get a 50% share of the gate, after coats. That used to work out at about 47% of the total seat revenue (they don't get a share of hospitality profits, just the element of hospitality tickets that relates to the cost of the seat).AND what acctington stanley wage bill looks likeEmirates FA Cup prize fund
The Emirates FA Cup prize fund listed round-by-round for season 2024-25
Accrington Stanley 2025 Wages | Player & Team totals
Accrington Stanley's total wage bill per year is £1,517,360 and £29,180 per week | Search the most comprehensive salary and contract database.
No idea what the ticket prices are for this game but let's say that after deducting VAT and allowing for concessions it's £30 each. So the gate share is £30 x 60,000 x 47% = £846,000.
There used to be a TV fee of about £1 million per club as well. Not sure whether that still applies or is still the going rate but if it is the. you're looking at nearly £2m all in.
That's a lot of money for a league 2 team
They only file abbreviated accounts so I couldn't see their income levels, but they lost £785k in 2023. So basically this game could cover more than two year's worth of operating deficits, assuming that's a normal level for them.
It's genuinely why lower league clubs need the cup. Also why, in my opinion, the third round should be seeded. As much as it'll be nice to see either United or Arsenal go out tomorrow, there's two lower league clubs that could be breathing icy more easily had they been drawn away to
either of those two.
Giving you an idea of what their costs are and what they get for playing in the 3rd round
So kow much do we make on the cloakroom?😁
This is why it was senseless to have Villa West Ham on the telly. Wycombe need the cash more.
TV is about ratings, and no one wants to see Wycombe.
What's the share of gate about, is that an FA Cup thing? Not complaining like, just wondering. Could probably argue no PL team should take any gate unless they're playing another PL team.
No one wants to see Villa West Ham either.
You stick Wycombe Portsmouth on free to air tv you’d still get massive figures.
It's a cup thing, same in the League Cup too. It can be a godsend for a smaller club, even if they get drawn at home as often those clubs don't sell out or can only sell tickets much cheaper for their normal games.
As I said above, I would seed the draw in the third round to give the lower league clubs the chance of a big fixture and a big payday. It would be worth more to them than playing a middling team in the 4th round and also increases the chance of those shocks that the telly people love so much.
The other thing that is different in the cup is that the away fans get up to 25% of the tickets (it'll only be lower if they can't sell 25%), when it's only usually 3,000 for a PL game.
massive figures? You would be lucky to get 200k
So based on the figures below and we extrapolate, it would work out to be £3.6m per game.
Premier League Football Clubs Matchday Revenue Data 2022/23 - The Sports Journal
Listen to this Article (Audio) Matchday income, the revenue a club earns from hosting games in their home stadiums, is a crucial aspect of their financial success. It includes ticket sales, concessions, corporate hospitality and other related activities, making it a substantial part of a club’s...
sportsjournal.io
BT/TNT get half a million viewers for shite games. Free to air would be 5 times that.
Our matchday figures will include hospitality revenue, as well as all the ancillary stuff like programme sales, catering and retail, but the number looks about right. It may be a little on the low side if it doesn't include a full season's worth of the extra revenue from the Annie Road.So based on the figures below and we extrapolate, it would work out to be £3.6m per game.
Premier League Football Clubs Matchday Revenue Data 2022/23 - The Sports Journal
Listen to this Article (Audio) Matchday income, the revenue a club earns from hosting games in their home stadiums, is a crucial aspect of their financial success. It includes ticket sales, concessions, corporate hospitality and other related activities, making it a substantial part of a club’s...
Bear in mind though that this is a revenue figure, so after you've deducted all of the related costs (stewarding, security, policing, costs of sale for catering / retail), you're probably look more like £2-2.5m net contribution from an average game, and cup games will make less than league due to reduced ticket pricing.
Accrington Stanley made over £10m on the last filed accounts. Their salary is £1.5m so where is the rest of the money going?
Accrington Stanley made just £2.99 profit from FA Cup tie with Barnet
In a stark illustration of the reality of lower league life, David Burgess tweeted a breakdown of money made and money paid out for Stanley's second round tie against Barnet in November.
Their last set of accounts disclose a reduction in their reserves of £796k (equals loss for the year) and they didn't disclose a profit and loss account so there is no indication what their revenue is nor what they spent their money on.Accrington Stanley made over £10m on the last filed accounts. Their salary is £1.5m so where is the rest of the money going?
Accrington Stanley made just £2.99 profit from FA Cup tie with Barnet
In a stark illustration of the reality of lower league life, David Burgess tweeted a breakdown of money made and money paid out for Stanley's second round tie against Barnet in November.www.dailymail.co.uk
Little bit of analysis for you.
I reckon our current squad has a total cost of around £750m. Chelsea's 10 most expensive players probably cost more than that between them.
How many of these boys get into our first XI?
Moises Caicedo
Enzo Fernandez
Wesley Fofana
Kepa Arrizabalaga
Mikhaylo Mudryk
Romeu Lavia
Marc Cucurella
Christopher Nkunku
Raheem Sterling
Pedro Neto
Whoever is running transfers at Chelsea is stealing a living.
I reckon our current squad has a total cost of around £750m. Chelsea's 10 most expensive players probably cost more than that between them.
How many of these boys get into our first XI?
Moises Caicedo
Enzo Fernandez
Wesley Fofana
Kepa Arrizabalaga
Mikhaylo Mudryk
Romeu Lavia
Marc Cucurella
Christopher Nkunku
Raheem Sterling
Pedro Neto
Whoever is running transfers at Chelsea is stealing a living.
Caicedo would be in the mix. No one else really.
On this season i'd have Cucurella at left back also
I’d have him blood-eagled at the Kop End.
I actually typed that before deleting it.
Caicedo maybe but he’s a big red card risk.
More to the point, I thought the idea was to get a shed load of potential at reasonably low (relatively) wages on super long term contracts so that in 2-3 years time any penalties are spent and they have a team of over performers who’s overall cost is much lower than the outlay
Every time I see Caicedo play I feel like I'm watching someone whose primary talent is to be quick enough to catch opposition players and kick them up the arse without getting sent off for it (possibly because he has an undeserved reputation as being more of a footballer than he actually is). I wanted him last summer, I'm glad we didn't get him now.
And on the point of the wider project, what this list highlights is the downside risk of their project. I'm sure all of these guys will be on decent wages-you just can't buy a player for that kind of money without paying him good money. There are some big under-performers in there, some crocks and a player who might be about to get a 2+ year ban for doping. And they're mostly on 7-year contracts.
Incidentally, assuming Mudryk's control sample tests positive, they'll be in their rights not to pay him, but if they bin him off they're taking a £50m write-off. Even if they don't, they'll probably still have a massive financial hit.
There's another tier below this top 10 where they have some good players (e.g. Palmer, who is exceptional, Madueke who is more than decent, Gusto and Jackson who is still a bit raw but might make it). Some of those guys are probably out-performing their wage levels, but Palmer has already had a new contract. That's the folly of the scheme. If a player is out-performing his wage bracket, you will have to give him a new deal on better wages or he'll be off-ski. The idea that he will sit tight on low money under a 7-year deal because he has to is for the birds. By contrast, a player who turns to shit is going to happily sit there and take the money until his deal runs down, or else you'll have to pay him off to move on.
In short, their genius plan, if that is really what the plan is, doesn't work.
At the same time, Tamworth are about to get shafted by this going to extra time rather than a replay at Spurs.
They should have kept the replays but with the option for both clubs to agree in advance that the game would/wouldn't go to a replay.
So in this case, assuming Spurs would want extra time and Tamworth the replay. Spurs would need to settle the disagreement with X £M to compensate Tamworth.
It's not like the scenario occurs too often.
So in this case, assuming Spurs would want extra time and Tamworth the replay. Spurs would need to settle the disagreement with X £M to compensate Tamworth.
It's not like the scenario occurs too often.
Similar threads
