Gerard Houllier - RIP :-(

7 Nov 2010

Liverpool vs. Man United - WAGE BILL comparison: 1990-2009

My quest to present accurate financial information about Liverpool FC continues with a comparative analysis of the club's wage spending between 1990 and 2009. Is it really true that Manchester United have always had significantly larger wage bills than Liverpool?

I recently compared Liverpool and Man United's gross/net transfer spending between 1990 and 2010, an analysis that showed that Liverpool had spent MORE money on transfers than United in the last 20 years. Of course, some fans who exist in a permanent state of denial refused to accept the figures, arguing that the *real* reason United had been more successful than LFC was massive wage bills, and the ability to offer players higher wages.

Is this true though?

NOTES

* I've only included wage bills from 1990 to 2009. The 2010 accounts are not available yet, which means there is no accurate data available for that financial year.

* The figures used are wage costs only. Social security costs (YES, that phrase IS used in the accounts), and Pension costs are not included as they do not constitute wage/salary payments made directly to employees. This is the mistake the media makes when they report wage costs: they include a combined figure of Wages + Social Security + Pension costs.

My calculation:

Wages and Salaries
minus Social Security Costs
minus Pension costs
= Spending on wages and salaries ONLY

* For both Liverpool and Man United, I have used the accounts for the CLUB not the Holding Company. The figures for Kop Football Holdings Limited (KFHL) differ slightly from the figures presented in the accounts for Liverpool Football Club and Athletics Grounds Ltd (LFCAGL - i.e. the Club).

* Until 2006-7, there were no holding companies associated with LFC, so it seems wrong to skew the figures for the last 3 years. Ultimately, every financial detail with regards to Liverpool FC itself is found in the accounts for LFCAGL, which is what I've used here.

* It should be remembered that the wages and salary figure includes ALL staff connected with the club. This means means coaches, medical staff, and even the guys that cut the grass at Anfield. However, the bulk of the figure will obviously be player salaries. This article is not titled 'Player Salary Comparison'; it is titled 'Wage Bill Comparison'. Player salaries are part of the wage bill.

* There is no other figure available for wages so these figure must be used. It should also be noted that Deloitte uses the same figures (albeit *including* social security + pension costs) in its 'Annual Review of Football Finance. If the figures are valid enough for the experts in the field then they're surely valid enough for me to use.

* SOURCES: Official club accounts for Liverpool FC and Man United FC: 1990-2009. Liverpool FC = Liverpool Football Club and Athletics Grounds Ltd (Company No: 0003568). Man United = Manchester United Football Club Limited (Company No: 95489). I can't be bothered to post 38 separate snippets from each set of accounts (!), so if someone wants verification of any given year then leave a request in the comments and I will post the relevant snippet.

LIVERPOOL vs MANCHESTER UNITED: Wage Bill Comparison 1990-2009

Photobucket

KEY POINTS

* Clearly, it is not fair or accurate to suggest that United outperformed Liverpool as a result of increased wage spending. As the figures here show, the difference between LFC and MUFC overall is comparatively minor: 20m extra spent by United over a 19 year period. Is that all it took to win 11 more titles than Liverpool? Or is it the influence of a world class manager that made the difference?

* Liverpool have higher wage spending than Man United for 10 of the last 19 years; United were higher for 8 of the last 19.

* Between 1990 and 2010, Liverpool spent more money on transfers than Man United, with transfer activity in the 1990s being particularly wasteful in comparison to United.

* Once again, these figures show that Liverpool's financial management in the 1990s was bordering on negligent. More money was spent on wages and transfers for the period than Man United but what does the club have to show for it? Next to nothing.

* In its Annual Review of Football Finance 2010, pre-eminent accounting organisation Deloitte stated:

"Money spent on wages is certainly no guarantee of success for the majority of Premier League clubs, and...many clubs are getting questionable value for investment in player wages".

This has definitely proved to be the case for Liverpool FC, and if one this is clear it's this: transfer spending and return on player investment (in the form players bought actually having a consistent, measurable, positive impact on the club) has to improve exponentially under NESV.

Jaimie Kanwar


80 comments:

  1. Dont wages and salaries include staff aswell? Medical staff, trainers, management, coaches, etc etc?
    I get the trend of your article and it does indeed highlight similarities and poor performance over the past two decades...but i dont think its the most accurate data set to base conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's the only set of data available to make such a comparison.  It's the same data that accounting firms like Deloitte use.  If it's okay for the experts in the field then it's okay for me to use surely?!

    If there was any other way of breaking down salary costs I would do it.  I've removed social security and pensions (which the media doesn't) so that makes it more accurate.

    Ultimately, Deloitte uses the same figures in its 'Annual Review of Football Finance' - the figures are fine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FFS who care's? Can we move on now and tralk about football? Get a grip lad!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I actually think staff salaries SHOULD be counted. Highly qualified training and medical staff would surely mean players are getting better treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good point KJ.  I agree with you - they all fall under the heading of 'Wage Costs'.  And United and Liverpool are judged in the same way, with the same figures, so it's all fair.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nice one Jaimie. Anyone who thinks lfc haven't had the money are fools :)  all goes back to poor management as usual. LFC haven't had any for a long time. <span> </span>

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cheers, GAGA.  Transfer/wage spending in the 90s was particularly negligent, and Moores/Parry have a lot to answer for there.  We outspent United on both transfers and wages costs in the 90s yet they steamrollered us on the trophy front. Just goes to show the importance of having the right manager at the helm.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good read nice to see someone who relieses that United and Liverpool have been pretty much the same in terms of finances the past few years

    ReplyDelete
  9. Or the importance of having more luck we could have being Champions in 1996/97.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Far too many poor signings by the managers is the reason Liverpool haven't won a title for so long. And negative tactics by Houllier and Benitez. Roy Evans built a decent attacking side but lacked the bottle to win a title. Plus Calamity James was a joke.

    Not matter what Benitez fans say, the amount of rubbish players he brought to the club was amazing. The gems he bought were always pulled down by the trash he bought. Houllier was the same. Bought some gems like Hyppia and Hamann but too much trash.

    Maybe the Americans have analysed this and that's why Comoli was brought in quick time.  

    ReplyDelete
  11. who really cares

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think that's precisely why Commoli has been brought in.  NESV have looked at the incredible amount of money wasted by Liverpool on players over the years and decided to take action. it's a negative thing in a way because it shows that NESV does not have faith in the manager to get transfers right.

    And how could they have fait to be honest?  Every manager since 1990 has wasted money to varying degrees (and a certain a mount of waste has to be expected); however, in recent years, the money wasted on the wrong players has gone to a new level of negligence.  This needs to be rectified.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Agree, Alan.  96-97 was a golden opportunity to win the league, and the same could be argued about 95-96.  Those two seasons were amazing as a fan because they were so entertaining and exciting.  If we'd had Houllier's defence with Evans' attack, the league would've bee ours.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A minor point, but I think you should include the social security and pension figures too. They are an integral part of the salary paid to employees - for the vast majority of people in this country if they say they are on £20k a year, that £20k is the headline figure which includes pension contributions, tax and national insurance. That's different to the cost of operating a pension scheme for employees who've already retired, but I don't think that's what the figures in the accounts refer to.

    As NI is paid at the same rate for both clubs I don't think it will affect the comparison though. Interesting to see the figure set out in this way.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I may be wrong, but I would like to think that staff don't earn anything near the wages of the players and the manager, thus can be neglected.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I may be wrong, but I would like to think that staff don't earn anything near the wages of the players and the manager, thus can be neglected.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I may be wrong, but I would like to think that staff don't earn anything near the wages of the players and the manager, thus can be neglected.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think that's a more than fair assumption. I doubt the Physio at Man United earns more than 2% of Wayne Rooney's ridiculous salary.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Can't argue with that, it was a great period in terms of the style of football we played we deserved more. Evans bought the wrong players at the wrong time in hindsight which is a great thing. Paul Ince and Collymore should never have being signed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Jamie,

    Just a quick q - what's your username on LFC.tv forums?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Jamie,

    Just a quick q - what's your username on LFC.tv forums?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Saj - my username is JaimieKanwar.  I've only ever posted in one thread:

    http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showthread.php?t=210194&page=10

    The only reason I posted in the above thread is to dispell the lies that were being spread about me.  There was lots of slanderous posts on their about me too, which the site admin had to remove when he received a letter from my lawyer (His email to me is included on that thread). 

    ReplyDelete
  23. Is this a Man united site or just an anti Liverpool one?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi there,
    just want to question the manner of some of the results. in the (+/-)£ column should there not be negative figures. so if liverpools numbers are larger then it's positive but if united's numbers are larger it should be negative? eg 1996-1997 should that not be -1.6m. otherwise your just saying what the difference is and not acknowleding the difference with respect to which team.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The colour-coding is by team.  So, in 1996-97, the +/- figure is in a green box, which means Man U had 10.% higher wage bill that year.  Look at the colour-coding nd it will make sense,  Liverpool = red; MU =green

    ReplyDelete
  26. Man utd generates far more income than lfc...
    so where has that money been spent on, if not on players ?

    ReplyDelete
  27. This is precisely why I do these kind of articles.  Where is your proof that Man United 'generates far more income than LFC'?  In recent years that may be true but since 1990 it is not true.  I will post something soon to prove this.  In any event, what is your point?  Income generation does not change the fact that both clubs' wage spend is practically the same.

    ReplyDelete
  28. He didn't say it changed that fact. And I would also be interested to see what the incomes for the 2 teams have been. I had thought that they were getting loads more than us from all the prize money and champion's league runs. These figures now suggest maybe they didnt have so much more than us afterall...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wow! I seriously never would have guessed our wage bill would be so close to the mancs. Put that with the spending comparison from earlier, and I have to say it's made me really ask - what is going on at LFC?
    I can't believe I'm saying this but Fergies stock has just risen in my eyes....
    :(
    I used to think their success was due in large part to the club being so much better run financially that they could outspend us for quality staff, but it seems from JK's research, that is not the case...
    My buzz from the 2-0 win has been wrecked :'(

    ReplyDelete
  30. The pre-eminent accounting organisation Deloitte also stated that Liverpool wage bill was £107m in 2008-2009, not £88m as you stated in your figures, and Manu's wage bill is £123, not £92.7m. They also state that Liverpool's wage bill in 2007-2008 was £90.4m, £77.6m in 2006-2007, and £68.9m in 2005-2006, while Manu's wage bill in 2007-2008 was £121m, and £92.3m in 2006-2007, and £85.4m in 2005-2006. So, in just the past four years, not twenty, Manu spent £77.8m more than Liverpool on wages, £421.7 for Manu compared to Liverpool £343.9m, £19.4m a season which is a significant diffrence.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Might I suggest that you read the article correctly: I've specifically stated that I have not included Social Security/Pension costs AND that Deloitte includes this info.  I've also explained why I excluded those figures.

    The only money that gets paid TO players/staff is the 'Wages and Salaries' figure.

    To give you an example of why it's wrong to use the full figure: in 2007-8, Chelsea's wage bill was widely reported as 172m; do a google search and you will see that.

    Now, look at the snippet from Chelsea's accounts I've included below.  The figures break down as follows:

    Wages + Salaries: 154m
    Social Security: 17m
    Pension Costs: 703k
    Termination Payments: 23m

    As you can see, the Wages and Salaries figure *includes* the 23m termination payment figure (!)

    Do you really believe it's accurate to report Chelsea's wage Bill as 172m?!

    The REAL amount is: 113.3m (i.e. the amount actually spent on salaries for players/staff)

    You don't see the media report that though because it doesn't have the sensationalisation value of 172m.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Chelsea accounts snippet (for the above example)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Jamie
    Thanks for all your research, it is certainly good to have a comparison.
    I'd like to make a comment about the transfer figures for Liverpool v Man U, sure Liverpool spent more on transfers in the nineties but Man U have well and truly outspent Liverpool in the 2000's, the figures for Man U surely look a lot healthier due to the huge profit made from the sale of Ronaldo. Sure Liverpool have sold some players recently that would help our figures but Man U made nearly 70million profit from 1 player, otherwise their net spend over the 2000's would be well over 200million
    Just my opinion
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  34. Even if you add Social Security/Pension costs that would come to £100m for Liverpool, not £107 as Deloitte states. Rick Parry's termination payment is included in Liverpool's wage bill, as is Houllier and his assistant managers etc... Why would you include them in Liverpool's wage bill and not include the termination of Chelsea's managers in theirs?
    <span><span></span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  35. I forgot to mention - in the article, I also state that I use the CLUB's accounts, not the Holding company.  For 2008-9, the figure is 107m as a result of:

    Wages + Salaries
    Social Security
    Pension Costs
    Rick Parry termination payment

    =107m.

    The club - Liverpool Football Club and Athletics Grounds ltd (LFCAGL)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Parry's termination payment is not included in wage costs in the accounts - it is in the 'Administrative Expenses - Exceptional Costs' section.

    In the article, I also state that I use the CLUB's accounts, not the Holding company.  For 2008-9, the figure is 107m as a result of:

    Wages + Salaries
    Social Security
    Pension Costs
    Rick Parry termination payment

    =107m.

    Deloitte has used KFHL's accounts instead of The club - Liverpool Football Club and Athletics Grounds ltd (LFCAGL).

    To be honest, I don't know why that is but I've contacted them for clarification.

    Even though Parry's figure is not included the wage cost section, Deloitte have included it under the umbrella of wage costs.  For their purposes that may be fine, but strictly speaking, it's not 100% accurate when we're talking about player salaries.

    ReplyDelete
  37. thankyou,,, alexstar...
    also they have been going on about revenue streams generated by man utd as an example of wat should be aimed for.. especialy in asia.. may be these revenue streams are used to pay players ie.. image rights so they get their cut of shirt sales...
    mufc has got almost twice the capacity of lfc... isnt that easily £1 mill gate reciepts a game more

    ReplyDelete
  38. why is mufc so much in debt then ??? is this due to the glazers acquisatoin debt ?? and wat does that mean ???

    ReplyDelete
  39. Are you an accountant by proffesion?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I know net spend is a dirty word here but it is what it is. You can't say ronaldo's deal skews it. you have to say they bought a player (for 12m?) and sold him for 70m. pains me to say it but its good management. Anyone who moves a player on for any profit must be given credit for spotting potential and/or adding value to it.
    whoever the manager is.

    ReplyDelete
  41.  I applaud the author for his un-egotistic in depth excellent analysis.

    I actually took the figures further and included wages of support staff (in the wider club, not just the training ground), and if you take this into account, Liverpool have spent substantially more than United and therefore Kenwar is right.

    I think more should be made of the fact that really everything that once seemed true is actually a lie, and the worldof football really isn't as p straigtforward as most  people think.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jamie, 

    Your point :

    <span><span>"Money spent on wages is certainly no guarantee of success for the majority of Premier League clubs, and...many clubs are getting questionable value for investment in player wages".</span><span>

    Is a bit misleading... In your quote you miss out the first part of Deliotte's statement wher they argue that in the top 4 wage spending does strongly correlate with success in league finishing:</span></span>

    However, whilst there continues to be a strong correlation between wage costs and league finishing position at the very top (top four) and the bottom (relegation places), there is an extremely weak link for the clubs in the middle. This again highlights that money spent on wages is certainly no guarantee of success for the majority of Premier League clubs, and suggests many clubs are getting questionable value for investment in player wages.

    <span>In fact your figures confirm this since for most of the 2000's ManU have had a higher wage bill than LFC. Of course wages is not the whole story but where LFC are competing with Manu for players the ability to offer higher wages will make the difference. For example we may have had the money to buy Yah Yah Toure but his wages of 200k meant that only M. City could afford him. Of course this is an extreme example but the wages and fees paid for players are pretty extreme nowadays. NESV have now come in and said that its all about the youth. BUT this requires a very good scouting network, time and patience for such players to come through. Look at Arsenal Wenger is a genius at buying young players to complement Arsenal's strict wage policy but Arsenal probably won't win the title this season or next for that matter.</span>


    So you could argue that the money we have spent on wages was necessary to keep us in the top 4 but not necessarily enough to win us the title. Given the quality of manager ManU have had, great youth system bringing in Giggs, Scholes, Beckam, Neville's, Butt etc. and ability to spend significant sums on 1 or 2 world class players heere and there to complement the team.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Funny, |The last Utd report had their wage bill at £130m......

    Chelsea and City were both at £125m+ last season!

    ReplyDelete
  44. What's funny is how you didn't read the article properly.  This is explained. 

    ReplyDelete
  45. I've had this article bookmarked for a while, it says 2008 manu wages were 121 mill and 2009 123 mill. You don't have 2009, but your figure of 92 mill doesn't agree with 121mill stated in this article?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/19/premier-league-finances

    If your figures are correct, then the running of LFC the last 20 years has been utterly disgraceful and it actually aggrivates me to know such appalling info.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Paul - with all due respect, please read the article properly.  It specifically states that Social Security and Pension costs are not included. it also states that the figures are taken from the accounts of the CLUBS, not the holding companies.

    That is why there is a discrepency.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Good article Jamie.

    For years I thought Liverpool spent less on wages than United.

    I have to say I am normally one of your biggest critics on your forum.

    Many a time you have not posted my posts, because I have argued and dismantled your stats or momments, why I don't know. Each time they were neither slanderous or an attempt to Character assasinate you.

    Anyway back to the article. For over 10 years we were probably the highest payers in the Premiership. So we should've been able to pull the top players.


    What I would like you to look in to (If you would be so kind) and I believe to be completly relevant is; The Players over the last 20 years who have cost Liverpool and Manchester United (Chelsea too if you like) over £12 Million pounds.

    My reasoning is unlike United, Liverpool haven't had a board willing to shell out the highest transfer fee's on a single player.

    People think Robbie Keane cost us £19 Million for instance.

    He didn't, I believe he cost Liverpool an initial £12 Million, only with games played and Trophies won would he have cost us £19 Million.

    Nearly 10 years ago Manchester United spent over £28 Million on Veron.

    It is widely regarded that a striker costs more than a midfielder, a Midfielder costs more than a Defender and a Defender costs more than a Goalkeeper.

    Wages alone can't be used against Liverpool for not competing with United over the last 20 years, Nor Houllier and Benitez's managerial skills.

    Your thoughts please.

    Sparq2112

    ReplyDelete
  48. Guys, you need to get out more.

    I hear we pay more wages than Acrington stanley??

    I loved Rafa Benitez but I really, really object to being called a member of a cult.  Not nice that.

    ReplyDelete
  49. United generate more revenue than anyother sporting instituion in the world, not only that the clubs wage bill is less than 50% of the revenue it Generates.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Its obvious that Alex Ferguson and/or Man Utd have just an eye for talent for years, most recent example is javier hernandez

    ReplyDelete
  51. Sorry Jaimie, I don't really get it, are you saying that Manu has a holding company that is paying an extra appx 30 mill in salaries?

    ReplyDelete
  52. obsessing about the scum once again are we?

    ReplyDelete
  53. A key difference was that Utd were in profit while we weren't. I think what is conclusively shown here is that Moores was feeling the pain and starting to fall behind for a few years before finally selling the club. with wages inflating so quickly and the relative positions of the clubs changing over this period I don't think average or total spend is relevant, but year on year it is certainly interesting

    ReplyDelete
  54. And there it is...!! Took longer than usual for you to begin kicking the spaniard this time jaimie and sadly you contradict your earlier assertions about the 90's being the low-point  in order to administer the inevitable dig at benitez. I'm in no way an apologist for the guy (and i also see that 'recent years' includes uncle woy) but i feel your diligent efforts at highlighting really interesting details about our beloved club's finances are undermined by a need to diminish his standing. This is NOT a 'personal attack', by the way, as i thoroughly enjoy being on here and engaging in the debate. Here's hoping NESV tidy up the evident sloppiness in our financial dealings.

    ReplyDelete
  55. never been published before ??!!!! .... i can't believe that !!!

    ReplyDelete
  56. according to <span>Forbes</span> magazine on their revenue in millions of dollars:

    <span>2010</span><span>2009</span><span>2008</span><span>2007</span><span>total</span><span>mufc</span><span>469</span><span>512</span><span>394</span><span>310</span><span>1685</span><span>lfc</span><span>304</span><span>332</span><span>269</span><span>225</span><span>1130</span><span>diff</span><span>165</span><span>180</span><span>125</span><span>85</span><span>555</span><span>%</span><span>54.3%</span><span>54.2%</span><span>46.5%</span><span>37.8%</span><span>49.1%</span>

    so mufc has earnt half a billion more than lfc in the last 4 years

    ReplyDelete
  57. according to Forbes magazine on their revenue in United States dollars.

    mufc has earned 1685 over the last 4 years
    lfc has earned 1130 over the last 4 years

    therfore mufc making 555 million more than lfc

    thats 49.1 % more than lfc

    ReplyDelete
  58. got this from a mufc presentation

    2002 wage bill = £70 mill , lfc =£32 mill..  thats 118% more
    98-03 transfers = £99 mill, lfc = £79 mill.. thats 25 % more

    http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Marian-56521-Manchester-United-081204-plcA-truly-global-brand-Market-Products-unit-Travel-Places-Nature-ppt-powerpoint/

    ReplyDelete
  59. invertedquestionmark1:48 pm, November 08, 2010

    Could you include Arsenal's wages in the table as well?

    ReplyDelete
  60. The key point is that Jaimie does state that he does not use SS & Pensions - but at the same time accepts that the 'experts' do. At that point the figures become irrelevant. The main reason why the pension contributions are so importat is that clubs now employ a scheme known as Employer Financed Retirement Benefit Scheme - this allows players to sacrifice upto 50% of their wages at source - dramatically reducing the wage payable, aswell as letting clubs reduce their NI contributions(12.8% on top of the players salary). Although this scheme is fairly new to most football clubs it pretty much replaces another loophole (image rights) which was removed by the Inland Revenue. Having a discussion about how much clubs pay their players whilst ignoring this significant benefit, makes the debate futile. Jaimie's figures are correct - but amount to no more than cherry-picking the true costs of player renumeration.

    ReplyDelete
  61. correlation of wage bill to win percentage in premership

    ReplyDelete
  62. So it's okay for everyone defending benitez to bring him up all the time but it's not for me, right?  The hypocrisy on this point is amazing; fans are always raising the issue of Benitez; it's part and parcel of discussing LFC.  Should we stop discussing and comparing Shankly, paisley, Dalglis et al too?!  I alway hear benitez supporters arguing that his win percentage is good compared to paisley + Dalgish; one rule for the Pro Benitez fans and another for those like me criticique him.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Sorry, but what relevance does revenue have to the discussion about wage bills?!  Absolutely none.  This article is putely abot comparing wage bills; revenue has nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Man U does have a holding company, yes, just like Liverpool did under H+G.  In fact, we have a new holding company now: UKSV, which is a UK subsidiary of NESV.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I'm sorry, but the figures in that presentation are wrong.  I have posted two images below from the accounts of LFC and MUFC for 2002, and the accounts specifically contradict the presentation.  Big time.

    ReplyDelete
  66. LFC Wage Bill for 2002:

    ReplyDelete
  67. Man United Wage Bill for 2002.

    ReplyDelete
  68. That presentation is not an official MUFC document; it looks like a student presentation, and whoever compiled the figures got it 100% wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Scottie - I don't see how the EFRB scheme makes any difference to the figures.  The EFRB payments are paid *out* of the club, not into it.  Thus, such payments would not appear in the accounts.  Additionally, the figure paid to players would stay the same; it's only after the money is paid out of the club that the EFRB kicks into action. Example:

    * Liverpool pays player X 2m a year
    * 50% of that goes into an EFRB scheme

    At this point, nothing has changed the fact that 2m has been paid to the player. That is what is recorded in the accounts.

    And as for NI contributions etc - players don't receive that as a benefit anyway; it's take *out* of their salary.

    EFRB has no bearing or application to anything here.  It's clear to me that if you want an accurate figure of the club's spend on player salaries you look only at the 'Wages and Salaries' section of the accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  70. there is usually a relationship between income and wage ... unless ur chelsea or man city... hard to believe ur figures are correct.. when man u income is 50 % more , expect their wage bill to be 50 % more

    ReplyDelete
  71. What is the source of this image?  What is the source of the figures used?  Just because someone makes a pretty graph of figures doesn't mean it's accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Ok so if that holding company is paying appx 30 mill of salaries, surely that is directly related to the club? Bonuses maybe? Shouldn't that be included in your wage total? If not why not?

    ReplyDelete
  73. source:
    An Analysis of Football Management Trends 1992 – 2005 in all Four Divisions
    Dr Susan Bridgewater  @ warwick business school for LMA

    source for figures:
    Are based on data taken from the Deloitte and Touche Annual Review of Football Finance June 2005. It should be noted that these financial figures lag by a year.

    ReplyDelete
  74. pretty graph :
    Graphs are visual representations of data. They allow people to quickly
    absorb information, observe trends and to easily interpolate and
    extrapolate data. They are much easier to understand then a large
    table of numbers and if well constructed, should provide the same
    amount of information as the table. In presentations, it is usually
    preferable to use graphs as they convey your point quickly and without
    the need to understand what each and every number in a table means.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Why is it clear to you Jaimie, when the experts include it?? What are they missing that you are not?? Why not produce figures that the experts agree with? It wouldn't be because it weakens your argument?

    Like a politician, you are very good at making your point - and yes I know its your website - but if you want to make a serious point, at least back it up with the recognised (by the experts) figures!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Your statistical work is poor. You need to index link each year perhaps to overall premiership spend. As the change in wages over the years has been dramatic. You will then have a more informative analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Acrington stanley?? Who are they ?????

    ReplyDelete
  78. Again, I'm NOT a Benitez apologist and I couldn't care less if you wish to 'bring him up all the time'. Nor is there a shred of hypocrisy in what I've said. It is simply my considered opinion that your dislike of the man colours much of what you write. There is NO suggestion that we should 'stop discussing' anything or any of our previous managers. For example I'm willing to admit that I have found Hodgson difficult to warm to in the wake of some ill-considered, potentially damaging and frankly silly comments about players and performances, but I'm trying to see evidence that he might be growing into the role of managing our great club because constantly banging on about his flaws will simply make his tenure miserable for all concerned...

    ReplyDelete
  79. It's a shame we haven't seen any of their success..
    Above Ground Pools

    ReplyDelete
  80. It's a shame we haven't seen any of their success..
    Above Ground Pools

    ReplyDelete