collapse

Please donate to help keep this site going.

* The Fanzine

Heroes & Villains Fanzine



Get your fix of all things Claret & Blue by subscribing to the online version!

Recent Posts

Author Topic: Accounts, wages, turnover...  (Read 8215 times)

Offline 1_Pablo_Angel

  • reserve
  • *
  • Posts: 1049
Accounts, wages, turnover...
« on: August 12, 2010, 12:02:14 PM »
I've been trying to do a bit of research to back up the claim that in our last set of accounts wages were at about 85% of turnover... I remember seeing the article posted at the time, pretty sure it had a rather spiffy graph attached too, but I can't find it anywhere now. Wonder if anyone could point me in the right direction?

All I seem able to find are accounts for 07/08 which show the figure at 66%.

Offline jonzy85

  • first team
  • *
  • Posts: 2101
  • Location: Dublin
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2010, 12:04:33 PM »
That thread title belongs to one of the more boring modules I did in college, not on football forum.

The fact it is makes me want to cry...

Online paul_e

  • player manager
  • *
  • Posts: 14822
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Back from the frozen North
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2010, 12:08:07 PM »
try here

Oops, I went on the date of the article, reading it they're the 2007/2008 figures.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 12:09:40 PM by paul_e »

Offline 1_Pablo_Angel

  • reserve
  • *
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2010, 12:20:38 PM »
Yeah I've found those all over the place but not the next lot. Closest thing I can find to an actual article is a line in the Birmingham Mail about a 71m wage bill but obviously without a proper source.

Apologies Jonzy!

Online paul_e

  • player manager
  • *
  • Posts: 14822
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Back from the frozen North
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2010, 12:35:22 PM »
What the old ones show (and the assumed figures of 84m turnover and 71m wages) is that the sponsorship cash could have a big big effect.

The rumours all seem to suggest that the combined new sponsorship deals are worth about 12m, if that's the case and we assume no other changes to income and that the total for wages is not too different then we get...

71/84x100 = 84.5%
71/96x100 = 73.9%

so purely by getting the new sponsorship we've seen a 10.5% drop.

This clearly doesn't include the extra income generated from the cup runs either.  For a normal company that would still be pretty high but as we're privately owned it's less of a problem, add on that it's not unusual for sports clubs to 'run high' on wages (on the understanding that higher wages means increased chance of success, so more profit and better global exposure).


Offline Woofles The Wonder Dog

  • coach
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 8860
  • Location: Kent
  • GM : 12.07.2016
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2010, 12:36:48 PM »
Not 12m aa year though. Nice try. :-)

Offline jembob

  • first team
  • *
  • Posts: 1467
  • Location: Solihull
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2010, 12:44:26 PM »
1_Pablo_Angel. Sad as it may seem, I've been thinking of doing an analysis on the cost of individual players against playing time. I'm sure that the Club does this and is the root of concern as expensive assets are not being utilised. Although the wage to turnover ratio would be an obvious concern, from what General Krulak has said, they are fed up with money going down the drain as players on top wages never play.

A rough example might be:

Ashley Young gets approx 3M per annum and plays 45 games = cost approx 67K per game.

NRC gets approx 2M per annum and plays about 10 games = cost approx 200K per game.

Ouch! Value for money (ROI)  has to be a major concern for the club when you see it set out in writing like this!

If you could get some information which may shed light on that I think that it would equally as revealing.

Online paul_e

  • player manager
  • *
  • Posts: 14822
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Back from the frozen North
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2010, 12:49:29 PM »
Not 12m aa year though. Nice try. :-)

We'll probably never know exact figures but the fxpro one is at least 7.5m a year as it's the biggest deal we've ever had and the nike one works out at around 7m.  I'll admit 12 might be optimistic but 8m a year better off is a minimum, even that sees us down to around 77%.

Offline 1_Pablo_Angel

  • reserve
  • *
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2010, 12:56:38 PM »
1_Pablo_Angel. Sad as it may seem, I've been thinking of doing an analysis on the cost of individual players against playing time. I'm sure that the Club does this and is the root of concern as expensive assets are not being utilised. Although the wage to turnover ratio would be an obvious concern, from what General Krulak has said, they are fed up with money going down the drain as players on top wages never play.

A rough example might be:

Ashley Young gets approx 3M per annum and plays 45 games = cost approx 67K per game.

NRC gets approx 2M per annum and plays about 10 games = cost approx 200K per game.

Ouch! Value for money (ROI)  has to be a major concern for the club when you see it set out in writing like this!

If you could get some information which may shed light on that I think that it would equally as revealing.

Indeed it would be. Pretty horrendous even if you tallied up the average for Luke Young, Sidwell, NRC etc etc... Does sound like a lot of effort though! I'm after the turnover figures mostly to back up my argument with a staunchly pro Mon Irishman that something had to be done about them. It's annoying because I'm almost certain I've seen an article that quoted an 85/90% ratio... but I can't find it. Where does the 71m/84m figure actually come from?

Offline Villa'Zawg

  • player manager
  • *
  • Posts: 11005
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2010, 01:16:51 PM »
1_Pablo_Angel. Sad as it may seem, I've been thinking of doing an analysis on the cost of individual players against playing time. I'm sure that the Club does this and is the root of concern as expensive assets are not being utilised. Although the wage to turnover ratio would be an obvious concern, from what General Krulak has said, they are fed up with money going down the drain as players on top wages never play.

A rough example might be:

Ashley Young gets approx 3M per annum and plays 45 games = cost approx 67K per game.

NRC gets approx 2M per annum and plays about 10 games = cost approx 200K per game.

Ouch! Value for money (ROI)  has to be a major concern for the club when you see it set out in writing like this!

If you could get some information which may shed light on that I think that it would equally as revealing.

Indeed it would be. Pretty horrendous even if you tallied up the average for Luke Young, Sidwell, NRC etc etc... Does sound like a lot of effort though! I'm after the turnover figures mostly to back up my argument with a staunchly pro Mon Irishman that something had to be done about them. It's annoying because I'm almost certain I've seen an article that quoted an 85/90% ratio... but I can't find it. Where does the 71m/84m figure actually come from?

Whatever you say to him about those figures, won't he point out that 71m in wages is not bad at all for a top 6 club but 84m turnover is shite? Won't he just point out that the high ratio is due to poor turnover rather than high wages?

Offline 1_Pablo_Angel

  • reserve
  • *
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2010, 01:31:20 PM »
Sure, but the need to redress such a ratio still stands. This seems even more sensible when half the players that account for the high figure never get a game. Plus we are growing the turnover, but these things don't happen overnight. Anyway it's not that shit a turnover, bigger than Everton's.

I'm starting to think I imagined this article. I'm not, I'm sure I saw it because I remember thinking 'Shit! That's high.' But christ knows where it is.

Offline AV82EC

  • international
  • *
  • Posts: 4956
  • Location: Cotton Village with the Joy Division CD's
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2010, 01:49:58 PM »
My own view would be we need to try and at least hold the wages at that level as Turnover will have grown since that last set of accounts.

As some one suggested our Cup Runs last season, increased commercial income from Hospitality and the new sponsoship deal will all have a positive affect on the turnover figure.


Offline Tezmond

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 29
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2010, 02:38:34 PM »
long time lurker, this is the best article I've found with some scans of actual accounts:

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/03/07/revealed-villas-50m-transfers-and-2-4m-per-man-salaries-070302/

shocking read, and only sustainable if we'd hit top 4 and got CL cash to up Turnover. No wonder MoN went for broke trying for top 4 instead of Europe.

Offline TheSandman

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • Posts: 34781
  • Age: 27
  • Location: The seaside town that they forgot to bomb
  • GM : May, 2013
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2010, 02:46:24 PM »
Our turnover maybe shite but as someone says it is also bigger than Everton whose wagebill is just over 20million less. Everton being a team who in the previous two seasons to the last finished above us and whilst they did finish below us last season whether that would have happened had they not suffered a number of injuries to key players. This is something we have lived without.

Spurs, of course have a larger turnover but also a smaller wagebill.

I have the accounts somewhere. I'll have a look.

Offline 1_Pablo_Angel

  • reserve
  • *
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2010, 03:02:55 PM »
Great find Tezmond, thanks for that.