10 year EPL Finance Stats from Swiss Ramble

[ClaretLoup]

Got my Chester Perry hat on here........

Lots of Bar charts to show expenditure and debts in the Premier League for the last 10 years.

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 2F59648401

One of the interesting ones is that Brentford top the table for wages to turnover ratio at 154%. Not sure how this one got past the FFP regs., but then nothing surprises me much any more in the loopy world of football.

[Rowls]

The biggest question this raises is, 'Why are Spurs so sh i te?'

[Lowbankclaret]

Brentford’s stats are bonkers and should never be allowed.

[Quickenthetempo]

Clubs get away with things as the Football league and Premier league have different rules.

Didn't QPR get punished on the way back down before they let them back in the football league?

[ecc]

"In conclusion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with English football – apart from huge losses, unsustainable wages, player purchases on credit and a massive dependency on owner funding. Nothing to see here, please move on, definitely no need for an independent regulator."

[GodIsADeeJay81]

That's £453 million for us on wages..to £736 million in revenue.

That should help those who don't know where the money's gone over the years.

[Quickenthetempo]

That's £453 million for us on wages..to £736 million in revenue.

That should help those who don't know where the money's gone over the years.

Transfer fees, agent fees, ground maintenance, pitch maintenance, travel fees, academy.

I'm sure there's more.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Those Rovers numbers are horrific though.

[Roosterbooster]

Incredible that our profits are comparable to Arsenal over 10 years. Also interesting that most our profit is from Player Sales.

But perhaps the most startling thing is which teams are at the top and bottom of the wage to turnover ratio. The "top 6" are all running below 65% (well within the recommendation), whereas most of those running over 100% are Championship clubs. Suggests to me that this the gamble is being encouraged by the massive rewards of success.

Can someone explain the difference between profit and operating profit? Thanks

[Chester Perry]

It always amuses me when this kind of thing is published - it is almost like no one really listened to what I was saying about the way our club was run when stuff like this comes out - so many people are always surprised - particularly by the comparisons to everyone else - all a bit strange really given that a the MMT thread is still getting over 2000 views a week and is the single most viewed football related thread on this board this season (and that includes the shareholders letter one) yet there have only been a handful of posts on it since the end of August (the time when a few were removed, and I have no idea at all as to what the offensiveness was in them for that to happen - nothing political, nothing about other posters or entities and nothing with links away from the site - but it goes a log way to explaining my general abstinence from posting).

In the meantime following today's Guardian piece on whether are club may finally drop out of the top flight this season (https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... he-watford) the chaps at Vysyble reminded their followers and guardian readers as to just how well we have been managed as a business during that period

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1470734043234844677

[Down_Rover]

Incredible that our profits are comparable to Arsenal over 10 years. Also interesting that most our profit is from Player Sales.

But perhaps the most startling thing is which teams are at the top and bottom of the wage to turnover ratio. The "top 6" are all running below 65% (well within the recommendation), whereas most of those running over 100% are Championship clubs. Suggests to me that this the gamble is being encouraged by the massive rewards of success.

Can someone explain the difference between profit and operating profit? Thanks

The top 6 do have huge revenues tho

[Down_Rover]

Operating profit is from normal trading activities

Profit is from all sources, ie includes profit on player sales.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The top 6 do have huge revenues tho

Screenshot_20211214-195026.png (445.46 KiB) Viewed 1198 times

Things like this help city

[Roosterbooster]

The top 6 do have huge revenues tho

Surely because of current / recent success though?

This success has translated into revenue growing at a rate far more than wages for them

[Down_Rover]

Surely because of current / recent success though?

This success has translated into revenue growing at a rate far more than wages for them

That is exactly why their wages to turnover ratio is low

[aggi]

...
One of the interesting ones is that Brentford top the table for wages to turnover ratio at 154%. Not sure how this one got past the FFP regs., but then nothing surprises me much any more in the loopy world of football.

This is a bit deceptive. Part of Brentford's business model is buying players, developing them and selling them on for a profit (which they've done very well). That revenue from player sales isn't included in turnover though which means that 154% is high.

They were still a way from being self-financing but if they manage to stick around in the Premier League for a couple of years I imagine that will change.

[aggi]

Incredible that our profits are comparable to Arsenal over 10 years. Also interesting that most our profit is from Player Sales.

But perhaps the most startling thing is which teams are at the top and bottom of the wage to turnover ratio. The "top 6" are all running below 65% (well within the recommendation), whereas most of those running over 100% are Championship clubs. Suggests to me that this the gamble is being encouraged by the massive rewards of success.

Can someone explain the difference between profit and operating profit? Thanks

Championship clubs generally have horrendous wages to turnover ratios. They're all gambling on promotion to the Premier League.

[Roosterbooster]

That is exactly why their wages to turnover ratio is low

Indeed. But this is my point. When the gamble pays off, its well worth it. And just look at the number of clubs who have gambled over the years. And compare it to the number who have actually completely folded and ceased to exist (6 since 1992). None of them were Championship clubs. Loads of Championship clubs, among others lower down the pyramid, and an alarmingly worrying number of Conference teams, have gone into administration, but still survive! It's happened over 50 times since 1992. 5 are currently in the Premier League. 12 more have been in the Premier League. One has won the Premier League since. Bury managed it twice before they finally succumbed. Bournemouth, Palace, Portsmouth, Derby. Halifax, Darlington, Bradford, Chester, Port Vale, Rotherham - all twice. It seems you can gamble, gamble, gamble, and still be fine to carry on most of the time. The fans suffer. The owners just seem to walk away. Either the rewards are too great, or the punishments too lenient. Or possibly both...

[Dark Cloud]

Championship clubs generally have horrendous wages to turnover ratios. They're all gambling on promotion to the Premier League.

The problem is it's like the old "arms race" from the 50s and 60s. There's a mentality that if you don't join in, you will simply succumb, so clubs simply gamble more than the guys down the road. It really needs someone to call a halt and by someone I mean someone from among the clubs. It shouldn't be about "avoiding punishment" or taking huge gambles. It really should be about "doing the right thing for the future of the club" because it's the right thing to do! Burnley stand out on so many of those graphs and charts as a beacon of sensible running and sensible checks and balances, but it needs a whole load of others (primarily Championship clubs) because that's where most of the issues lie, to opt out of the arms race, for the good of the game tbh.

[aggi]

The problem is it's like the old "arms race" from the 50s and 60s. There's a mentality that if you don't join in, you will simply succumb, so clubs simply gamble more than the guys down the road. It really needs someone to call a halt and by someone I mean someone from among the clubs. It shouldn't be about "avoiding punishment" or taking huge gambles. It really should be about "doing the right thing for the future of the club" because it's the right thing to do! Burnley stand out on so many of those graphs and charts as a beacon of sensible running and sensible checks and balances, but it needs a whole load of others (primarily Championship clubs) because that's where most of the issues lie, to opt out of the arms race, for the good of the game tbh.

The story with Burnley is a bit more nuanced though.

Back under Cotterill and then Coyle the financial situation was getting steadily worse with wages up at 120% of turnover or similar. We gambled and fortunately Coyle worked a miracle and we were promoted to the Premier League which allowed us to reset and improve the playing squad to provide the foundations for when Dyche came. If that gamble hadn't paid off then there was a very good chance we'd have been in administration not long after.

[duncandisorderly]

Is there a legal reason why a maximum wage/limitless bonus system couldn't be introduced?
For example; maximum wage of £50,000 in the Premier League, but you could be on £1m a goal.

Not suggesting it would be a good idea, just wondering as to the legalities of it.

[Down_Rover]

Indeed. But this is my point. When the gamble pays off, its well worth it. And just look at the number of clubs who have gambled over the years. And compare it to the number who have actually completely folded and ceased to exist (6 since 1992). None of them were Championship clubs. Loads of Championship clubs, among others lower down the pyramid, and an alarmingly worrying number of Conference teams, have gone into administration, but still survive! It's happened over 50 times since 1992. 5 are currently in the Premier League. 12 more have been in the Premier League. One has won the Premier League since. Bury managed it twice before they finally succumbed. Bournemouth, Palace, Portsmouth, Derby. Halifax, Darlington, Bradford, Chester, Port Vale, Rotherham - all twice. It seems you can gamble, gamble, gamble, and still be fine to carry on most of the time. The fans suffer. The owners just seem to walk away. Either the rewards are too great, or the punishments too lenient. Or possibly both...

I understand your point but it is not as simple as that.

Most of the team who are in the green area have outstandingly rich owners or build their wealth before prices went bonkers. The most successful of the rest in that group could be Burnley if you measure it in terms of years served in the PL.

Nearly all in the red section are not in the PL now and Villa excepted over the last couple of years have failed

[Dark Cloud]

The story with Burnley is a bit more nuanced though.

Back under Cotterill and then Coyle the financial situation was getting steadily worse with wages up at 120% of turnover or similar. We gambled and fortunately Coyle worked a miracle and we were promoted to the Premier League which allowed us to reset and improve the playing squad to provide the foundations for when Dyche came. If that gamble hadn't paid off then there was a very good chance we'd have been in administration not long after.

Certainly agree with the initial part of this. We were staring into a big hole when Coyle got lucky/worked a miracle (depending on your perspective!) and we staved off the inevitable, BUT by the time Dyche arrived we'd returned to being nothing more than a middle/lower half Championship side with finances to match and any legacy from the Coyle era was long gone. Dyche worked a miracle of his own tbf and has worked it ever since, but the figures in those graphs point to us thinking about the longer term future of the club before thinking about more immediate glories and that's how it should be imo.