Latest Premiership finances

From David Conn.

The key in all this is always the wage bills.  Fulham are in at £49m.

Chelsea: 174
City: 133
United: 132
Liverpool: 121
Arsenal: 110
Villa: 80
Spurs: 67
Sunderland: 54
Everton: 54
West Ham: 54
Fulham: 49
Blackburn: 47
Newcastle: 47
Bolton: 46
Stoke: 45
Wigan: 39
Birmingham: 38
Wolves: 30
WBA: 23
Blackpool: 13

These are 2010 figures, so may have shifted (City and Chelsea probably both up, United too I guess).

This is the going rate then: a half decent Premiership side for £45-55 million a year, which should make you safe enough if you don’t waste it (West Ham) but might not (Blackburn and Birmingham aren’t paying much less than us. You can argue that we’ve spent our money more effectively, but it does go to show that the margins are quite fine.)

I can’t work out Spurs at all.  It feels as if they ought to be much higher – how can they have a wage bill that’s just over half that of Liverpool’s?

13 thoughts on “Latest Premiership finances

  1. Spurs will no doubt have some “creative accounting” invlolved in its numbers, the one that surprised me was Sunderland, big squad, several biggish names last year.

  2. Divide each club’s current total of league points by your figures here and the table stands on its head.

    I knew that Blackpool kept a very tight budget but West Brom surprise me. I remember Tony Mowbray being adamant that they would not break their wage structure when Gera joined us. It will be a real test for Roy if they stick to this figure.

    1. You’re not wrong. Formatting is probably a bit hooky but this places team in order of points achieved per millions spent. I think we’d all like to see the league run on this basis!

      Blackpool 13 39 3
      WBA 23 46 2
      Wolves 30 40 1.333333333
      Birmingham 38 39 1.026315789
      Stoke 45 46 1.022222222
      Bolton 46 46 1
      Wigan 39 39 1
      Fulham 49 48 0.979591837
      Newcastle 47 45 0.957446809
      Everton 54 51 0.944444444
      Spurs 67 59 0.880597015
      Blackburn 47 40 0.85106383
      Sunderland 54 44 0.814814815
      West Ham 54 33 0.611111111
      Arsenal 110 67 0.609090909
      United 132 77 0.583333333
      Villa 80 45 0.5625
      City 133 68 0.511278195
      Liverpool 121 58 0.479338843
      Chelsea 174 71 0.408045977

  3. Newcastle took a gamble, effectively paying the same wages as us to guarantee a move back to the premier league.

    I have to say, for our money we have a vastly superior squad.

    Spurs are frankly amazing, whatever you think of them. Levy knows what he is doing financially, remember he got £30m for Berbatov, so he knows how to sell at the top of the market.

    Their wages will increase this season no doubt, with the addition of Sandro, Van Der Vaart and increased deals for the likes of Bale.

  4. But is this just players, or is it the total wages bill? i.e does it include the management team, admin, groundsmen etc. This might explain the Spurs figure. I read somewhere that they are pretty lean in terms of their management team, whereas we’ve all heard that Hughes has a big entourage. So our total wages bill might have gone up significantly with Hughes’s arrival.

    1. Further to that, on a Villa site it says they had 134 ‘football related employees’ in 08/09 costing 60 mill. That’s a lot of people.

    2. Redknapp’s back up team includes Jordan, Bond, Les Ferdinand, Clive Allan and a former midfielder whose name I’ve forgotten. Not likely to be cheaper than ours.

      These are wage figures from profit and loss accounts and must include employees other than players.

      Different clubs will operate differently. Not all player remuneration will be wages and some club activities may be outsourced and the cost shown as something other than wages.

      I wouldn’t draw too many conclusions from these figures.

  5. For all the talk of Moyes going to Villa, I can now see why: nearly a 50% increase in available wage bill (or is my math off?)

    1. and that doesn’t include Darren Bent. I don’t know where the money’s going though. As Tony says, perhaps not apples and apples.

      1. Not too sure how the wages break down but we can look at some transfer fees over the years and try to deduct some conclusions about the wages attached therein (although I’m fully aware looking at transfer fees are often not accurate for a teams salary outlay)

        Nigel Reo-Coker — £7.5m
        Luke Young — £6m
        Carlos Cuéllar — £7.8m
        James Milner — £12m
        Stewart Downing — £10m

        Not to mention the other undisclosed transfers…

  6. So Fulham received $12M for their jaunt into the Europa League? That is a hefty sum and I wonder what that includes, ticket sales, merchandising, etc.? I wonder if that figure was that high only because of how far they progressed…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s