I'm sure this is a great article, but frankly, I'd be dead by boredom by the end of it.

comment by APantsArsenalFan - We finally got our marquee ... (U11422)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm sure this is a great article, but frankly, I'd be dead by boredom by the end of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m not sure where I was heading with this article but my question is Premier League wages – are they sustainable? If not then when will the breaking point come?
...........................................................
No.17th March 2038

Fair play for the effort, but I couldn't be bothered to read it all. A shortened version would have been great

comment by Lion-el King IV - The artist formerly known as... (U9722)
posted 1 minute ago
Fair play for the effort, but I couldn't be bothered to read it all. A shortened version would have been great
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-el this was the shortened version! I will see if I can trim the fat and condense this for JA readers

Having looked into the amount of revenues generated by global TV right sales of the premier league , it almost gives players and agent the right to ask for a bigger chunk of it. as they are the one who 'entertain' thus inflating the demand and the price for the broadcast rights. Its unfortunate that most clubs cannot compete without spending silly money on transfers and wages.

comment by Lion-el King IV - The artist formerly known as... (U9722)
posted 1 minute ago
Fair play for the effort, but I couldn't be bothered to read it all. A shortened version would have been great
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-el this was the shortened version!
-----


To answer the op the wages are only as sustainable as the rate at which teams make money.

Seeing as many of these clubs are doing so well financially, and the tv money and sponsorships in football being bigger than ever, then in the short term I think they are sustainable.

Predicting whether or not the money in football will rapidly decrease is pretty impossible to do, and seeing as they are related, it makes it impossible to predict whether or not the wages are sustainable as well.

To point out, I was talking about in the long term in that last paragraph.

Good article

I can't claim to have really looked into the subject, but I guess the wage-turnover ratio isn't necessarily an indicator of financial health.

With the new TV deals, sponsorships etc, there has been a massive increase in turnover for the average Premiership club. Assuming other costs haven't rise in-line with turnover, I don't see that there's a huge problem in investing a greater proportion of the increased revenue into wages.

For example, if a team's turnover was £100m previously, with £50m paid on wages and £50m spent on other costs, then they would have a 50% wage-turnover ratio.
If the increase in TV revenue resulted in a turnover of £200m, but 'other costs' remained the same (£50m), then the club could afford to spend much more on wages (an additional £100m, taking their wage-turnover ratio up to 75%) and still break-even - as they had been doing previously.

That's my (simplistic) way of thinking about it, but as I say, I haven't really looked into it, so I could be wrong.

My god, is it really such a chore to read more than 10 words for you people?

The answer is, yes, for the game as a whole it is sustainable - people have predicted the implosion of football for may years now and it just keeps chugging on. Generally at the expense of one or two clubs, and one or two TV companies - but who cares about them, life's all about The Premiership (TM).

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Lion-el King IV - The artist formerly known as... (U9722)
posted 1 minute ago
Fair play for the effort, but I couldn't be bothered to read it all. A shortened version would have been great
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-el this was the shortened version!
-----


To answer the op the wages are only as sustainable as the rate at which teams make money.

Seeing as many of these clubs are doing so well financially, and the tv money and sponsorships in football being bigger than ever, then in the short term I think they are sustainable.

Predicting whether or not the money in football will rapidly decrease is pretty impossible to do, and seeing as they are related, it makes it impossible to predict whether or not the wages are sustainable as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't joking either Darren the full article had 3 sections, wages, turnover and then wages v turnover!

Thanks for the reply, I suppose one of the things that shocked me the most was that almost 90% of the increase in turnover has gone on wages.
The fact is clubs get blamed for high pricing but the increases over this period seem to have just offset the increase in wages players are asking.

Yeah it's surprising how much of that has gone on wages.

comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 43 seconds ago
could someone please go onto buzza's article above this one and ask him to unfilter me so that I can contribute... its a really good article.

We are proof that premier league wages are not sustainable. Every year 3 teams go down and those 3 teams are always screwed unless they come back up right away. Premier league wages are not sustainable because the income in the championship is so much smaller, and when you go down the players have proved they arent good enough for the premier league over 38 games.

So then what? How do you sell players on premier league wages who prove they arent good enough for the premier league? Answer = you cant. So you are screwed like us.

The points are that teams who arent sure of staying in the league (anyone but the top 7) should sign players to short term contracts generally.

comment by ツ Heиgy (U9129)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 43 seconds ago
could someone please go onto buzza's article above this one and ask him to unfilter me so that I can contribute... its a really good article.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hengy wIll do this now for Chronic, can't remember filtering him.

In case anyone wants to view the figures used

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxTW_ihRiXp2SnNtaUJ5TUlEc1k/edit?usp=sharing

thanks buzza. thanks hengy.


the richest clubs can sustain it yes. there is no sign whatsoever of the football bubble bursting, in fact every year there is even more investment into the game.

we have already seen that top level football is recession proof.

the question is what effect will FFP have on wage movements going forward?

comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 3 minutes ago
thanks buzza. thanks hengy.


the richest clubs can sustain it yes. there is no sign whatsoever of the football bubble bursting, in fact every year there is even more investment into the game.

we have already seen that top level football is recession proof.

the question is what effect will FFP have on wage movements going forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would certainly appear that FFP could have an effect on wage increases especially during the first few years, I would expect to see the wages plateau for a few years and then once clubs streamline their revenue processes this will begin to increase again. For some clubs I reckon the wages now will be the highest (in %) that we may ever see.

the question is what effect will FFP have on wage movements going forward?
_______________

In essence FFP is a great idea as it supposed to banish irresponsible spending, however it does also allow the biggest and richest clubs to remain there for potentially a long, long time. Unless the superpowers have an almighty fall from grace which lasts several years they'll always have the massive revenue etc to keep them as part of the elite.

Take someone like bayern Munich for example. How many shocking seasons in a row would it need before someone like schalke are able to rake in anywhere near the sort of revenue they do? Means the teams who aren't at that level (schalke, spurs, atletico Madrid, Roma etc) are reliant on great results on a reduced budget while being able to hang onto their stars or forever finding gems to keep them progressing.

FFP is more concerned with transfer spending that wages, so I don't think it would have a huge effect on them.

I'm on my phone at the moment, so I'll look it up later. But I do believe the new premier league FFP that came in last year puts a maximum wage increase year on year.

I think that might be related to income as well, though.

You can increase your wages by whatever you like as long as it's financially viable, I think.

The wage increase is capped at £4m per year if wages already exceed £52m per year.
It actually says that you can increase by £4m and any increased revenue from commercial deals.

But that just confused me!! This was the first site I saw that wasn't a red top or the daily mail.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

Imagine what could be achieved if ever 20% of the increase turnover was dedicate to youth development and each club.