Our Net Spend Over the Last Five Years

[Streetender1878]

that moneys gone to fresh as did richys

I think some of the richarlison money may have allowed us to get onana and garner in. Im hoping that there may be some left from kean and gordon coz it wasnt spent in january. It could be policy that the club are looking for young potential on lower wages that can be sold on at a profit. Onana,garner and chermiti and maybe the leeds lad as well. We shall know soon enough.

 

[matty1878]

I think some of the richarlison money may have allowed us to get onana and garner in. Im hoping that there may be some left from kean and gordon coz it wasnt spent in january. It could be policy that the club are looking for young potential on lower wages that can be sold on at a profit. Onana,garner and chermiti and maybe the leeds lad as well. We shall know soon enough.

it’s just mad - more so lag season we sold richy/gordon and didn’t replace them


we’re did the ( atleast ) gordon money go?

 

[The binman chronicles]

People aren't taking into account the lost revenue during covid, the removal of our biggest sponsors and in trying to meet P&S rules jettisoning all the decent players and not being able to replace with the same calibre we slip down the league thus lose out a fair whack on a decent placement payment.

So it's around £16 million we've lost per season in the last couple from finishing near relegation. Weren't USM and the umbrella companies paying 20 to 30 million a season? Meaning at a lowball estimate we are down 36m a year from where we were in 2021. This is where the Kean and Gordon money goes just to keep the income at a similar level. We should be a bit better off as the wage bill isn't as bad this year but because of that we struggle to attract the kind of players that might make a transformative difference.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

Love these threads as it brings out all the apprentice watching weirdos

Guilty pleasure of mine that.

 

[Jarvick]

It's less the net spend in my view, but rather the lack of return on the investment for that spend that bothers me. Having to let players go on a free, having to cover a large portion of wages for certain players we've loaned out, buying players with little resale value, overspending on many players (in part necessary to convince a player to come to Everton) and just the lack of production from many players compared to their cost has really hurt us.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Everton are 18th in the Net Spend table over the past five years.

17 clubs have spent more than Everton over the past five years.

Only Luton and Brighton have spent less.

This is why we are facing relegation.

This is what Dyche is dealing with.

Is it time that the ‘wasteful’ Everton narrative came to an end, when the facts are that we are one of the worst funded clubs in the whole league?

Arsenal above Chelsea in five-year Premier League net spend table

Forget the league table, it's all about the Premier League net spend table. And Chelsea have been unseated at last...

www.football365.com

This is what happens when a club hands out excessive wages to mid-career, mercenary players to attract or retain them, discovers the players aren't up to standard, and pays their wages while they ride pine until they leave on a free. Doing that places the club in FFP shackles, where it cannot spend on transfer fees even if it has the cash available.

Every 100,000 pound-per-week player who sits takes five million quid per year out of the transfer kitty. Do that with three or four players per year over five years, and that's where 75 to 100 million pounds of potential net spend went. Then there's the fact that when they leave on a free, we end up with nothing to reinvest.

That's why we lack a forward, squad depth and squad valuation. We didn't just waste the cash injection. We spent it in a way that hamstrung the club for years.

 

[Huyton Layne]

What's our manager outlay in the last 5? Wages and payoffs. Probably eye-watering.

 

[Jeff Jones]

And every year when the Championships play-offs are on we're told just getting into the Premier League is worth 160,000,000 pounds
for doing nothing.

 

[Tramps_mate]

1. Manchester United – £222,984,000
2. Chelsea – £169,720,000
3. Manchester City – £163,060,000
4. Liverpool – £141,782,000
5. Tottenham – £101,344,000
6. Arsenal – £85,490,000
7. Leicester City – 78,780,000
8. Aston Villa – £75,232,000
9. West Ham – £70,160,000
10. Newcastle United – £62,610,000
11. Crystal Palace – £59,180,000
12. Everton – £43,120,000
13. Wolves – £38,310,000
14. Fulham – £37,610,000
15. Southampton – £35,380,000
16. Bournemouth – £32,044,000
17. Nottingham Forest – £28,590,000
18. Brighton – £28,340,000
19. Leeds United – £17,300,000
20. Brentford – £15,240,000

That wages table doesn't seem right at all.. Mina was reportedly on £6m alone!

 

[Tramps_mate]

Or wages bill is definitely nearer £80m or so..

 

[The binman chronicles]

That wages table doesn't seem right at all.. Mina was reportedly on £6m alone!

The screenshot of the accounts showed that our wage costs were 182m for 2021, coming down to 162 in 2022. You can bet the first team makes up the fair majority of that. At least 60% if not a bit more.

That should have come down significantly again in 2023 as we try to get those costs to a more sensible proportion of turnover.

 

[Chrismac]

That wages table doesn't seem right at all.. Mina was reportedly on £6m alone!

I'd put another £10m on thats still being optimistic.
The big issue we have is staff costs last financial year of £160m, so £100m+ above player wages, now if pay offs are included then that takes up say £15m?? but where and who are we paying the other £85m to?
Villas total staff costs is £137m and if the wages figures above are to be believed thats less than £62m on "other" staff costs which wouldve included Gerrard and backroom team.
So in comparison to a club at our level we have spent £40m more on staff costs over and above player wages?

 

[Dymak]

This is what happens when a club hands out excessive wages to mid-career, mercenary players to attract or retain them, discovers the players aren't up to standard, and pays their wages while they ride pine until they leave on a free. Doing that places the club in FFP shackles, where it cannot spend on transfer fees even if it has the cash available.

Every 100,000 pound-per-week player who sits takes five million quid per year out of the transfer kitty. Do that with three or four players per year over five years, and that's where 75 to 100 million pounds of potential net spend went. Then there's the fact that when they leave on a free, we end up with nothing to reinvest.

That's why we lack a forward, squad depth and squad valuation. We didn't just waste the cash injection. We spent it in a way that hamstrung the club for years.

I agree, although the mistakes apply to players of all ages operating at any stage of their career. Holgate was young when given his massive contract that prevents us from getting rid of him because his talent doesn't match his wages. Same applies to the likes of Godfrey, Mykolenko, Patterson and Sandro etc.

 

[Yarrgh]

My figures might be off.

But I think I worked out that when we bought Tosun and Walcott, when you factor in wages, those 2 players cost us 100m in their time at the club.

Why does this type of thing still shock me?

Damn we have done some terrible business.

 

[degsy]

Now do Wages.

No, No, don't listen to the goat behind the curtain - have the rs taught you nothing it's  All about Net Spend