DeleHarry
Jose Dominguez
Man Utd would pay between 250-300 mill for Harry. They have the money, they are not scared of spending it
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Daniel Levy - Chairman
- Thread starter Howard Webb
- Start date
Man Utd would pay between 250-300 mill for Harry. They have the money, they are not scared of spending it
JerusalemMan
Chris Perry
Kudos also to @milo who's been saying something like this for years. No wonder so many of our squad are happy to sign contract extensions.
I expect that a lot of calmer folk knew or guessed this would be the case.
It is just not sexy enough nor is it a pithy enough counter to the easy headlines of base weekly wages that get farted out in tabloid headlines.
It also stops the Chelsea don't give a fudge seasons (every other year at this rate), or Scum's years of not giving a brick, and the whole host of players happily collecting way too much wages for nothing.
I've always assumed we have bonuses for getting top 4, QF/SF/Win on cups, clean sheets, GD, points at end of season. Like any modern business, bonuses based on key performance indicators.
Quite honestly, any player who doesn't want to sign up to such a system, we probably don't want.
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
This comes up every few years. I don't believe it anymore. Why?
Because it is never reflected in the club accounts. Unless Levy is paying our players off the books?
Our entire wages bill including bonuses is static around £100m. Arsenal last reported wages was £199m, Liverpool £208m, Chelsea £220m, Man Utd £264m, Emirates Marketing Project £264m.
How low much the basic wage be for us to the most generous bonuses of many club in the League.
And this after Firminho contract leaked out that time show the ridiculous bonuses he was on a Livepool
"According to Football Leaks: The Dirty Business of Football, the Brazilian currently earns a basic wage of £68,085-a-week - and a lot more in bonuses.
He allegedly earned £25,000 for each of his first five goals, £45,000 for his goals between six and 10, £65,000 from 11 to 15, and £85,000 from then on.
Firmino allegedly earns an additional £31,000 per assist."
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
It's generally pronounced Lee-vee here as a name, including by him. But the same word is also pronounced lev-ve in the context of 'pay a levy' etc.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
Literally got no problem with those numbers, I really believe in performance related pay
FatBloke
Niko Kranjcar
L-E-V-Y. Pronounced "Sir".
Our wages shot up the first time we played in the CL. That could be a combination of bonuses and increased wages triggered by us qualifying. Our wages to turnover ratio increased afterwards as our income dropped, but wages stayed the same.
I think that's why I always say it as "levvy" because of the word "levy". It took me awhile to change from "Pock" to "Potch" -- I should try and make the effort for our chairman. I am lazy though. So lazy.
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
Our wages shot up the first time we played in the CL. That could be a combination of bonuses and increased wages triggered by us qualifying. Our wages to turnover ratio increased afterwards as our income dropped, but wages stayed the same.
Where are the 'bonuses' from finishing 4th and getting to the Cup Semi in 2009/10 then?
Funny that the 'bonuses' from finishing 5th and getting to the CL Quarters kick in the same year the huge new Premier League TV deal kicked in for the 2010/11 season. The same season we went out and brought in a older players on low transfer fees and bigger wages (VDV, Gallas, Peinaar) and renewed the likes of Modric and King's contracts.
It's only natural that bonuses for CL qualification are significantly larger than domestic cup wins. The former actually brings increased revenue. Without seeing the contracts it's impossible to know how it's structured, but I suspect it triggered permanent wage increases in some cases.
From Levy's statement in the 2011 annual report:
"We retained a large squad to give ourselves the best chance of success and ensure there was sufficient depth in the squad. More players, along with salary inflation, performance-related bonuses and increases in football expenses, resulted in football operating expenses increasing during the year. Post year end we have reduced the squad size, enhanced the quality and continue to focus on retaining core players on long-term contracts. This invariably means new longer-term deals on higher, competitive salaries. We continue to work, however, on driving revenues to ensure that the wage to revenue percentages remain within our key performance targets."
http://m.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploa...cuments/Annual_Reports/annual-report-2011.pdf
Grays_1890
Barry Daines
Here is one for the financial minded of you.
When I see the accounts for Spurs released and then the football rich list its always shown in turnover. When I try and look at it in terms of pure post tax and expenditure profit it seems harder to see.
So my question is, how much money does the club actually bank year on year? Is it substantial enough for people to be justified when they say "The club are just making money out of us"?
When I see the accounts for Spurs released and then the football rich list its always shown in turnover. When I try and look at it in terms of pure post tax and expenditure profit it seems harder to see.
So my question is, how much money does the club actually bank year on year? Is it substantial enough for people to be justified when they say "The club are just making money out of us"?
To answer that question properly you need to come up with an assumption about what is the annual sustainable spend needed on players (ie signings) in order to maintain the same level on the field. In the year to Jun-16, we make £63m pre player trading, depreciation and amortisation of player contracts. That £63m will largely be cash rather than accounting profit and would presumably have largely then been used for the stadium development.
Simplifying things (and assuming profits = cash) the equivalent figure of that £63m each year would be needed to pay tax, interest (eg on stadium debt) and then investments in assets such as players. Obviously that figure should increase in coming year given the larger stadium etc. I haven't checked what interest rate we pay on the £400m stadium debt but could assume that the interest bill is say £30m.
If I get a moment, I might put together a simple model (given I like that kind of thing....!)
Gazzasrightboot
Pascal Chimbonda
I think that it is entirely fair that you ask this question. When looking at the financial health of a club, there is no one bit of the annual report that will tell you the answer that you are looking for. You will need to look at the income statement (which will show profit and/or loss and how you get there), cash flow (because you can only spend cash) and the balance sheet (as this gives an indicator of the assets that we have on the balance sheet and the liabilities that will need to be paid). It's not the whole picture as the annual report is mainly backward looking or a point in time assessment.
In terms of answering the question "are the club just making money out of us" you will be able to see this from the wage that is paid to Levy plus any dividends that are paid. Given the risk that they bear, it is only sensible that they make some money out of it as well. You will then need to look at the other clubs to understand if that level is acceptable to you. For that I would say, instead of doing the research for yourself, read the swiss ramble. It's really good and explains the ins and outs of the clubs finances, but also other clubs so you can make that comparison.
Grays_1890
Barry Daines
Thanks for that. Its good to know that I am not just being silly by not reading a report right. I just find football reported in a funny way, the rich list based on turnover not whats in the bank or whats profit after tax, thats the figure I am looking for to base and judge all the "Levy and Joe are taking money out"
From what I can see is we turn over large sums of cash but nearly ever penny is accounted for on wages, interest on loans etc
From what I can see is we turn over large sums of cash but nearly ever penny is accounted for on wages, interest on loans etc