You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Options
Comparing every Premier League club’s wage bill to its final league position
Brentford, Brighton, Newcastle United and Arsenal are the Premier League’s biggest overachievers this season, while Liverpool, Chelsea, Everton and Leicester City are among the division’s biggest underachievers.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/comparing-every-premier-league-club-s-wage-bill-to-its-final-league-position/ar-AA19pGMB?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=02291a13285647bd9b04660bebe4ad82&ei=34
Comments
This is one of the major factors for any football club. But there are others. The most important of these would be net cost of the squads, followed by things like natural income from Champions League participation, ground size etc.
I think that report correctly identifies the over-/underachievers.
The bit that fascinates me is this. How on earth are Chelsea going to satisfy FFP going forward?
The same way City have bypassed all the rules for years, dubious accounting, a team of hotshot lawyers & an inept F.A.
But when it involves a 'Smaller' club it's a different story.
Reading given six-point deduction for breaching EFL business plan.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65175863
It was a season like no other for Chelsea. The inglorious end of Roman Abramovich’s 19-year reign as owner, two months of government sanctions and the eventual £2.5billion ($3.1billion) sale to a US consortium headed up by Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital.
Those extraordinary 12 months changed everything around Stamford Bridge but, as the club’s newly published accounts for that 2021-22 campaign underline, the turbulence and change came at a price. Chelsea FC Holdings Ltd recorded a net loss of £121.3million last season, despite annual revenue climbing to £481million.
The numbers depict a club facing financial challenges given they spent more than £500million in the transfer market subsequent to the “extraordinary expenses and loss of revenue” that came with Abramovich’s downfall.
Chelsea were never strangers to losing money in the Abramovich's age of excess and, albeit with a season badly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, there have now been losses totalling £341million across the last four seasons.
Does the above (a small excerpt from the original article) show a club that are being run sustainably ?
A lot of Chelsea's recent transfers in have used a (now outlawed) accounting trick, whereby £hundreds of millions of signings have been given 7 and 8 year contracts, and the transfer fee (for accounting purposes) spread over those 7 or 8 years.
Which means the underlying loss, just for last season, is probably an extra £300+ million. Meaning each of the next 6 seasons will have an extra £50 million debt over and above other clubs before a ball is kicked or a signing made.
Meanwhile, they are still looking to spend money like FFP does not exist.
It's not the case that "billionaire owners" is in any way relevant. No club is allowed to sustain losses of this magnitude. Regardless of the wealth of the Owners.
If (and it's a big if) Chelsea make the top 4 next season, the extra income from the Champions League might get them out of this. But without it Chelsea are rather obviously going to be in massive breach of FFP Regs
I get FFP and sustainability but if clubs like ourselves want to buy from other English clubs it can only help those clubs out during difficult periods
Strengths - solid right back but not as a wing back
weaknesses- he's not very attack minded but he is a defender afterall