ENIC

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

According to Deliotte we had the 11th highest wage bill in Europe in 24/25 - so a drop of 2 places in comparison to turnover if it's correct we are 9th. In terms of net transfer spend we're likely a few notches higher than 9th over the last 5 years or so. A quick Google throws up a table from 24 showing us as 4th highest net spend over the 5 years previous.

So 'under spending' on wages by a couple of places vs 'over spending' on transfers by 5 places.

Hard to argue we aren’t spending in line with our position with that taken in to consideration.

Isn’t the issue not our place in those tables but the size of the delta between those above us? So it’s not, ‘are we where we’re supposed to be’ (which is arguably true) and rather, ‘what would need to happen to push on?’

I note that the clubs immediately above us in the Deloitte Money League are United, Arsenal, City, and Liverpool, with Chelsea just below on revenue but I’m sure higher on wages.

Would be interested to read from the same source you have on wages, I just couldn’t find it with my quick searching. But given West Ham are 20th in this table and Villa 14th, it doesn’t say much for me. The PL is the strongest league. So it’s about can we get closer to the clubs above us in real terms.

 

[billyiddo]

Isn’t the issue not our place in those tables but the delta between those above us? So it’s not, ‘are we where we’re supposed to be’ (which is arguably true) and rather, ‘what would need to happen to push on?’

I note that the clubs immediately above us in the Deloitte Money League are United, Arsenal, City, and Liverpool, with Chelsea just below on revenue but I’m sure higher on wages.

Would be interested to read from the same source you have on wages, I just couldn’t find it with my quick searching. But given West Ham are 20th in this table and Villa 14th, it doesn’t say much for me. The PL is the strongest league. So it’s about can we get closer to the clubs above us in real terms.

I was only commenting in response to Rob who was saying that we don't spend at the level our place in the turnover table dictates.

Wages :

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/s/Hl3JYXiiEK

Transfers :

20 football clubs with the highest net spend in last five seasons revealed - Real Madrid 19th

Leeds United and Nottingham Forest both have a higher net spend than Real Madrid across the last five seasons 🤯

www.givemesport.com

 

[Lilbaz]

What I am stating is that based on being 9th in revenue we should be somewhere close to 9th in terms of investment in playing squad and success. We’re not, and it cannot be excused for much longer. Especially when you consider the man difference between ourselves and the teams like Liverpool & Arsenal in terms of revenue is purely down to the prize mine and additional tv money they make from being better on the pitch.

Outside of the Glazers very few owners are taking dividends. They use the clubs as assets to borrow money against at low interest rates and buy up additional assets without a tax burden. So while the Lewis family has not been taking a salary and dividends from the club each year, he has been using the clun to grow his wealth with considerably. The revenue base to do this only exists due to the loyal fanbase.

We have spent money on transfer fees but our wage spend has been significantly lower than our rivals and when that’s all considered we are not the 9th highest spenders in world football despite the revenues placing us there. It’s also not how clubs account for expenditure on players. It’s transfer fee + wages + bonuses combined and averaged out for the length of the contract. I’m sure you know this but your also arguing on ENICs behalf.

We're 5th biggest spenders on transfers. Since 2022 (tried to do 5 years but it woudn't load).

Transfer income and expenditure

Diese Statistik zeigt, welche Vereine in der Saison 22/23 bis 25/26 die höchsten Transferausgaben bzw. Transfereinnahmen verzeichnen konnten.

www.transfermarkt.co.uk

Wages. Currently 14th.

Man City 2nd, Barca 4th - Which European clubs have the highest wage bills?

While football is clearly a sport that is defined by the quality of the players on the pitch, over the course of the last three or four decades it has come to resemble an arms race that has often been [...]

www.transfermarkt.co.uk

If you average it out our spend overall is probably around 9/10th, in the world.

 

[billyiddo]

We're 5th biggest spenders on transfers. Since 2022 (tried to do 5 years but it woudn't load).

Transfer income and expenditure

Diese Statistik zeigt, welche Vereine in der Saison 22/23 bis 25/26 die höchsten Transferausgaben bzw. Transfereinnahmen verzeichnen konnten.

www.transfermarkt.co.uk

Wages. Currently 14th.

Man City 2nd, Barca 4th - Which European clubs have the highest wage bills?

While football is clearly a sport that is defined by the quality of the players on the pitch, over the course of the last three or four decades it has come to resemble an arms race that has often been [...]

www.transfermarkt.co.uk

If you average it out our spend overall is probably around 9/10th, in the world.

Fag packet calcs - but using 9th as our true position as per robs post (9th highest turnover) then we're spending 300m more in transfers than the 9th place side, add 1/5 of that 'over spend' on to our wage bill (5 year net spend vs yearly wage bill) and we jump from 14th to 10th on the wage table - room to go further but not by much.

 

[Gazza]

Fag packet calcs - but using 9th as our true position as per robs post (9th highest turnover) then we're spending 300m more in transfers than the 9th place side, add 1/5 of that 'over spend' on to our wage bill (5 year net spend vs yearly wage bill) and we jump from 14th to 10th on the wage table - room to go further but not by much.

Get to duty free, pick up a sleeve and then come back to me with the exact numbers … or put it on a stamp.

brick recruitment on average players
Not willing to go above for better players for wages sake.

Honestly our transfer strategy should be to buy 2 top players a year. Not spending the same amount on 5.

I’d rather us get better players and build the team from there rather than the players looking at each other wondering who is going to carry them.

Further to that, the wages are most likely cheaper for 2 top players than 5 overpaid ones.

Add some Tottenham youth and you will always have the crowd on your side.

 

[billyiddo]

Get to duty free, pick up a sleeve and then come back to me with the exact numbers … or put it on a stamp.

brick recruitment on average players
Not willing to go above for better players for wages sake.

Honestly our transfer strategy should be to buy 2 top players a year. Not spending the same amount on 5.

I’d rather us get better players and build the team from there rather than the players looking at each other wondering who is going to carry them.

Further to that, the wages are most likely cheaper for 2 top players than 5 overpaid ones.

Add some Tottenham youth and you will always have the crowd on your side.

Our problem has been how we spend our money and what we spend it on, rather than the amount we spend.

 

[robp135]

We're 5th biggest spenders on transfers. Since 2022 (tried to do 5 years but it woudn't load).

Transfer income and expenditure

Diese Statistik zeigt, welche Vereine in der Saison 22/23 bis 25/26 die höchsten Transferausgaben bzw. Transfereinnahmen verzeichnen konnten.

www.transfermarkt.co.uk

Wages. Currently 14th.

Man City 2nd, Barca 4th - Which European clubs have the highest wage bills?

While football is clearly a sport that is defined by the quality of the players on the pitch, over the course of the last three or four decades it has come to resemble an arms race that has often been [...]

www.transfermarkt.co.uk

If you average it out our spend overall is probably around 9/10th, in the world.

And this is what we’ve got!!!

 

[SirPercyHotspur]

How many of them have built brand new stadiums recently?....

In the Bloomberg interview Levy said the value of the Tottenham Hotspur stadium name was worth a lot of money as opposed to naming rights , I think on financial matters I would go along with Levy's expertise against your average football fans view..
Have a look at Hill D?ckinson accounts and estimate how much they are paying Everton on naming rights , looking at their profits it's not a lot.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

This would all make perfect sense if we were spending the percentage of our revenue on the playing squad that’s in line with other clubs.

Give us the % of our revenue we are spending on the squad?

Then give the actual £ amount that is pa...and we can see if it does make sense?

Edit: already been done I see

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

West Ham have built f@ck all.

....is that a regular retort to him indoors?

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Isn’t the issue not our place in those tables but the size of the delta between those above us? So it’s not, ‘are we where we’re supposed to be’ (which is arguably true) and rather, ‘what would need to happen to push on?’

And that's where your 'put a bit more money in' request falls down.

It could easily be 'a lot more money'

And if your starting point is an 'investment vehicle'....the risk/reward and ROI just doesn't stack up.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

And that's where your 'put a bit more money in' request falls down.

It could easily be 'a lot more money'

And if your starting point is an 'investment vehicle'....the risk/reward and ROI just doesn't stack up.

I totally agree with you. Which is why I arrived at the point over the summer and maybe before where I was arguing for new owners. for the exact reason that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze for ENIC to put enough money in to close the gap above us. They need to put just enough in to maintain the distance below.

It’s not like I want ENIC to do more. I want them to sell.

 

[Raziel]

Isn’t it more that the critique is of the owners rather than Levy running the club on a sustainable, break even basis. I think it’s fair to say all profits are reinvested back in, and I think totally fair to praise Levy for the job he has done under the constraints in which he operated.

Levy also then delivered us the PSR headroom, so then the critique becomes, could the owners have put in a bit more money to push us on when the opportunity was there? I’d suggest the reason they didn’t is because they could be fairly sure we could still be about 6th just by doing nothing, and to make us title challengers it starts really eating in to whatever profit they think they will ultimately realise when they sell.

Them putting a bit more in would have benefitted us as fans, and it might have placated eg Poch who wanted just a little bit more room to play with, and maybe we’d be in a much better position right now. But I’m not sure it’s worth it to ENIC specifically to put more in, and that’s fair I think the critique is fair.

I totally agree with you. Which is why I arrived at the point over the summer and maybe before where I was arguing for new owners. for the exact reason that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze for ENIC to put enough money in to close the gap above us. They need to put just enough in to maintain the distance below.

It’s not like I want ENIC to do more. I want them to sell.

So again, being rational

- There is an argument that the owners putting more money, had that delivered better on field results, the club would be worth more

I'm not sure I believe it, if you compare us to Chelsea, we have our Infrastructure sorted for next 20 years, they haven't even started, most years we generate more money that them, yet on field they have had more success. Does anyone believe if we had won the CL when we made final and won PL the Leicester year and throw in a random domestic cup or two, we would be worth double the value of Chelsea? I don't so I can see the owner reluctance to push the boat out more. And this doesn't even get into how much is pushing the boat out, 200M, 600M, more?

So like you, the best result for us as fans would probably be a sale where at least some part of the sale is guaranteed investment into first team squad. And that likely will bring some moral/ethical compromise with it

 

[FolkestoneSpur]

View attachment 21662

Ha ha, I genuinely thought Hill dingdonginson was some old influential manager or chairman from the past like Arthur Rowe or Bobby Buckle.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

So again, being rational

- There is an argument that the owners putting more money, had that delivered better on field results, the club would be worth more

I'm not sure I believe it, if you compare us to Chelsea, we have our Infrastructure sorted for next 20 years, they haven't even started, most years we generate more money that them, yet on field they have had more success. Does anyone believe if we had won the CL when we made final and won PL the Leicester year and throw in a random domestic cup or two, we would be worth double the value of Chelsea? I don't so I can see the owner reluctance to push the boat out more. And this doesn't even get into how much is pushing the boat out, 200M, 600M, more?

So like you, the best result for us as fans would probably be a sale where at least some part of the sale is guaranteed investment into first team squad. And that likely will bring some moral/ethical compromise with it

Yeah I think the calculation is, how much more money do we need to put in, to meaningfully increase the valuation from where it is, especially when success isn’t guaranteed. We would need sustained trophies, probably at least one every 2-3 years, and a league title has to be one of them every 3-4 years I would think. And would that even be enough? I don’t know, but there was a piece going around over the summer about how ‘success’ was a new valuation metric for clubs.

But yeah, I can imagine ENIC looking at it and going ‘to invest in sustained success over the next 5-10 years, with as many trophies as possible, that’s a billion pounds minimum’. To which they would then realise it cuts into almost half (or whatever the current valuation is) the profit they will have made on increasing the valuation of the club. And even if they had the liquidity, there’s no way that’s worth it to them.

I appreciate they are loosening the wage bill seemingly, but I think that’s probably a response to Villa and Saudi Sportswashing Machine threatening our position in the European spots, or maybe the fact that 7 qualify most years giving them the confidence that we’ll always have that additional revenue. But they simply aren’t going to be the owners to push us on consistently. It makes no sense for them.

We unfortunately will need new owners who need the club probably in part to burnish their reputation. Or some other wealthy entity that uses us as a plaything, Sucks, but it is what it is.

(Unless Levy comes back with a consortium, and truly wants to deliver trophies. And is capable of being the front man to a new money project. Hilariously, this might be the best possible outcome we can hope for.)

 

[robp135]

And that's where your 'put a bit more money in' request falls down.

It could easily be 'a lot more money'

And if your starting point is an 'investment vehicle'....the risk/reward and ROI just doesn't stack up.

The only reason for the delta is on pitch performance and the revenue that comes from it.

Total Revenue 2024/25
1. Real Madrid £1.16B
2. Barcelona £974M
3. Bayern Munich £861M
4. Paris Saint-Germain £837M
5. Liverpool £836M
6. Emirates Marketing Project £829M
7. Arsenal £821M
8. Manchester United £793M
9. Tottenham Hotspur £672M
10. Chelsea £584M

Now deduct in the money each team made from UEFA Competitions and Premierleague finish. We’re at 90% of Liverpool. 96% of Arsenal. This doesn’t take into account the additional sponsorship revenue they get from being more successful. There is only a delta between us and the true elite clubs.

1. Manchester United £744M
2. Emirates Marketing Project £712M
3. Liverpool £694M
4. Arsenal £666M
5. Tottenham Hotspur £625M
6. Chelsea £517M

 

[Muttley]

Yeah I think the calculation is, how much more money do we need to put in, to meaningfully increase the valuation from where it is, especially when success isn’t guaranteed. We would need sustained trophies, probably at least one every 2-3 years, and a league title has to be one of them every 3-4 years I would think. And would that even be enough? I don’t know, but there was a piece going around over the summer about how ‘success’ was a new valuation metric for clubs.

But yeah, I can imagine ENIC looking at it and going ‘to invest in sustained success over the next 5-10 years, with as many trophies as possible, that’s a billion pounds minimum’. To which they would then realise it cuts into almost half (or whatever the current valuation is) the profit they will have made on increasing the valuation of the club. And even if they had the liquidity, there’s no way that’s worth it to them.

I appreciate they are loosening the wage bill seemingly, but I think that’s probably a response to Villa and Saudi Sportswashing Machine threatening our position in the European spots, or maybe the fact that 7 qualify most years giving them the confidence that we’ll always have that additional revenue. But they simply aren’t going to be the owners to push us on consistently. It makes no sense for them.

We unfortunately will need new owners who need the club probably in part to burnish their reputation. Or some other wealthy entity that uses us as a plaything, Sucks, but it is what it is.

(Unless Levy comes back with a consortium, and truly wants to deliver trophies. And is capable of being the front man to a new money project. Hilariously, this might be the best possible outcome we can hope for.)

Whilst I do agree, I still think I'd like to see a period of optimisation of the hand we've been dealt. It really frustrates me that we can become the 4th or 5th biggest spenders over a decent period of time and can't turn up to 15 clubs in the PL and think of ourselves as favourites. I find it massively unintelligent of the club to buy this sheer quantity of players and then watch us selling them again within a year or two. We need to buy half as many players as we do and focus on the younger age group. It would also be nice to see us settle in a single philosophy as we select managers. Even if we don't keep that manager, we're primed to continue better with the new guy.

I also think Tavistrock/ENIC need to fix their culture where it is OK to fail on the football pitch. It represents itself in every little thing that the employees of the club do. That is no better represented in so many players past and present, even international captains who wouldn't dare the shenanigans for their countries, or new clubs that we've seen when they cross the white line for us. Even our current captain thinks it is OK to lose all discipline because you can just apologise on Monday morning and get a hug from your team mates. That culture doesn't exist in the absolute winning clubs.

I think if we optimised what we have to work with and then came up short of our ultimate aspirations then it is OK to then crave new owners. What I would say is that so much of what we're seeing is legacy. It is incredibly early to measure the new leadership group who are only 6 months in.

 

[metalgear]

The only reason for the delta is on pitch performance and the revenue that comes from it.

Total Revenue 2024/25
1. Real Madrid £1.16B
2. Barcelona £974M
3. Bayern Munich £861M
4. Paris Saint-Germain £837M
5. Liverpool £836M
6. Emirates Marketing Project £829M
7. Arsenal £821M
8. Manchester United £793M
9. Tottenham Hotspur £672M
10. Chelsea £584M

Now deduct in the money each team made from UEFA Competitions and Premierleague finish. We’re at 90% of Liverpool. 96% of Arsenal. This doesn’t take into account the additional sponsorship revenue they get from being more successful. There is only a delta between us and the true elite clubs.

1. Manchester United £744M
2. Emirates Marketing Project £712M
3. Liverpool £694M
4. Arsenal £666M
5. Tottenham Hotspur £625M
6. Chelsea £517M

revenue is part of the whole story
we've got lots of interest to pay - some way its low interest so its good. About 25 years of loans and the balance between paying up and having funds to be competitive in the transfer market is going to be interesting.

clearly under levy we have over invested in non-football stuff and the football is uncompetitive and this must change

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

The only reason for the delta is on pitch performance and the revenue that comes from it.

Total Revenue 2024/25
1. Real Madrid £1.16B
2. Barcelona £974M
3. Bayern Munich £861M
4. Paris Saint-Germain £837M
5. Liverpool £836M
6. Emirates Marketing Project £829M
7. Arsenal £821M
8. Manchester United £793M
9. Tottenham Hotspur £672M
10. Chelsea £584M

Now deduct in the money each team made from UEFA Competitions and Premierleague finish. We’re at 90% of Liverpool. 96% of Arsenal. This doesn’t take into account the additional sponsorship revenue they get from being more successful. There is only a delta between us and the true elite clubs.

1. Manchester United £744M
2. Emirates Marketing Project £712M
3. Liverpool £694M
4. Arsenal £666M
5. Tottenham Hotspur £625M
6. Chelsea £517M

Without delving into the detail I agree.

Liverpool and Arsenal are well within the same orbit as us. And the reason they are important is they have shown they can be successful with those similar resources. (Although Arsenal haven't been successful yet, let's remind ourselves).

So beyond them maybe having a bit more legacy pull than us when chasing players, it is possible to achieve.

One thing I would say, is I know Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal fans that looked at us with envy during Pochs time here (although Liverpool then started to reap the benefits of their Messiah arriving).
And we certainly didn't have more money then, just simply a manager that knew what he was doing.

 

[robp135]

revenue is part of the whole story
we've got lots of interest to pay - some way its low interest so its good. About 25 years of loans and the balance between paying up and having funds to be competitive in the transfer market is going to be interesting.

clearly under levy we have over invested in non-football stuff and the football is uncompetitive and this must change

@Raziel Operationally the club has been the 2nd most profitable in the Premierleague since we got out of Covid and the stadium was in full use.

The reported losses are primarily accounting losses caused by stadium depreciation and not because the club is losing cash. Depreciation is deductible for accounting purposes and lowers the tax burden on the club as well.