-
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
- Thread starter billyiddo
- Start date
Baleforce
Ron Henry
looks to me like they might actually have been pretty smart, they used the RA money to elevate their status, pretty much guaranteeing them european football every year and they are now attractive enough to young players that they can amass a talent pool and make a tidy profit on those they deem not worthy of the first team
These lists are always very interesting. Average wages in EPL ten times greater than most leagues and double than those in the top 5.
Question is: Why don't English clubs win and totally dominate the European football competitions more often?
because only the top 3/4 english teams qualify for the ucl. and the top 4-7 qualify for the europa league. the wage budgets of the top german, spanish teams is comparable to these top english sides.
the average salaries of the english premier league sides is so high because the lower sides can afford to spend so much on players too.
however given the fact that there is more money in the epl, if the epl was to adopt a more capitalistic revenue structure, they would no doubt dominate more. ie. instead of centralising tv revenue, if they let each team negotiate their own tv revenue (like spain), teams like us, arsenal, chelsea, city, liverpool, utd would have more money to spend on more/better players and be more competitive in europe.
the top english sides are generally hampered by the fact that they are forced to financially prop up the whole english football tree.
I would say that the whole reason why the EPL earns so much money is because most games are competitive. Its the secret of the financial success - with a more capitalist model after a few years then the total pot would reduce. After that, I would say that only one or two clubs would really benefit in terms of revenue.
The other interesting note is how good is it to be a Championship player. Not even playing at the elite level.
I think you may be right re there being more money in the epl because of its competitiveness. but im not convinced by that either. personally, i would rather see a capitalist model. simply because i think its a fairer way to allocate the revenue. anyways it doesnt matter. i think factors such as the centralised revenue system will eventually lead to a breakaway european super league. but thats another point altogether.
but re the championship, its the reason why it doesnt matter that there is so little english players in the premier league. people constantly argue (wrongly imo) that the english national team is weak because there are too many foreigners in the epl. the above table shows that it really doesnt matter.
the championship is stronger than many foreign leagues including the eredivisie and beligan pro league. there are plenty of young english players in the championship. and the championship provides a great platform for young english players to launch their careers.
Fairer how?
Certainly not in terms of sporting contest.
Football is already more about how much money a club has than about true competition. That will only get worse if the top clubs abandon the collective broadcasting deal. Spurs are probably one of a very few clubs that would be better off, purely in terms of revenues, if that happened. But we'd still find ourselves falling even further behind the top clubs.
It won't happen, of course, but the best way to restore true sporting competition to football would be for more revenue little bustards other than just broadcasting to fall under the collective umbrella. More akin to the American sports model. Ironic, isn't it, that the bastion of world capitalism should have, at the highest level, something of a communistic philosophy to professional sports.
Edit: why the **** does the word "s t r e a m s" get automatically changed to "little bustards"???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
fairer in terms of you get back what you put in. in a sporting sense, a capitalist model will no doubt polarise the league even more. i'm not disagreeing there.
people all over the world watch the premier league because they want to watch great athletes like aguero, yaya, ozil, hazard, falcao, rooney, rvp etc. the clubs(/owners) that are spending big money in order to bring these guys in to the league are the ones that are contributing to the global success of the league (and thus generating the immense revenue). the smaller clubs do contribute to the league too obviously. but they arent contributing as much as they are taking out. in essence, they are financial leeches to these big clubs.
the only reason the financial model of the league is setup as it is, is because there are many more of these "smaller" sides, and they can dictate their terms to the fewer but "larger clubs". however, just like how the premier league broke away in the early 90's, once the platform is there for these big european giants to break away, they will do it. because ultimately it makes absolutely no financial sense for a club like man utd to be leeched off by the likes of stoke.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
:-":-"
Which makes a compelling argument for even greater revenue sharing.
Just imagine......all those great players. But genuine, compelling competition too, as opposed to the normal one, two or three horse bore fest that the title race usually is.
i actually think that 2/3 super teams for the league be better for its global marketability. sports that have global appeal usually have a select number of stars. ie. tennis (federer, nadal, djo), golf (tiger woods), f1 (schumacher) etc. i think sports that dont have any clear superstars struggle to attract new fans who usually want to latch onto a "winning" star.
i dont mean to generalise too much. but, a lot of foreign fans watch teams like man utd because they want to associate themselves with the success of the club. no doubt their recent dip in form has caused a lot of those fans to stop watching/following man utd (and thus epl football). also, a lot of foreign fans have started following Emirates Marketing Project for those same reasons. if every club had a 1/20 chance of winning the league, i suspect those foreign football fans would choose to follow la liga instead as rooting for either one of the two super teams there will fullfill their needs to associate themselves with a succesful club.
you are right that if the revenue was distributed more evenly, the sporting competition would be closer and more compelling (from a purely sporting perspective). but ultimately, i dont think that is what the mass majority of epl fans want. if we were to break down the global viewing figures for the epl, i suspect 95%+ would follow one of the top 4 teams. if this monopoly was broken, a lot of that 95% would disappear as epl viewers/followers/fans imo. and that means less money in the league
That would be awesome.
All of which makes a cogent argument against the European Super League that you suggest is nigh on inevitable!
Manchester United’s income dropped by almost 10% in the first quarter of this financial year due to the club’s absence from the Champions League.
Revenue for the three months ending 30 September was £88.7m, down £9.8m compared to £98.5m for the same period a year ago, a 9.9% drop.
The fall in income, shown in accounts published on Tuesday, could have been even greater but the cost of United’s absence from European football has been partially compensated for by an increase in sponsorship money and a lower wage bill.United’s spending on employee benefits for the quarter fell by 3.5m, or 6.6%, to 49.4m, “primarily to lower player wages”, said the club in a statement.
United executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward confirmed the fall in revenue was mainly due to the absence from Europe. He said: “While we recognise that the 2014-15 fiscal year financial results will reflect our absence from the Champions League, we signed the largest kit sponsorship deal in the history of sport in the first quarter and, with that concluded, we are excited to focus our efforts on the meaningful growth opportunities in sponsorship, digital media and retail and merchandising.”
The overall drop in wages is due to a combination of United not having to pay out bonuses for playing in the Champions League, as well as an exodus of highly-paid players from the wage bill including Nemanja Vidic, Rio Ferdinand, Patrice Evra, Ryan Giggs, Danny Welbeck, Bebé, Javier Hernández, Tom Cleverley and Shinji Kagawa. Even though new manager Louis van Gaal has made a number of high-profile signings, including Angel di María and Radamel Falcao, he has still kept the wage bill lower than the squad under predecessor David Moyes.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/18/manchester-united-revenued-down-10-per-cent-10m
Revenue for the three months ending 30 September was £88.7m, down £9.8m compared to £98.5m for the same period a year ago, a 9.9% drop.
The fall in income, shown in accounts published on Tuesday, could have been even greater but the cost of United’s absence from European football has been partially compensated for by an increase in sponsorship money and a lower wage bill.United’s spending on employee benefits for the quarter fell by 3.5m, or 6.6%, to 49.4m, “primarily to lower player wages”, said the club in a statement.
United executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward confirmed the fall in revenue was mainly due to the absence from Europe. He said: “While we recognise that the 2014-15 fiscal year financial results will reflect our absence from the Champions League, we signed the largest kit sponsorship deal in the history of sport in the first quarter and, with that concluded, we are excited to focus our efforts on the meaningful growth opportunities in sponsorship, digital media and retail and merchandising.”
The overall drop in wages is due to a combination of United not having to pay out bonuses for playing in the Champions League, as well as an exodus of highly-paid players from the wage bill including Nemanja Vidic, Rio Ferdinand, Patrice Evra, Ryan Giggs, Danny Welbeck, Bebé, Javier Hernández, Tom Cleverley and Shinji Kagawa. Even though new manager Louis van Gaal has made a number of high-profile signings, including Angel di María and Radamel Falcao, he has still kept the wage bill lower than the squad under predecessor David Moyes.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/18/manchester-united-revenued-down-10-per-cent-10m
All of which makes a cogent argument against the European Super League that you suggest is nigh on inevitable!
i think over time, a few clubs will emerge as the clear giants in a european super league. i can easily see teams like arsenal just making up the numbers in that league (finishing somewhere between the middle and bottom of the table every season). but even they will want to be in the league. it will be pretty much the football competition that everyone around the world follows. the top tier in england will become what the npower championship is now. basically, it will only have a domestic following. and relative to the european super league, there won't be much money involved in the league. fwiw, i think english teams in a super league could still compete in the top english league. they will just be using a developmental team, somewhat like the capital one cup
Well, I don't think that the European Super League, if it ever happens, will be a breakaway league. I suspect that it will find it far easier to avoid sanction by the EU if it remains open to all, by means of promotion and relegation. I also expect that there would be two divisions of the European Super League - and that Spurs would be in at the beginning, at least in division 2.
If, however, there is a breakaway, then I think that any club involved will be outlawed from their domestic league.
I agree that there may be multiple tiers. but beyond that, i think it will be a closed league (in terms of there not being promotion/relegation from outside leagues). However, i think you would probably be allowed to purchase a spot in the league (similar to how new franchises can be purchased in mls).
When(/if) the breakaway happens, i think it will be massively led by the top clubs in europe. and they will see no reason to subject themsleves to the threat of total disaster that relegation brings. thats my reasoning for why they will close the league off. and i dont see why/how the EU would get involved tbh. the league will be run like an american sports franchise. what complaint could the EU possibly have?
And the clubs in the breakaway league may be banned, but i think at the end of the day it will come down to money. and those teams still have the most domestic fans and would bring massive attention/money to the domestic leagues. so to ban them would be detrimental to the domestic league.
EU competition laws would be a huge problem for any closed shop Super League. They would be vulnerable to law suits from all excluded clubs who would, quite rightly, argue that such a move would effectively kill them off.
But in the event that it did happen, there would be no benefit to the remaining clubs in continuing to allow Super League clubs to play in their domestic leagues. No one would be interested in watching games - in the stadium or on TV - involving those clubs' reserve teams.