- Status
85% of turonver on wages.
Need to have a good year regarding losses to get by the premier leagues FFP rules.
Have to be savvy in the summer regarding signings.
Need to have a good year regarding losses to get by the premier leagues FFP rules.
Have to be savvy in the summer regarding signings.
chrismpw
Player Valuation: £70m
Savvy Bill Kenwright style: "Good morning Mr Messi how would you like to come and play for Everton with no wages? Think of the tax perks."
Disgruntledgoat
Player Valuation: £50m
BlueStevie35
Player Valuation: £70m
To answer your point in bold, absolutely no one puts their own net worth into funding for a stadium, they may put a bit here and a bit there but everyone always uses alternative routes for the bulk of the costs
As for your worries about doing a Leeds/QPR/Sunderland etc, in a year’s time the wage turnover, operating losses and club debt will all be significantly reduced (hell the club debt is that small that a player sale would easily wipe it out)
If I knew all the answers I would be a billionaire not a 39 hr a week PAYE worker.
Dont fret lad the USM lads have this sorted
A few lads are not happy we are getting money for old rope.
Gaffa
Player Valuation: £10m
39 hours? Plenty of jobs out there mate at 35 hours.
After 37 years here I will stick it out here for another year or 2 and accept the pension and the redundancy
Pray tell if there was beak,brass or booze involved
Disgruntledgoat
Player Valuation: £50m
Azza
Player Valuation: £80m
As I posted last night wages were 79% of turnover in 2012. We've always had a generally high wages % of turnover. That's one of the reason why we have to get these early loans guaranteed against TV money to assist with cash flow because of revenue streams only kick in when the season starts.
Increased revenue will only come from 1) New stadium 2) On field success
These are the PL teams that had a wage % of turnover over 70% in 2018
Bournemouth - 76%
Palace - 78%
Everton - 77%
Leicester - 75%
Southampton - 75%
Stoke - 74%
Swansea - 71%
WBA - 74%
Generally these teams are A) Trying to compete in some form (top 6 or stay in the league) so spending big on wages and B) Have small revenue streams
Look at the top 6 wage % of turnover
Arsenal - 60%
Chelsea - 55%
Liverpool - 58%
Man City - 52%
Man U - 50%
Spurs - 39%
On field success meaning regular European football leads to higher commercial income, bigger revenue, high wages but still a small % of turnover.
Commercial & sponsorship income
Arsenal - £107m
Chelsea - £107m
Liverpool - £154m
Man City - £232m
Man U - £276m
Spurs - £109m
Meanwhile ours was £43m
not much of a band if there was no beak or booze involved
A polka band perhaps
Disgruntledgoat
Player Valuation: £50m
not much of a band if there was no beak or booze involved
A polka band perhaps
Last off topic one: Mods don't shoot me.
It's like herding cats getting them organized straight, if I'm introducing anything else to the equation they're a nightmare. I may as well just set the studio money on fire.
brieverton
Player Valuation: £40m
I hope eventually shifting all of the so-called deadwood will make a contribution to getting this % down.
It would also suit us to concentrate future spending on younger players, who by definition will have less extravagant wage demands. I'd rather buy potential than pay over the odds in fees and wages for more "established" but middle of the road, and late 20s type signings.
- Status
