So Inter's wage bill is 104% of tunrover and they lose 150m a year...

[Woland]

The last available accounts are for the year ending 30 June 2009 and these report an enormous loss of €154 million (£132 million). Just a blip? Not a bit of it – the previous year’s loss was very nearly as bad at €148 million and the 2007 loss was even worse at €208 million. That gives a cumulative loss of €509 million in just three years – over half a billion!

In fact, the profit and loss account has been a tale of woe throughout Moratti’s presidency. Even the reported loss of “only†€31 million in 2006 was boosted by the sale of Inter’s brand to a subsidiary, so it was really a €181 million loss after intra-group transactions had been eliminated. There were suggestions that some of the accounting entries at that time, including inflated transfer fees to secure fictitious capital gains, were a little too creative, leading to talk of a financial investigation.

...

Even though marketing revenue could be higher, Inter’s real Achilles’ Heel is match day revenue, which is embarrassingly low at €28 million. In fairness, this is a common problem for all Italian clubs with Milan earning €33 million and Juventus only €17 million. However, this is considerably less than other major European clubs. Despite attracting average attendances of 55,000, Inter’s revenue per home match was only €1.1 million, compared to the top six Money League clubs who all generated at least €2.6 million.

...

The total wage bill stands at a jaw-dropping €205 million, which produces a wages to turnover ratio of 104%, way beyond any common sense let alone financial prudence. There has been a significant increase in wages over the last two years, rising from €162 million in 2007. In the accounts the club explains last year’s growth as being due to new players and an increase in bonus payments. The first part is accurate, as the players’ headcount increased by 6, but the second part is nonsense, as the bonus payments actually fell from €28 million to €25 million. Whatever. The fact is that Inter’s payroll is much higher than other Italian clubs: Milan paid €177 million, while the Juventus wage bill was only €130 million. Inter even paid more out in salaries than those well-known big spenders Real Madrid (€187 million), for heaven’s sake.

From: http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/08/price-of-inters-success.html

 

[kingjulian]

What is our total wage bill i wonder...

 

[spider-Neil]

at least they are using their turnover for players rather than paying off debt

 

[Sunny]

There's going to be loads of clubs that are going to compromise these new UEFA financial fair play rules - ourselves included . We were £55m in debt last year - £40m going to pay off interest on our owners debt. Cunts

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41607.msg1162483#msg1162483 date=1282815784]
£40m going to pay off interest on our owners debt.
[/quote]

the amount david villa when to barca, used for nothing more than the 'privilege' of being owned by the yanks.

 

[Molbystwin]

The players wages are simply unsustainable and it needs to be stopped, unfortunately thats the one thing Platini will not push through because he cant because it is set in stone by the EU.

At the moment we have the perfect storm massive TV income and huge popularity but massive losses due in no small part to many of the biggest clubs spending 60 to 70 percent of the income on wages, that in conjunction with small clubs butting in with foriegn oil money and paying astronomical fees and ludicrous wages for average players means that the agents ( a cancer on the game) insist on 3, 4, 5M a year for their client.

I hope that this new rule coming through will help to sort it out but judging by the shenanigans of the owners im sure they will find a way round it, after all in our case and in Uniteds they havent actually bought the clubs but seem to be in charge still! IF it does transpire that the new rules prevent clubs from borrowing tens of millions each year just to keep going then surely, ultimately, it will impinge on the wages structure at clubs, you could argue that the players deserve to be well paid but 125K pounds a week, for John Terry !! A determined and compotent centre back, 125K a week!!. Something has to give.


Taking the game away from its working class roots has worked a treat and the tickets now are four or five times more what they were just 15 years ago but still the clubs are broke with high attendances,they cannot pass on any more costs to the fans which leaves TV rights. A danger is if the big clubs like ours start weakeneing considerably and going to the wall would their be such a rush to pay 45 quid a month to have the priviledge of watching? If you had known how upsetting last season was going to be would you have paid for Sky? Probably ... but what if you knew that it was going to be shite this year next year and the year after.... paying 45 quid a month to watch torture.

Smaller well run clubs appearing in the champs league at the expense (literally) of clubs who have over borrowed will produce a much better model financially for the leagues but if the big clubs like ourselves Inter etc etc are left outside licking their financial wounds will the fans of Sparta prague and Zenit provide enough demand for the TV products? A Champs League without Man U and LFC and Inter and Real and Barca... whos going to want to pay to see that? Just how many people are going to watch those advertising slots? Its all got a bit too greedy hasn't it and it will definitely blow up, I suspect these new rules may well be the match for the fuse.

 

[Sunny]

Flippin eck.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/aug/26/manchester-city-sheikh-mansour

Sheikh Mansour has been forced to inject half a billion pounds in cash into Manchester City to cover his club's runaway expenditure over the past two years, Digger can reveal. Although that sum exceeds the gross domestic product of the Seychelles and Grenada, Mansour's spending will not stop there.

There are two main routes through which an owner can directly finance a company: either through debt in the form of shareholder loans, as Roman Abramovich did at the outset of his Chelsea ownership, or through equity. It is via the latter route – by issuing new shares to be sold to himself – that Mansour has capitalised City.

The injection of more than £399m up to December last year, much of which went on covering the £304.9m in shareholder loans that had been racked up with Mansour, was just the start. A statement released to Companies House by the board of the Eastlands club's parent, Manchester City Limited, said Sheikh Mansour had paid £46.2m in cash for new equity issued in May. "The following resolution was passed by the directors of Manchester City Limited on 5 May 2010: that 21,792,452 new ordinary shares be allotted to Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Limited in consideration of the cash payment of £46.2m."

There followed another resolution in January, under the terms of which Mansour has been able to fund the club with intermittent investments of cash. On 13 July another £53m came in to the club from Mansour's coffers, taking the cash investment in the space of slightly more than three months to £99.4m and to within a whisker of £500m in total. That is just what has been specifically announced to Companies House either through City's parent company accounts or its general filings.

There are indications that Mansour's total support for the club may even exceed £650m. According to a statement of capital filed with Companies House in July, accompanying the most recent equity issue, there are now 308,465,127 ordinary shares in issue. Assuming that each one of these cost Mansour £2.12, as all those issued this year have, Mansour will have made £650m available to the club.

Contributing to the runaway expenses under Abu Dhabi's ownership have been staggering transfer fees. Between September 2008 and December 2009, City's net expenditure on transfers after player sales was about £200m; another net sum of £100m has been spent on players since then.

The wage burden also takes significant support. It is impossible to know exactly what that amounts to until the club's next set of accounts are released in February. But given that wages were the key contributor to the club's £92.6m loss in the 12 months to 31 May last year – since when almost £220m net has been splashed out on new players – it is rising fast.

"[There was] a significant increase in operating expenses – primarily driven by increased playing staff remuneration," said the club's chief executive, Garry Cook in his statement in last year's parent company accounts. "It is therefore expected that there will be further significant operating losses reported in future financial periods."

So with £300m cash spent on new players after player sales, £82.63m spent on wages in the 12 months to 31 May 2009 – a sum that continues to rise – and losses of £96.2m over the same period, Mansour will have to put his hands in his pockets again. It is lucky they are deep.

 

[Sunny]

Uefa has approved plans to force clubs in European competition to spend only what they earn. The financial fair play rules will require clubs to break even over a rolling three-year period if they want to play in the Champions League or Europa League.

"We have worked on the financial fair play concept hand-in-hand with the clubs, as our intention is not to punish them but to protect them," said Michel Platini, the president of Uefa, after its executive committee had approved the rules at a meeting in Nyon, Switzerland. "The philosophy is that you cannot spend more money than you generate.

"This approval is the start of an important journey for European football's club finances as we begin to put stability and economic common sense back into football. I thank all the stakeholders who have supported this along the way."

There will be some leeway granted for the six years after 2012 but some Premier League clubs, notably Manchester City, Chelsea and Aston Villa, could still fall foul of the rule unless they change their spending habits.

Manchester United have carried out a 'dummy test' and believe they would pass the rules despite the handicap of paying out £45m to service their debts every year. Arsenal and Tottenham would pass the test comfortably, while Liverpool, Celtic and Rangers would probably do so.

"We support the financial fair play measures. We are confident that we pass them and that we will continue to do so," said a United spokesman.

It is understood that clubs must not return losses of more then €45m (£38m) for the 2012-15 period. After 2015 clubs are given a leeway of €30m (£26m) for three-year losses after which the figure will be reduced still further.

Clubs that breach the rules will not be granted a Uefa club licence to take part in European competitions.

Man City and Chelsea are surely fucked with these rules and their current spending...

 

[Molbystwin]

That is dictionary definition of unsustainable, flippin heck indeed sunny....

650M.... jesus....

 

[Terrier]

For a SWF with approx 600 billion dollars of cash, frankly speaking, even a billion dollars is the same as a can of coke to the normal human being.

City will win the league within a year or two.

I'm still unsure of Mancini - but when they get Mourinho in, they will be one of the top teams in the world.

 

[Avmenon]

[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41607.msg1162533#msg1162533 date=1282821226]

Uefa has approved plans to force clubs in European competition to spend only what they earn. The financial fair play rules will require clubs to break even over a rolling three-year period if they want to play in the Champions League or Europa League.

"We have worked on the financial fair play concept hand-in-hand with the clubs, as our intention is not to punish them but to protect them," said Michel Platini, the president of Uefa, after its executive committee had approved the rules at a meeting in Nyon, Switzerland. "The philosophy is that you cannot spend more money than you generate.

"This approval is the start of an important journey for European football's club finances as we begin to put stability and economic common sense back into football. I thank all the stakeholders who have supported this along the way."

There will be some leeway granted for the six years after 2012 but some Premier League clubs, notably Manchester City, Chelsea and Aston Villa, could still fall foul of the rule unless they change their spending habits.

Manchester United have carried out a 'dummy test' and believe they would pass the rules despite the handicap of paying out £45m to service their debts every year. Arsenal and Tottenham would pass the test comfortably, while Liverpool, Celtic and Rangers would probably do so.

"We support the financial fair play measures. We are confident that we pass them and that we will continue to do so," said a United spokesman.

It is understood that clubs must not return losses of more then €45m (£38m) for the 2012-15 period. After 2015 clubs are given a leeway of €30m (£26m) for three-year losses after which the figure will be reduced still further.

Clubs that breach the rules will not be granted a Uefa club licence to take part in European competitions.

Man City and Chelsea are surely fucked with these rules and their current spending...
[/quote]

They'll probably just change the rules again.