Arsenal chief executive Ivan Gazidis believes the club's latest financial statements vindicate their current approach. The Gunners have announced another healthy pre-tax profit and Gazidis claims the club "can and will forge our own path to success" in the future. Group profit before tax was £36.6million in the figures for the year ending May 31, 2012 which were published on Thursday, up from the equivalent 2011 figures of £14.8million. Arsenal, though, could not escape an inevitable increase in wages from £124million in 2011 to £143million, which represented 60.9 per cent of the club's football revenues. The parent holding company's overall turnover was £243million, down from £255million mainly because of reduced property sales, with a rise in revenues to £235.3million from £225.4million. The "cash and bank balances" stood at £153.6million, slightly down from a year ago, with net debt stable at £98.9million, most of which is tied in with the long-term mortgage following the club's move to the Emirates Stadium. Gazidis believes Arsenal are in a good position to fulfil UEFA's Financial Fair Play guidelines for clubs to live within their means. He said in a statement: "Clubs, fans and other stakeholders in the game are demanding a more rational financial approach and this reinforces our conviction that our club is strongly placed to succeed over the long term. "We have qualified for the Champions League for the 15th season in a row whilst off the pitch we have a business strategy and infrastructure that is helping us to grow our revenues. "This revenue growth will provide sustainable funds for future investment in the team whilst keeping within the UEFA Financial Fair Play requirements. We can and will forge our own path to success." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The new accounts are out, looks pretty good, not to happy about the wages increasing that much tho
Wage bill up by £19m in a year....only in the world of football do wages go up during a recession...while the rest of us are 2 or 3 years into a pay freeze! I know this is the case at most prem clubs so aint digging at Arsenal btw.
A good chunk of that was probably goal bonusses for RvP Not sure who signed new contracts in the last year but the Arsenal squad is certainly older on average than it used to be, and older players command higher wages. Arsenal are no longer buying youngsters of 19 or 20 to develop, they're buying players in their prime & they cost more.
our profit was 36 million, most of which was probably used on our new purchases, which was at 40 million, but we managed to recuperate that cash and make 45 million through players going out. so our next book balance is going to look bigger in terms of profit, mainly down to the player's we've sold.
Only one thing worries me about this: ''wages from £124million in 2011 to £143million, which represented 60.9 per cent of the club's football revenues.'' I don't know how sustainable this is - I'd be interested to see Man Utds, Liverpools or Tottenhams. Losing 61% of your gross income to staff costs is a crazy figure, I know football revenues are unlikely to go down but I wish the game could find a way of curtailing the greed shown by players - though I guess whilst the clubs with endless resources are prepared to pay £200k a week + we (and others) are forced to increase packages of our top earners. My fear is that with the new improved Sky deal from next year there's even more money flowing through football but I would expect player greed to get even worse....
Football like all sports doesn't work the same way as other businesses lets not forget players are not only staff they are also a clubs assets and their inventory. Football costs are almost entirely based on Variable costs when up and running our fixed costs must be much lower than average businesses as a part of revenue.
In terms of Liverpool, we cut a lot of our high wage earners this summer (Maxi, Kuyt for example) and have brought in young players or promoted academy players. But I imagine our wage bill is still disproportionately large - Cole apparently gets £90k a week (crazy) and Carragher £80k. Gerrard is on something above £120,000 a week I think.
This is a percentage chart, although the graphic is doesn't give you an accurate figure, it's gives a visual representation of turnover to wage percentage. Man City, the obvious culprits, are spending more on wages than their entire turnover - Their wage percentage is at something like 130% of their income please log in to view this image
Gazidis video here explaining our financial results http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/free-video-gazidis-on-financial-results?
All this means is that the share prices will stay high, don't really see how that benefits us? Wish he'd stop talking about fair play rules as if they'll affect any premiership team...
It also means that our revenue stream is better and our debt more easily managed, which should give us more freedom to spend on the squad.
Surpised that Utd's wage bill is only a bit higher than ours considering they have 2 players on £200k+ The rest of their squad muyst be on similar wages to ours
The figures are from last years financial results, but I suppose you can reasonably assume that Utd's wage bill has increased in line with ours. That said, they are still spending £30m more than us per season on wages
Gota remember Arshavin, Chamakh, Squillaci, Denilson, Bendtner, & Park are all on decent wages but can't get anywhere near the first team. The loan clubs aren't paying all of their wages either. Say each is on 50k for example, that equates to 2.5m per year - that's 12.5m on those players alone. When they're all off the books there will be plenty of room for contract improvements / new players wages.
I believe Denilson and Bendtners wages are being covered in full by the loanee clubs but you are right the rest of them are 'saddled' on our wage bill - tbf all the names mentioned are players who were considered first teamers and now aren't. We have a very good wage structure for our first team squad but I do feel we overpay fringe and young players.
I agree completely. When more of the "deadwood" have been shifted, there will be more wages available. Personally I thinkt he Club should jettison all players at the age of 21 that aren't going to make the 25-man squad. No more loan deals, no more hoping. Everyone knows Eastmond & Watt won't make it at Arsenal. They should be let go for nominal fees to get them off the wages.
I think we did, not so much now for younger players coming through. We've changed tact and are now buying established players and mixing them with younger players. I can understand the club's approach in the past though, we were not able to compete with City, Chelsea, Utd and even the Spuds either on transfers or wages when we moved to the Emirates, so we had to try to develop young players. To keep them tied to the club - i.e. Not seeing them being developed and then leaving on a free because they were on short contracts, we had to give them long contracts with decent wages. It didn't really work out for the likes of Denilson, Bendtner, Vela etc and we were saddled with a big wage bill for fringe players. Thankfully, this now seems to be coming to an end.
Unfortunately most of the deadwood that people have talked about will be at the club until there contracts end IMO, no one will pay them equal wages and most have proved that they are unwilling to take a pay cut. Take Squillaci, the guy is basically a laughing stock at arsenal, and was offered the chance to leave for free, but refused. He would basically rather be a laughing stock and a joke, and pick up a huge pay packet for doing nothing rather than take a pay cut and go and try and rebuild his reputation at a smaller French club. Sad state of affairs TBH.
Squillaci is now 32, and in the final year of his contract. IMO his decision to see his contract out is understandable even if not admirable. His career is more or less over and staying was his best option. He made his biggest mistake in 2010 moving to the Premier League. Must have regretted it a thousand times despite the financial benefit.
