• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Premier League Club Accounts

billyiddo

Teddy Sheringham
Staff member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/23/premier-league-accounts-profit-debt

SPORT_TURNOVER_2405.gif
17Uti.png
 
Last edited:
fcuk, the red scum make some dough dont they?

why the heck isnt Joe Lewis giving us the money to build that damn stadium and we pay it back slowly....
 
It's surprising that Liverpool's match day income is double ours. They must sell a lot of pies.

You raise a good point, especially as we may have played more 'home' games then them including the european games..



However they did get to two finals.. I don't recall how often they played at home in the cup runs..
 
Broad cast figures ======== might be wrong place but i thought they are intresting.

Arsenal ?ú56.2m,
Aston Villa ?ú42.1m,
Blackburn ?ú40.3m,
Bolton ?ú40.6m,
Chelsea ?ú54.4m,
Everton ?ú48.9m,
Fulham ?ú47.4m,
Liverpool ?ú54.4m,
Emirates Marketing Project ?ú60.6m,
Manchester United ?ú60.3m,
Saudi Sportswashing Machine ?ú54.2m,
Norwich ?ú45.6m,
QPR ?ú43.3m,
Stoke ?ú43.6m,
Sunderland ?ú44.4m,
Swansea ?ú45.9m,
Tottenham ?ú57.3m,
West Brom ?ú46.6m,
Wigan ?ú42.8m,
Wolves ?ú39.1m.
 
Yeah those figures are from last season, the matchday income figures look a little sketchy to me though.
 
?ú256m is their turnover without the HIghbury flats, it was the figure the year before that which included them.

Just look at the matchday income figures though. Villa higher than us? Liverpool twice as much? Arsenal 4.5x as much and Utd 5.5x as much? That makes no sense.
 
?ú256m is their turnover without the HIghbury flats, it was the figure the year before that which included them.

Just look at the matchday income figures though. Villa higher than us? Liverpool twice as much? Arsenal 4.5x as much and Utd 5.5x as much? That makes no sense.

yep, something is wrong with these figures
 
Broad cast figures ======== might be wrong place but i thought they are intresting.

Arsenal ?ú56.2m,
Aston Villa ?ú42.1m,
Blackburn ?ú40.3m,
Bolton ?ú40.6m,
Chelsea ?ú54.4m,
Everton ?ú48.9m,
Fulham ?ú47.4m,
Liverpool ?ú54.4m,
Emirates Marketing Project ?ú60.6m,
Manchester United ?ú60.3m,
Saudi Sportswashing Machine ?ú54.2m,
Norwich ?ú45.6m,
QPR ?ú43.3m,
Stoke ?ú43.6m,
Sunderland ?ú44.4m,
Swansea ?ú45.9m,
Tottenham ?ú57.3m,
West Brom ?ú46.6m,
Wigan ?ú42.8m,
Wolves ?ú39.1m.

Isn't that based on where you finish the season in the league? The higher up the table you are, the more Sky money you get?
 
If these are the 11-12 season figures....


Why is it the teams from 10-11?


8-[

Because clubs generally schedule their financial year end for June / July, to coincide with the off season and the opening of the new transfer window. Player contracts are also generally geared around the same date - hence why a player signed in January will usually sign a 4.5 or 5.5 etc year deal rather than a 4 or 5 year deal.

Since no clubs have yet come to the end of their financial years (and since, anyway, it usually takes a further few months before they will publish the figures), articles such as this one will use the most recent available figures - those which apply to 2010-11 but which will have been published in 2011-12.
 
Back