According to the times, southampton's wage bill is 124.4% of turnover. De ja vu Still not as bad as reading, a whopping 180% of turnover.
please log in to view this image Obviously don't know what date figures come from without reading the article.
I've just checked, and the 125% figure was for the 2011/12 season. Obviously revenue is ridiculous amounts higher this season, so let's not stress too much.
Come on now PompeyLapras, being a WUM doesn't suit you...I think of you as the nice skate! The figures you have given are for last years Championship campaign, where pretty much every club giving promotion a decent go are running in the red.
Revenue for this season should be a bit higher so not a problem, it's not as if Saints were paying Peter Crouch or Jermaine Defoe £100,000+ per week is it?
According to the times, Wigan do. It doesn't say when the data is from unfortunately. Presumbly the last financial year
I call bull **** anyways, QPR only using 92% of turnovercan't be right. I'd like to add it wasn't our wage bill that put us in admin last time it was repayments for our stadium.
Again, last years figures, pretty sure the aquisition of Remy, Samba, Jenas et al will have blown 92% right out of the water. Will be fascinating watching them next year if their top earners refuse to jump ship.
I would have said it was even more then that last year as well, with Zamora on a reported 70k a week.
As others have mentioned, this is from the championship season accounts. How could we possibly have a revenue of only £21m in the premier league when the lowest payout for TV rights alone last year was £39m to Wolves? The full accounts for this season have not been released yet. As mentioned before in the thread discussing that release, 125% wages/turnover is not uncommon in the championship and because we were promoted ahead of schedule we're financially in a much stronger position than we originally budgeted for. Our revenue will obviously be much higher this season, and although the wages will be going up too, I'd be surprised if the ratio was quite that high now, especially as, according to the half-season accounts, we are on target to make a profit.
Nope. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/16/qpr-bank-loan-tony-fernandes?CMP=twt_gu I'm sure that will definitely end well.
Wages for first 6 months of return to Premier League were 59% or turnover http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/southampton-record-good-profit
Nicola's stated intention since Markus bought the club was to get to the Premier League as soon as possible, because only then would it be possible to make any return on the investment. We were always meant to run at a loss while in the lower leagues, and as stated above, the fact that it only took us 3 seasons to get to the top flight can only have been for the best in financial terms, even if we struggled to get to the pace of the Prem in the first few months. Now we look pretty certain to stay up, we are in the best possible financial position, with the increased TV revenue coming in next season.
But you can also see why the Financial Fair Play rules cause problems. You have to spend to get into the Premier League. If you are smart and you invest wisely, it pays off and you come out ahead. If you miss, then your team right away could be in serious trouble. Rather than take an approach that would mitigate the high risk/high reward nature of seeking promotion to the Premier League, the fat cats have merely forbidden the smaller clubs from taking a risk at all. The Premier League teams get all the TV revenue, so how is anyone to match them without going into debt? With the Financial Fairplay and TV revenue deal and Elite Player Performance Plan they are really squeezing out the majority of clubs in England. Saints are extremely lucky we got in just before they slammed the door.
