Cheers. Could find a few new rules about offside and handball, but nothing about that
ECHO Comment: "Fears of Witch-hunt Against Liverpool FC" part 3
- Thread starter cronullasharks
- Start date
Niasse likes this
EverTheOptimist
Player Valuation: £8m
The link i showed was from a source that used actual turnover results from turnovers reported for 19-20 season, as i'll say again turnover for the prior season haven't been reported yet as the window for turning them to companies house is months away.
So they are the only figures for wages so far to be used, as they are official wages figures.
And wages to turnover is important anyway you look at it, an example a club has a wages to turnover of 55%-65% which is the ideal optimum number for FFP of turnover can use that 45%-55% to use on say examples of contract renewals, new training ground ,Stadium upgrades and player aquisitions and debt payments.
So answer this.
Example A . A club has a £600 million turnover and spends £350 million on wages, that's in the 50-60% range with £250 million of cash reserves from that season to use on and off the pitch going forward.
Example B. Another club spends wages far lower than Example A club's £350 million but has a wages to turnover of 80%-90%.
Which club is stronger financially mate?
Awaits your answer.
Last edited:
catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
The link i showed was from a source that used actual turnover results from turnovers reported for 19-20 season, as i'll say again turnover for the prior season haven't been reported yet as the window for turning them to companies house is months away.
So they are the only figures for wages so far to be used, as they are official wages figures.
And wages to turnover is important anyway you look at it, an example a club has a wages to turnover of 55%-65% which is the ideal optimum number for FFP of turnover can use that 45%-55% to use on say examples of contract renewals, new training ground ,Stadium upgrades and player aquisitions and debt payments.
So answer this.
Example A . A club has a £600 million turnover and spends £350 million on wages, that's in the 50-60% range with £250 million of cash reserves from that season to use on and off the pitch going forward.
Example B. Another club spends wages far lower than Example A club's £350 million but has a wages to turnover of 80%-90%.
Which club is stronger financially mate?
Awaits your answer.
But you're answering a question that wasnt set.
It's kind of why I'm not entirely sure you're aware of what wages to turnover really means.
The discussion was about wage spend, not about financial health. Wages to turnover is not a very good measure to tell you about how much a company spends on wages by comparison to its competitors. In fact it's an unhelpful measure, hence why I'm not sure why you have tried to crowbar it in. You're either a bad faith actor, or you dont really have any idea what the ratio really means.
On the 2nd point, the salaries listed in the accounts are the official salaries. What a click bait website reports them to be is sort of irrelevant. As I indicated before, I will go off what the audited accounts of an organisation provide.
They have Liverpool 3/4th (depending on which exchange rate is used) in the world on salary spend. That's a huge outlay, to win nothing, and not get closed to winning anything either. Having a high or low turnover does nothing to change this, and adds nothing to this discussion, so it's not really worth bringing in. It just kind of illustrates you dont really know what you're talking about.
PaddyJames
Player Valuation: £25m
They won the league* in 19-20 didn't they?
Yarrgh
Player Valuation: £70m
I like how you liken yourself to an eager Nazi in your gif.The link i showed was from a source that used actual turnover results from turnovers reported for 19-20 season, as i'll say again turnover for the prior season haven't been reported yet as the window for turning them to companies house is months away.
So they are the only figures for wages so far to be used, as they are official wages figures.
And wages to turnover is important anyway you look at it, an example a club has a wages to turnover of 55%-65% which is the ideal optimum number for FFP of turnover can use that 45%-55% to use on say examples of contract renewals, new training ground ,Stadium upgrades and player aquisitions and debt payments.
So answer this.
Example A . A club has a £600 million turnover and spends £350 million on wages, that's in the 50-60% range with £250 million of cash reserves from that season to use on and off the pitch going forward.
Example B. Another club spends wages far lower than Example A club's £350 million but has a wages to turnover of 80%-90%.
Which club is stronger financially mate?
Awaits your answer.
perth_blue
Player Valuation: £20m
QUIET, ALL OF YOU!
...
They're approaching the Tyrannosaur paddock...
...
They're approaching the Tyrannosaur paddock...
messymascot
Player Valuation: £35m
I think you are wasting your energy engaging here. Everything you say is spot on. The team spending 3rd/4th on wages should be winning something. The point he is making actually makes his Kopite defence worse as if they have a turnover that reduces the percentage it means they have a bigger spending capacity which means their failure is even worse.
EverTheOptimist
Player Valuation: £8m
You were the one educated about wages to turnover by another poster here last month, I remember that, and still you cannot find any correlation that they are tied together.
Another example, Spurs had a wages to turnover below 50% and got financing straight away for a stadium, why because bank lenders saw a club financially strong with strong cash flow to lend them the money knowing the club will not default.
Contrast that with getting funding for BMD, still no record of getting any, why is that because wages to turnover has been average over 80% the last 3 seasons, and not much cash flow coming out of the club for lender or lenders to feel comfortable.
Again the link used in the article came from companies house where clubs in England post their turnover results for public viewing with the tighest of auditing possible, it also got results from the french,Italian Spanish equivalents.
Laughable how you say wages to turnover is not a good measure,......well for one it shows the actual wages spent and as an added bonus you can work out how much wages they actually use for the year from what they earn, and with a super added bonus to see which clubs are strong financially with how much after wages spent.lol
You never answered the previous question, which club is strong financially, Example A or Example B?
Last edited:
catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
I have learnt lots on this forum, and elsewhere, as I'm sure most people have, but I can't say I recall being taught about turnover here a month ago. Can I ask when that was? Or is this in the same world that you state OGS is tactically inept and didn't finish above Klopp last season?
Again you don't really seem to have read, or comprehended anything else I've written. I haven't said wages to turnover isn't a worthwhile or useful measure (as it is) but just that it had no worth in the context of what we were discussing. This is about the 4th occasion now that you have just mansplained a fairly basic concept back which everyone already knows. The art of good conversation is not just rant and repeating your bit of knowledge, but listening to what's being said to you, and grasping the context of the discussion.
For about the 4th time, the discussion was about levels of wage spend and the correlation with performance. In that context, adding turnover doesn't add anything to that discussion. There are other discussions whereby it is an interesting is a little elementary point (it's fairly novice level of reading of financial statements but nevertheless it has some value).
The best indicator of where you will finish is the wages spent, not wages to turnover. In all honesty wages to turnover doesn't really give you much of an indication at all. It's a base level analysis for the efficiency and strategic decision making of an organisation. I don't think I'd know anyone who would use it in that context.
As for the question, I ignored it, because as with all of the above, it just doesn't have any relevance to the discussion. It's a bit of a crude question, as there are all sort of metrics that indicate financial strength, and I wouldn't really judge a business solely on 1 ratio, based on 2 numbers. However if you want to reduce it down to such a binary choice, the business with the lower wages to turnover is likely to be in a healthier financial position. I think everyone knows that, so it doesn't need answering. The real issue is, why would you want to input a completely irrelevant question to a discussion about wage spent versus performance.
I have seen the numbers you've given for wages, and it looks like they are out of date. I have given you the updated figures, hence why there is a difference. Liverpool are now 3/4th in the world on wage spend. If you're going to make statements about differences on wage spend (or other areas) it's probably best to use the most up to date information available as a general rule. It's also probably best to approach discussions from a standpoint of attempting to grasp what the discussion is about and contribute to it, rather than using it as platform to repetitively spout fairly elementary financial equations in order to try and show you understand wages to turnover. We have gathered that now. Your next challenge is to know when to use that bit of knowledge appropriately. Id also avoid the inaccurate assumption that just because somebody tactfully ignores irrelevant information they don't understand it. They just understand how and when to apply it.
Probably on your 4th account and still can't help yourself with this ?
4737carlin
Player Valuation: £90m
Has he got a pencil in his pocket or is he just pleased to see him
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
