Article posted on The Guardian today talking about total wage cost in Premier League accounting for 2/3 of the leagues total income. 

 

As part of this it mentions that we have the second highest wage bill in the league at £173m, some £30m less than Manchester City's.

 

It is worth noting that the report does not differentiate from Playing staff to all other staff such as executives, cleaners etc. 

 

The Guardian's breakdown of our accounts is:

 

 Accounts (of the holding company, Fordstam) for the year to 30 June 2012

Ownership: Wholly owned by Roman Abramovich, registered at Companies House as a Russian resident

Turnover: 2nd in league, £261m (up from £229m in 2011)

... Broadcasting: £113m

... Matchday: £78m

... Commercial: £70m

Wage bill: 2nd, £173m (down from £190m in 2011)

Wages as proportion of turnover: 66%

Loss before tax: Â£4m (following £78m in 2011)

Net debt: Â£878m

Interest payable: Â£Nil

Highest paid director: Unnamed, £911,000 (Ron Gourlay is the chief executive)

State it's in:

Roman Abramovich has taken the burden of his loans away from Chelsea football club itself, but these accounts for the holding company show the Russian oligarch's loans increased substantially in the year. Abramovich lent a further £79m to the Chelsea operation, increasing the total to a staggering £896m, poured into Chelsea since he bought the club in 2003. Some restraint is evident even in the year Chelsea's players were able to win the Champions League trophy for their paymaster. The wage bill came down and £29m was made selling fringe players. The loss of £4m would have been higher, though, without an exceptional £18m noted from two share dealings.

 

 

 

 

 

I think it is interesting to note that last season we reduced our wage bill by almost £20m from the previous year, given that Drogba has since left and it looking likely that Lampard, Malouda, Benayoun and Ferreria are going to leave at the end of this season I can only imagine that are wage bill is going to continue to drop.

My thoughts when I saw this were that I can, from a financial perspective, see why the club may be letting Lampard leave because if the club can point to a continued reduction in their outgoings then we will comfortably fall inside FFP regulations. 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Link to article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-clubs-wages-players

 

Link to club by club breakdown:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

Edited April 18, 201313 yr by ForeverCarefree

essien will probably leave too, so add that to lampard, beneyoun, ferreira, and malouda, and that would be another 25m off the wage bill.

essien will probably leave too, so add that to lampard, beneyoun, ferreira, and malouda, and that would be another 25m off the wage bill.

 

I forgot about Essien, yes good shout.

 

I think you can tie this in with our recent transfer dealings, signing young players moving to their first "big" clubs, they aren't going to necessarily be demanding £100k+ a week contracts.

 

I have no idea what Mata, Hazard, Moses and Oscar are earning each per week but I would venture it is currently significantly lower than what the combined wages of Lampard, Benayoun, Malouda and Essien earn. 

Essien's wages are being paid by Madrid so getting rid of him isn't going to change anything

Essien's wages are being paid by Madrid so getting rid of him isn't going to change anything

 

Of course it does, it helps with the restructuring of the clubs wage policy, let's say for arguments sake he is earning £80k a week but the club aren't looking to offer above £60k for any incoming midfielders. By letting 3-4 players leave in one go who are above that wage bracket the club can use that as negotiation tool for any potential signings.

 

 

This is the thing about the Yaya Toure contract at City that I think it dangerous, they've now said that they value a key member of their starting 11 as being worth £250k a week. What is going to stop Vincent Kompany for example approaching the club and demanding to be on equal pay as Toure seeing as he is the club captain and 1st choice defender.

 

Then when they try to sign a new forward to replace Ballotteli, the forward is likely to be looking to earn a very large contract too.

 

Without rambling on, the point I am making is, is that it is healthy to be seen trying to reduce the wage bill and move on fringe players earning more than their worth to the squad.  

I meant in terms of your estimates regarding how much we'll cut from the wage bill, getting rid of him won't cut anything as his wages aren't currently on us.

I meant in terms of your estimates regarding how much we'll cut from the wage bill, getting rid of him won't cut anything as his wages aren't currently on us.

 

Ah okay, well the numbers listed are for the 11/12 season so I guess the decision to send him out on loan this year is going to help impact this seasons numbers along with allowing Drogba and to a lesser extent Kalou to leave. 

Obscene amount of money... and where to the Guardian get all of this information?!

Obscene amount of money... and where to the Guardian get all of this information?!

 

Club records.

 

For more clarity, take a look at swissramble 's timeline on twitter, he has given a nice little summary with graphs

Almost 900m debt? Closer to 0, actually. Roman has turned nearly all of his loans to equities.

Can't remember where I read it but since buying the club and supposedly investing about a billion his personal wealth has increased....... nit diminished so he is no worse off from owning us, oh to be stinking rich !

just can't see his personal objective is to make money, and the club must have it in hand to comply with FFP, I trust them with that much.