Well from what Swanny says in toadys fail they are. Let's not forget, City were facing players on around £120,000 a week, about a tenth of what the Tigers earn. Chelsea have world-class players and are a world-class team.
Not sure what's wrong with that statement? As a Chelsea player they earn a tenth of what our entire club earns?
Yes. Ten times £120k a week is £1.2m a week, or £60m a year. Our wage bill is thankfully a lot below that.
I think you're completely misreading what I'm saying, and what HDM is saying... How much do we earn in a year as a club? Would it be roughly that 60m give or take a little bit? So when he says that one Chelsea player is earning one tenth of our entire club, I think that's what it is referring to.
Ah, you meant total club income. Well, yes, that would be closer to the mark. But this is all irrelevant, as you're trying to make sense of what is just a very simple mistake by Swanny/the HDM. You're giving them far too much credit. (EDIT: And to prove it, the online version has been amended and now reads: "Let's not forget, City were facing players on around £120,000 a week, a lot more than what the Tigers players earn. Chelsea have world-class players and are a world-class team."]
Ok fair enough, I actually read it the way I was trying to explain it, but looks like either the editors think it was a mistake or just think it's made a lot of confusion which it has!
It was definitely a mistake. Even if Swanny did have the brain to compare players' weekly income with a club's, he wouldn't have used "earn" when talking about club revenue, which definitely points towards employees' income. Either he or his ghostwriter just made a very simple slip.
