O/T Swansea accounts

[Lancasterclaret]

Don't know if any of you follow @swissramble on twitter, but he knows his stuff on the financial side of football.

He's currently tweeting the Swansea account details.

Remembering that they are probably the closest club to us (with the proviso that they have been in the prem a lot longer) but its does show the struggles to stay financially sensible, even with the vast amounts of TV money.

[Royboyclaret]

Swiss Ramble are an excellent source of information Lancaster, very thorough and yet concise.

They did a really good piece on Burnley recently which was linked on here and made comparisons to our previous seasons.

Will take a look at the Swansea detail when time permits, and see how they compare to us.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yeah, the Burnley one was good, and the Rovers one was even better!

[Sidney1st]

I use Swiss ramble when I'm bored on FB, but fans of other clubs don't like to believe it's accuracy

[Sidney1st]

#Swans £82m wage bill, effectively up 16% (£11m), given 14 month prior year period. One of 9 clubs in £80-85m range in top flight. (12/18)"

#Swans have huge reliance on Premier League TV money: 82% of total revenue. (9/18)


Kin hell.......

[Quickenthetempo]

Going off the 70% wage bill to turnover theory and average PL earnings of 120m plus.

85m should be about right for premier league wages. As astronomical as it sounds.

[Royboyclaret]

For us TV money represents more like 92% of our total Income, incredible but BFC could basically allow us all entry for free and they'd hardly feel the pinch revenue-wise.

As for Wages we will remain the lowest at around £40m, which will be say half that of the next lowest Hull.

[Sidney1st]

They're still making a loss, despite the previous TV deal.

Is it that difficult to operate at a profit?

[Royboyclaret]

Well, it is if a club attempts to be competitive on Wages, as Swansea clearly have done.

We play the game differently with earnings being highly incentive driven, with success being rewarded with a decent bonus structure. We have been very clever in that respect.

[pureclaret]

Yes Sidney it is that difficult, football is more about heart than money. Any one who thinks it is about money is either very wealthy or wish to become poor.

[Sidney1st]

I understand the need to be competitive, but surely at some point clubs have to start thinking sensibly?

[Lancasterclaret]

Really?

Look at rovers fans. Despite all that has happened, one thing shines through almost all of them. They think someone should be paying for them to be in the premier league.

They are not alone in that, I'm sure there are fans on here who actually believed in "Dry powder store LOLZ".

[Sidney1st]

Yeah the dry powder comments always seem moronic when they appear.

[claretandy]

For us TV money represents more like 92% of our total Income, incredible but BFC could basically allow us all entry for free and they'd hardly feel the pinch revenue-wise.

As for Wages we will remain the lowest at around £40m, which will be say half that of the next lowest Hull.

I take it the £40m is before huge bonus payments ? (well deserved BTW)

[mdd2]

Still puts it at under £50million

[Blackrod]

It's almost like two businesses. TV money funding player wages and signing on fees and gate receipts funding the rest of the businesses like a normal business.wnder what would happen if TV rights were worth less. I got rid of sky and havnt missed it one bit. Surely I can't be the only one.

[aggi]

For us TV money represents more like 92% of our total Income, incredible but BFC could basically allow us all entry for free and they'd hardly feel the pinch revenue-wise.

As for Wages we will remain the lowest at around £40m, which will be say half that of the next lowest Hull.

I'd be very surprised if Hull was that high. I suspect they'll be more in the £40m-£50m region. Their wages were a fair bit lower than ours last season.

[Royboyclaret]

In '14/'15, the last time we were both in the PL, our Wage bill was £29m compared to Hull's £56m.

Probably fair to say that to Jun'17 theirs will be in the region of £70m.

[Goalposts]

In that same report Swansea have no debt and Sunderland wages grew to be bigger than Leicester city's who where champions that year.

[Sidney1st]

Sunderland's wage bill is almost identical to Villa's who threw themselves into the championship last season.

[BleedingClaret]

Going off the 70% wage bill to turnover theory and average PL earnings of 120m plus.

85m should be about right for premier league wages. As astronomical as it sounds.

My mind will just not accept that :-/

[BleedingClaret]

Yes Sidney it is that difficult, football is more about heart than money. Any one who thinks it is about money is either very wealthy or wish to become poor.

I don't know if that is true..
But I like to think it is

[minnieclaret]

When it comes to salaries vs total wage bill, the size of the squad has to be taken into account.
I haven't done any research but would think our first team pool is smaller than most. Therefore our £40m + bonusses isn't as miserly as it appears.

[Sidney1st]

All clubs have a set squad of 25 they can use for the season.
This can be supplemented by youth players, but that's it.

Chelsea loan out a lot of players, to reduce costs/generate revenue, but a number of clubs do the same to lesser extents.
I think it was Moses who they loaned out to 3 or 4 different clubs for a decent loan fee.

[randomclaret2]

£40 million wages, plus £8.5m bonuses, from an Income of c.£115m sounds good to me. Imagine now if you will, a club with a current wage bill of £28m and an income next season of around £7m, of which 60% can be spent on wages. Not even Dianne Abbott can get that to add up.

[Sidney1st]

£40 million wages, plus £8.5m bonuses, from an Income of c.£115m sounds good to me. Imagine now if you will, a club with a current wage bill of £28m and an income next season of around £7m, of which 60% can be spent on wages. Not even Dianne Abbott can get that to add up.

This summer they'll only have 14 first team players on the books won't they, as there are a few out of contract in the summer, plus Gallagher and Emnes will be off home?

They still need to slash things further though.

[randomclaret2]

How did you guess who I was talking about ?

[aggi]

In '14/'15, the last time we were both in the PL, our Wage bill was £29m compared to Hull's £56m.

Probably fair to say that to Jun'17 theirs will be in the region of £70m.

There has been a bit of a different emphasis from Hull this time though (partly as they were looking to sell the club) and they obviously cut that wage bill significantly when they went down, hence their wage bill being about £8m lower than us last season.

[Royboyclaret]

That's not right aggi.

Our wage bill was £27m last year compared to Hull's £30m.

Both clubs then paid substantial bonuses following promotion.

[aggi]

That's not right aggi.

Our wage bill was £27m last year compared to Hull's £30m.

Both clubs then paid substantial bonuses following promotion.

You could be right. We bundled the bonuses in with Staff costs whereas Hull have a line for Amounts payable upon promotion to the Premier League that doesn't explain what it is but I'd assume most of it is bonuses. It looks like our wage bills were probably about the same in total.