• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Player Morgan Gibbs-White

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ionman34 said:
No. Their wage bill is roughly £63M, which is 91% of their turnover. Hence £70M.

They need to bring it down to £49M in order to comply with PSR.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Right, misquoted the current wage bill, but their revenue still isn't only £70m. TV payments alone would bring it to over £110m even if that was the only revenue they had. Your £63m figure for salaries is correct though.
 
Ionman34 said:
To be fair it's wage to revenue, so the transfer fees would count as revenue. However, I don't believe the whole transfer fee would be included as part of that year's revenue, just the installments, so of that £90 odd million, maybe 10-20%?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Revenue is booked in full. Expenditures from player purchases are amortized over the length of the contract (max 5 years)
 
Ionman34 said:
They're also running out of time in relation to their wage to turnover ratio. Forest are currently at 91% and need to drop that to 70% by the end of the coming season.

If I am reading the ruling correctly, they are already in breach of that, as all clubs were supposed to drop to 80% in the last season.

Forest's income stream, even with a Europa League campaign, will not cover that 21%, so they'll have to offload players regardless to comply, which kind of makes them offering to double MGW's wages rather ridiculous.

Losing MGW won't necessarily get them out of the hole they're in, but it must surely be a major consideration.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ionman

That proposed ruling never got accepted by the Premier League.
We are still under PSR, with all its known faults and ways to get around it for next season.

www.skysports.com

Premier League's Profitability & Sustainability Rules to stay next season after delay to Squad Cost Ratio rules

Premier League clubs agreed at a meeting on Thursday to stick with Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) for at least one more season; Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) rules were set to be introduced in the summer; SCR limits clubs to spending 85 per cent of their revenue on football costs
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
 
Ionman34 said:
So nothing wrong with the maths, just that the information available wasn't accurate no?

Like I said, the TV money wasn't factored in so yes, that changes the picture.

FYI, overhead costs for staff, for the majority of businesses, are generally around the 3-5% mark, if they're being run properly. So the additional 3% the NYT were reporting would likely account for that.

In all honesty, I've probably jumped the gun by stating they're hip deep in trouble. However, we'll have to wait and see what their income is over the next season to see how that affects their wage/revenue figures.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What the PL and UEFA look at is wages (players and coaches)+transfers+agent/transfer fees to total revenue. That's the figure that has to be below a certain percentage. Not just the wages. But, of course, if the wages alone are at 80-90% you can be sure they're above the limit, unless they're exceptional at buying low and selling high.
 
Get in! said:
What the PL and UEFA look at is wages (players and coaches)+transfers+agent/transfer fees to total revenue. That's the figure that has to be below a certain percentage. Not just the wages. But, of course, if the wages alone are at 80-90% you can be sure they're above the limit, unless they're exceptional at buying low and selling high.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well...

Going by the MGW transfer...
 
Trotter said:
Ionman

That proposed ruling never got accepted by the Premier League.
We are still under PSR, with all its known faults and ways to get around it for next season.

www.skysports.com

Premier League's Profitability & Sustainability Rules to stay next season after delay to Squad Cost Ratio rules

Premier League clubs agreed at a meeting on Thursday to stick with Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) for at least one more season; Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) rules were set to be introduced in the summer; SCR limits clubs to spending 85 per cent of their revenue on football costs
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
OK.

I still haven't had anyone explain to me why so many clubs are endeavouring to get under the 70% though.
 
Ionman34 said:
Ok, I'm game. How is the maths wrong? If 91% of your revenue is used on wages, and your wage bill is £64M, what is this "whole bunch" that I'm doing wrong?

Righto.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Forest turnover was 164m in the year not 71.m

Assume the difference is amortization of player contracts which when added together with profit or loss on disposal of asset gives you the player spend. I assume you 91% includes the amortization of contracts, so not just wages.
 
Trotter said:
Forest turnover was 164m in the year not 71.m

Assume the difference is amortization of player contracts which when added together with profit or loss on disposal of asset gives you the player spend. I assume you 91% includes the amortization of contracts, so not just wages.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No idea Bruv.

As I said in the OP, I did a quick bit of maths based on the information I was able to get from the internet. NYT are reporting that Forest are at 94%. Their player wages at roughly £64M, so I just extrapolated from that. Whilst I concede that the exact player wages aren't 100% public knowledge, I doubt they'd be too far off the mark.

I'd be extremely surprised if other staff costs are much higher that say 5-10% of revenue, so there's an anomaly somewhere.

My guess is that the NYT didn't factor in the TV revenue, possibly because no one has received it yet, or it wasn't included for the last tax year?

You may well be correct on the amortisation adding to the high wage/revenue percentage. Whatever the reason or cause, bringing it down from 94% to 70% or under would be a big ask no?
 
Skippa18 said:
I still think this gets done
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But might need them to line up replacements for Elanga and MGW (probably their best 2 players last season) and maybe one or two others as they will be playing more games next season playing in EL.

I expect Marinakas to try to squeeze a few more million out of Spurs as he seemed taken aback by the existence of a release clause. But atm not too many other bidders for MGW, so Marinakas doesn't have much leverage.

So this might run for a little while longer, well into August quite possibly (but who knows and it might happen very suddenly even in a week if al new players get done l for Forest ), , but imo its too risky for Forest to not het done. .
 
Ionman34 said:
No idea Bruv.

As I said in the OP, I did a quick bit of maths based on the information I was able to get from the internet. NYT are reporting that Forest are at 94%. Their player wages at roughly £64M, so I just extrapolated from that. Whilst I concede that the exact player wages aren't 100% public knowledge, I doubt they'd be too far off the mark.

I'd be extremely surprised if other staff costs are much higher that say 5-10% of revenue, so there's an anomaly somewhere.

My guess is that the NYT didn't factor in the TV revenue, possibly because no one has received it yet, or it wasn't included for the last tax year?

You may well be correct on the amortisation adding to the high wage/revenue percentage. Whatever the reason or cause, bringing it down from 94% to 70% or under would be a big ask no?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, as I explained in another post wages to turnover is irrelevant. It's just been bandied about for reasons unknown (maybe because it's easier to calculate without having to get into player amortizations and the lot and serves as a proxy somewhat).

What matters is that wages+transfers (amortized)+fees as a percentage of turnover are less than 85% for PL purposes and 70% for UEFA purposes.
 

Notts Forest took out in December an £80m loan to refinance existing debt mainly, repayment due in 3 years - interest rate is pretty high at 8.75% which is about 3 times the rate Spurs pay on its bonds used to finance the stadium.

So chances are Notts Forest need to sell MGW to avoid very high interest costs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top