9/02/2011 01:14:00 pm

LFC wage bill 2010: Huge, but dwarfed by the greed of Chelsea's players...

Liverpool's latest accounts show that the club's wage bill for 2009-10 increased by a whopping 21% to £121m (up from 100m for the previous year). Whilst £121m is a barely defensible figure (especially compared to Man United's much lower figure), it's chicken feed compared to the gross sums paid out to greedy Chelsea players.


For the 2009-10 financial year, the wage bills for the Premier League's top clubs were as follows:

* Chelsea - £172.5m (League position: 1)
( Manchester City - 133.3m (League position: 5)
* Liverpool - £121.1m (League position: 7)
* Man United - £111.9m (League position: : 2)
* Arsenal - £107.9m (League position: 3)
* Spurs - £65m (League position: 4)

Source: Official accounts for all 6 clubs. click on the figures to see the account snippets.

* Liverpool's 7th place finish was a pitiful return for a £121m wage-spend. With the failure to qualify for the Champions League, 2009-10 was a disaster from a financial standpoint, and the club's grossly overpaid players really let the club down.

* Conversely, Spurs - with a 46% lower wage-pend than Liverpool - ended up in 4th, and in the Champions League, which is a testament to the man-management skill of Harry Redknapp.

* Chelsea won the league that season but that doesn't excuse the rampant greed at Stamford Bridge. 172m?! That's a 30% higher spend than Liverpool, and a whopping 62% higher spend than Spurs. Sickening.

* Man United continued to compete whilst keeping their wage costs comparatively low. The galling thing is they still manage to win everything in sight with a lower wage-spend than Liverpool.

Thankfully, Kenny Dalglish and FSG are clearly aware that the club's wage bill needs to be slashed, and with all the deadwood-departures over the last 10 months, the club's wage bill will hopefully be much lower now (even factoring in new purchases).

Man City and Chelsea: home of the greediest players in the Premier League (and probably the whole of Europe).

All comments that ignore the comment policy will be deleted

Jaimie Kanwar





REMINDER: COMMENT POLICY

This is a site for reasoned, adult discussion. ALL views are welcome, and if someone's football-related opinion doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what constitutes an LFC 'fan', then tough luck. Posts containing personal insults, belittlement, sniping, deliberate antagonism, etc will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. Attack the argument, not the person. Ultimately, it's simple: be as vehement and passionate as you like, but please remain civil at all times.Thank you.

52 Comments :

Ola Ray said...

Scouser are such a bunch of cry babies, I believe Joe Cole joined you lot because he was GREEDY!!!! you need to get your facts right... "Poor Journalism" that word comes to mind.

Jamie said...

You sound bitter scouse scum

Tornike said...

Interesting stats, cheers for posting.

Anon said...

CHelsea's wage bill would be much lower in the following 2 yrs as Ballack, Ricky, Deco, Joey and Belleti have all left.  Yes, Torres is on a higher pay than usual but it still sees a decrease in the  overall wage spend. Iam not ecstatic of my club's high wage bill... But why take a pot shot at other club's players calling them greedy and such when all you had to do was just focus on your club's accounts   :)  


That was a cheap shot mate...  Anyways, thx for the numbers.. Amazing to find out how less Spurs have spent.. 

Anonymous said...

That is till alot of money to spend chasing your first title for 2 decades!!

LFC remind my of my grandad, he played football years ago and was really good but he's shite now.

The Real World said...

Who do you think spent the most on transfers and had the highest wage bill when Liverpool were the all conquering team of the 80's ?

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I focus on LFC mainly but when it comes to cheating and player greed, I'm an equal opportunity attacker.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Man United. 

I've got the accounts for the 80s too and United spent more than us during that decade. (I plan to post an article at some point about it)

Anonymous said...

how much did you pay Joe Cole a week people who live in glass houses shouln't throw stones.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Way too much, which is why it's such a good thing that's he's gone (well, sort of).

Dan said...

The reason's chelsea's was so high for that particular season was that they won the league, all of the players have a bonus if they win the league and there for the whole amount was perhaps 20% higher than it would normally. Probably why United's looks so positively comparable. Cost of living is higher in the capital, fair enough with the amount of money these guys have, it hardly makes a difference but the point is (and please see the anolgy for what it is) I doubt Gerrards house is any smaller than Lampards, probably just cost a million or so less - aka you play in London you can demand more, any player would do the same and it's not just London it's in any capital across Europe! Finally £120 million for a 7th place finish?!!! When talking about value of wages spent surely that would be at the wrong end of the league table! Would Liverpool pay £170 million a-year wage bill now for a Premiership title under thier belt.. I think they would!

Gab said...

Who was greediest? Our board or Raul Meireles? Anyone know who was on the biggest pay? Henderson or Meireles?

Who is greediest, clubs or players? Considering that it is the players who actually do all of the work to entertain the public.

Sir Cecil said...

Of course, Chelsea's men receive more than Liverpool's. The London players are Champions League contenders, while Liverpool's men are CL failures, unable to even qualify to take part in the competition! The difference in wages between the clubs actually reflects the approximate amount Chelsea can expect to make from a decent CL run this season.
Comparisons between the two sides is ludicrous – one club is a contender in the prime competition, while the other is not even a participant. Sad.

Anonymous said...

Liverpool had a bigger squad than anyone else. A better stat is average weekly salary per player and the top 4 is:

Team <span> </span>Average Weekly Salary Per Player
Chelsea <span> </span>$115,783
Manchester City <span> </span>$112,761
Manchester United <span> </span>$98,196
Liverpool <span> </span>$94,920     

(Source : http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6354899

James said...

A lot more of it has to do with the number of players in the squad. Chelsea have over the last few years had a MUCH bigger squad than the LFC players. The majority are on very similar pay but with an extra 4 players of the calibre of Ballack, J Cole (who went for a 90,000 a week to Liverpool) and other players who are higher calibre of the Liverpool Bench and squad players mean the wage bill is of course much higher.

Gab said...

p.s. If a team buys you for 50 million, I don't see why you should be expecting to earn the same as Poulsen or N'gog. Man City and Chelsea spend the most on players, so it is natural that their players would be on the highest wages. Who else should be taking the money, Sheikh Mansour or Abramovich?

tjmreds said...

Actually, I don't think under our current owners we would consider paying £170million a year on wages for a title. It's not sustainable in the long term and when the UEFA FFP rules kick in Chelsea (and now Man City) will be the centre of attention.

Anonymous said...

By the way u never indicated your source and it seems to be wrong. Manure wage bill for 2010 was <span>£131.7M and the one for 2011 is now </span><span>£152.9M.</span>

http://www.mufplc.com/pdf/Q4%202011%20Report.pdf

suppahigh said...

you are using stats from two years ago. that says alot about your reserch...
anyways it seems that all the Liverpool fans care about this days is how much money they save on sallaries and buying free players (eg. Belamy). Given the recent trophy drought at Anfield, six years now if i'm not mistaken i think there are far more important issues that the fans should be concerned with but sallaries. Chelsea have spend an awful a lot of money on players and wages in the past 10 years but the trophies have been raining over The Bridge which is the most important thing in football. i'm sorry to say but even with all your sallary cuts and savings Liverpool has turned from a top four club into a mid table chanel 6 team. :-D  

Jaimie Kanwar said...

if you click the figures in the article you will be taken to a snippet from the actual accounts for 2009-10.  the accounts don't like; the figures in the document you provided include success bonuses, additional performances bonuses etc - these figures are accounted for elsewhere in the annual accounts.  The figures I've provided from the accounts are base salaries.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

No - I am using figures from the last published accounts for each club, i.e. 2009-10 Accounts for 2010-11 are not avaialable yet.  

tjmreds said...

Major trophies won in last 10 years (2001-2011):
Liverpool: FA Cup X 2, League Cup x2, Uefa cup, Champions League. Total: 6
Chelsea: Premier League x 3, FA Cup x 3, League Cup x 2. Total: 8

tjmreds said...

Major trophies won in last 10 years (2001-2011):  
Liverpool: FA Cup X 2, League Cup x2, Uefa cup, Champions League. Total: 6  
Chelsea: Premier League x 3, FA Cup x 3, League Cup x 2. Total: 8

ChelseaPete said...

This is typical of how bitter & spiteful LFC fans have become. I grew up in the 1970's & 80's when LFC bought & won everything!!! And Chelsea were a crap, well supported (especially away from home). Oh how the tables have turned. I never thought I'd see the day when LFC would NOT be the top dogs, but get used to it.

suppahigh said...

Arsenal had similar philosophy and all their players ran away. two years ago they wouldn't give their best players more than a year extention on their contracts just because they were 27-28 yo. Now they sign 28 year olds on 4 year deals. Man U are the current champions and they pay Rooney over 12 million a year with all their new and young players i doubt that Ferdinad, Vidic, Berbatov, Nani, Valencia and Young earn less than 120000k. a week. Football is not a game of who pays less, but who wins and where the best players want to play. i wouldn't be suprised if Suarez decides to leave in a year or two...

Anonymous said...

is the cost of plastic flags included

Liverpoolfan1970 said...

Yes, Chelsea have spent an awful lot of money on players. How'd Torres work out for ya? How's that Champions League title in your cabinet? You've won what, 3 League titles after spending somewhere in the area of 1/2 billion quid? 

Aaron Farrell said...

Wools.

Business Man said...

Its a shame you cant read a set of accounts then isn't it?

If you read CFC's accounts the £172 million is the TOTAL wage bill for ALL staff including Directors. So adding up the player numbers for comparison is totally pointless isn't it. This figure includes ALL backroom staff, catering staff, management, groundstaff etc etc etc . So until you know the TOTAL number of people employed by each club there is no way you can accurately compare.

Oh and I dont know if anyone's ever mentioned it to you but on the whole wages are much higher ( due to higher cost of living) in London than Liverpool or Manchester.

This realy is just another one of those articles proving how dumb and unknowledgable people in this country are about business and employment

suppahigh said...

and you think that this is somehow relevent to the current season. or you just woke up and decided to write a hate article on chelsea?

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I'm fully aware that it's the total wage bill.  Every financial reporting institution/organisation uses that exact figure when reporting wage costs, so why shouldn't I?  For example, Deloitte - football finance experts - also use the total figure when they produce reports, so I think it's fine for me to use it too.

suppahigh said...

and buy the way. how do you think a club can improve in the current times without spending or atracting the best players (paying high or atleast higher sallaries).

suppahigh said...

and the one that you need the most is not there now is it. Man U took it from you  and it doesn't look like you'll get it back any time soon. yet you are still on Chelseas case.

suppahigh said...

probably not. so whats your next joke... hum let me guess ... you have no history?

suppahigh said...

and the one that you need the most is not there now is it. Man U took it from you and it doesn't look like you'll get it back any time soon. yet you are still on Chelseas case.

tjmreds said...

To quote: 'Chelsea have spend an awful a lot of money on players and wages in the past 10 years but the trophies have been raining over The Bridge', I simply posted a reply showing it has also 'rained' a bit at anfield in the last 10 years, and now you're changing the debate to be about league titles only, how about I change the debate to be about champions league trophies only?

Derp? said...

Interesting stats, shame to see they've been ignored behind a needlessly provocative title.

Most of Chelsea's players aren't greedy. I'm sure there are some there for just the money but most of them are probably just trying to find the best balance of success and money. Nothing wrong with that.

A player has every right to secure the best wage he can. Besides, it is not like the player will be driving these negotiations, it will be there agents. If Roman is willing to pay, then there is nothing wrong.

Players' wages seem excessive when you compare it to, for example, a nurse (as the player hating people tend to do). Morally inexcusable one may say, which I can fully understand. Since when were people's wage determined by morality in any other market?

This though is not the players fault, it is the market they occupy. Some will aggressively seek higher and higher wages (Eto'o) which will drive up the ceiling but I see nothing wrong in footballers trying to get a slice of a very lucrative international pie (I am very proud of that 'international pie' analogy I'll have you know!). People pay to watch them and the deserve a cut of those profits.

Footballers are essentially entertainers as much as they are athletes. No-one complains when Will Smith makes £30million in a year from his films (which don't provide any kind of public service other than entertainment). I can't understand the constant bitterness of people against footballers. Some are spoilt idiots, yes, but that doesn't mean they are any less entitled to their wage.

Sand said...

Yes! Chelsea has paid a lot of money in wages in 2009-2010. But they have been trying to bring it down and I am sure they have brought it down since then. But tell me this. How many fans do you think would now follow Chelsea just because of Torres. I am sure there are a lot of Torres fans in Spain or anywhere elese in the world. This is a good thing for the club because they players who come with hefty package also come with huge fanbase behind them. Also since Torres moved for 50 mil everyones attention is towards Chelsea and Torres for him to perform. So yeah chelsea might paya bit more in wages than Liverpool but it also has its own advantages.

suppahigh said...

no i have not spend 1/2 billion. Roman has and he's entiteled to do whatever he wants with his own money. I merely spend in tickets and shirts...

besides 3 league titles is way more than your club has won in the last 20 years.

tjmreds said...

Fair comment, however I don't think Chelsea's revenue, which is more than Liverpool's, is £50m (the difference in wages spend) more, if I recall correctly from the latest football rich list.

ant said...

Blah blah blah you also forgot to mention that the quality of players at chelsea are way way way beyond the quality at your has been club. GOOD LUCK WITH THE CARLING CUP BOYS AFTER SPENDING 100 MILLION ON CHAMPIONSHIP QUALITY PLAYERS ( NOT SUAREZ) YOUS DESERVE IT.

tjmreds said...

I'm afraid the UEFA FFP rules may have something to say about whether he's free to do what he wants with his own money!

ikcl said...

Gab,
I'd agree with you to an extent.
I definitely feel that players are entitled to the majority of a clubs profits, given the fact it is them who provide the entertainment as you state..
But if clubs are running up unsustainable bills on these players then its wrong in my opinion, clubs should work within sustainable boundaries, something I feel Chelsea and Man City, in particular, have neglected in the past.

Shane1892 said...

Contenders but never champions ah well. Five times

Sand said...

This time when Chelsea visited Malayasia and other asian countries fans came to see them practice. I mean they say the stadium was almost packed. This shows that teh fanbase of Chelsea is growing. Meaning revenue increase as well. Now I know the difference is not that high but Chelsea football club is catching on and people don't hate our club like they used to before. Its slowly catching on and I am sure in some years time we are going to generate that much more revenue as well.

ikcl said...

Sir Cecil,
Well then why do they earn more than man utds for example??
Your willingness to engage in an slanging match between your own club and ours is surprising considering you seem to brush us aside as irrelevant; yet at the same time you only compare yourselves to us despite the article mentioning 6 clubs!!
I would suggest you try and focus your comment more on the content of the article, you might find that its actually critical of Liverpools performance compared to their financial outlay!!..

ikcl said...

Does your clubs sources of income cover your cost of wages and transfers?
This is the issue that caused/causes many football supporters to view Chelsea negatively..

Milo said...

Dude, I'm from Malaysia and to be honest, they were giving out tickets for free. Heck, I was there. And that's for BOTH training and the friendly match. I guess Roman had to buy fanbases too. What's even more funnier is, it still didn't fill the stadium up. Boo hoo!

Milo said...

<span>Dude, I'm from Malaysia and to be honest, they were giving out tickets for free. Heck, I was there. And that's for BOTH training and the friendly match. I guess Roman had to buy fanbases too. What's even more funnier is, it still didn't fill the stadium up. Boo hoo!<span>
</span></span>

Simon said...

Greed from palyers doesn't come into it in my opinion

Agents will chance their arm and negotiate as big a contract as possible, and enrich themselves as well as their clients as a consequence

John Terry threatened to go to City a while ago, Chelsea caved in to his demands

Stevie G threatened to go to Chelsea 3 or 4 years ago, Liverpool caved in

The clubs are guilty of not making a stand, although allegedly Man Utd refused to sign Sneijder due to his wage demands this year. Fair play to them

Take note of this refreshingly balanced article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2011/09/premier_league_feels_first_win.html

JayOne said...

There's no justification for that wage bill - considering the lack of necessity for wage bonuses and that Liverpool only had a few genuine world class players surrounded by a bunch of players that weren't even genuine top 4 calibre, then our wage bill should've been closer to that of Spurs than to Man U or City. That we were paying out more than Man U on that squad was shameful

Reds a power colour. said...

you got to laugh at that reply

Post a Comment