The Wages Transfers Equation

[essex canary 623]

The attached shows figures as per Companies House entries for the most recent season spent in the Premier League by each Club except Leeds for which it is 2022 when they stayed up and Bournemouth to which it relates to their previous Premier League spell. All except for Leeds relate to relegation seasons. Some such as Burnley relate to Club's who had enjoyed a spell in the Premier League up to that point that also tends to make a difference.

The Wages are Total Wages including admin staff etc and pension fund and NI overheads. The Transfer Fee entry is the unexpired portion shown on the Balance Sheet as Intangible Assets.

 

[hogesar 10,775]

For somebody putting this amount of effort in, it really pains me that you don't know the use of the "Print Screen" key on your keyboard.

[cornish sam 1,040]

Your point being? Let's not forget that "when last in premier League" for a lot of these clubs was a once in a decade event, for us it was a repeat occurrence, each time our wage bill would have crept up

[essex canary 623]

5 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

Your point being? Let's not forget that "when last in premier League" for a lot of these clubs was a once in a decade event, for us it was a repeat occurrence, each time our wage bill would have crept up

Like West Brom, Watford and Burnley I guess. Then again maybe not.

[Google Bot 3,936]

We must declare the value of our players differently to other clubs as that isn't tieing up.

Unless the value is from a championship period, and the wages compared to prem period - whereas other clubs it's prem value vs prem wages.

Also, how do the loanees factor into this? We had high value players on loan which we didn't sign.  Normann, Gilmour, Kabak etc.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Google Bot

[essex canary 623]

The values are at the Balance Sheet date following the conclusion of a Premier League Season with all bar Leeds being a relegation season.

Clearly there could be some scope for differences of treatment re loan players etc. Burnley's declared player values look unexpectedly low but maybe they were quick on the draw in unloading players at the end of the season and pre Balance Sheet date?

No obvious differences re amortisation schedules etc. apart from Derby County's philosophy of revaluing players at the end of each season but we are not comparing with them.

Edited August 10, 2023 by essex canary

[mre2 5]

If the player values are in the accounts I'd imagine it was the current amortised value of the players at that time e.g value of the transfers fee paid, but with reductions calculated based on length of contract left for each player that we had paid a transfer fee for, and not the potential sales value of the squad. I doubt loans fees would not be included in any other these figures.

I believe a high percentage of the way bill was due to promotion bonuses. It would of been interesting to see what the wage bill would of been in the second season if we had stayed up.

[NFN FC 1,142]

Looks like you're trying very hard to find a stick 

[essex canary 623]

1 minute ago, mre2 said:

If the player values are in the accounts I'd imagine it was the current amortised value of the players at that time e.g value of the transfers fee paid, but with reductions calculated based on length of contract left for each player that we had paid a transfer fee for, and not the potential sales value of the squad. I doubt loans fees would not be included in any other these figures.

I believe a high percentage of the way bill was due to promotion bonuses. It would of been interesting to see what the wage bill would of been in the second season if we had stayed up.

Paragraph 1 is correct. The squad value could be higher when the likes of Aarons are added then again other Clubs will also have such players or indeed those they have bought whose value has either appreciated further or impaired further relative to the amortisation schedule.

Re Paragraph 2 if Leeds had a PL retention bonus in 2022 it effectively means ours was the highest wage bill.

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

This as intetesting as XG.

 

[TIL 1010 5,246]

The original poster on this thread must be a joy to live and socialise with.

[hogesar 10,775]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

This as intetesting as XG.

 

 

[It's Character Forming 1,204]

According to one of those football stats books (I think it was the Numbers Game but I can't be bothered to check) there is a strong correlation between wages and league position, but there's no correlation between spend on transfer fees and league position.  In other words, clubs that spend more on wages tend to do better, but those that spend a lot on transfer fees don't generally get a return from it.

 

These are averages so obv there are plenty of exceptions, last season for us being a very clear example when our wage bill was up at the top end of the division, unlike our actual performance. 

 

But if the table above is trying to compare wages with transfer fees spent, then I'd say it's completely missing the point.

[duke63 741]

It’s not uncommon for the very large bonuses paid for promotion to the EPL to actually be paid in the following years accounts. That would distort our figures a lot. 

[Nuff Said 5,973]

I’m not sure if it’s compulsory yet to post one of these on every one of your threads, but it seems appropriate.

 

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

Joyless.

[Google Bot 3,936]

19 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

The original poster on this thread must be a joy to live and socialise with.

I can only imagine the atmosphere around him as his neighbours were cleaning their new cars, and getting extensions built from the back of PPI plans they were mis-sold over the years.  I bet that near ruined his life, and made him question all of life's decisions.

[BurwellCanary 256]

27 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

The original poster on this thread must be a joy to live and socialise with.

You are assuming that he doesnt live alone and has friends then?

[paddycanary 580]

OP calls to mind that Robin Williams quote from 'Good Morning Vietnam...'

 

[Capt. Pants 5,018]

I just clicked on this thread only to say I really couldn't care less.

Move it to non Football.

[Dr Greenthumb 794]

What’s on sheet 1?

[Yobocop 1,444]

2 hours ago, BurwellCanary said:

You are assuming that he doesnt live alone and has friends then?

Not with that sofa! 

[Badger 2,745]

4 hours ago, mre2 said:

If the player values are in the accounts I'd imagine it was the current amortised value of the players at that time e.g value of the transfers fee paid, but with reductions calculated based on length of contract left for each player that we had paid a transfer fee for, and not the potential sales value of the squad. I doubt loans fees would not be included in any other these figures.

I believe a high percentage of the way bill was due to promotion bonuses. It would of been interesting to see what the wage bill would of been in the second season if we had stayed up.

Yes, I think that this is correct and was going to post something similar. Amortisation does funny things with player valuations and profit and loss in accounts.

e.g. We paid say £8 million for Rashica on a 4 year contract, but if we sell him for 5 we will have made a profit of £1million as he is only valued at 4 million after amortisation.

The other thing that s important that is does not value people who have re-signed after their initial period has expired (e.g. Hanley; Hernandez); came on a free (Krul, Lacey) or came through the academy (Aarons atm, Omobamidele, Rowe, Idah etc).

This explains the discrepancies between the player valuations and the wages.

[Badger 2,745]

5 hours ago, Google Bot said:

We must declare the value of our players differently to other clubs as that isn't tieing up.

Unless the value is from a championship period, and the wages compared to prem period - whereas other clubs it's prem value vs prem wages.

Also, how do the loanees factor into this? We had high value players on loan which we didn't sign.  Normann, Gilmour, Kabak etc.

It's mainly to do with amortisation and the fact that we have several youth players in the squad who are valued at nothing - see below.

[essex canary 623]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Yes, I think that this is correct and was going to post something similar. Amortisation does funny things with player valuations and profit and loss in accounts.

e.g. We paid say £8 million for Rashica on a 4 year contract, but if we sell him for 5 we will have made a profit of £1million as he is only valued at 4 million after amortisation.

The other thing that s important that is does not value people who have re-signed after their initial period has expired (e.g. Hanley; Hernandez); came on a free (Krul, Lacey) or came through the academy (Aarons atm, Omobamidele, Rowe, Idah etc).

This explains the discrepancies between the player valuations and the wages.

Fair points but other Clubs would all have similar circumstances. 

[Badger 2,745]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Fair points but other Clubs would all have similar circumstances. 

Yes, probably - but my main point is that the player values don't actually value the players at the club as free transfers, re-signed players and academy products don't have any value in the accounts as far as I recall (which always seems strange to me - a proper accountant, like Sheff may be able to elucidate further and more accurately?).

I wonder if we have academy products in our squad than most - although we are likely to lose a couple shortly!

[essex canary 623]

3 hours ago, duke63 said:

It’s not uncommon for the very large bonuses paid for promotion to the EPL to actually be paid in the following years accounts. That would distort our figures a lot. 

If that is the case the auditors ought to be sacked because that would be an abuse of accounting conventions and requirements. Under Income and Expenditure accounts (as opposed to Receipts and Payments Accounts) charges and incomes must be applied to the accounting period in which the liability or benefit arises as distinct from paid or received. 

[essex canary 623]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

Yes, probably - but my main point is that the player values don't actually value the players at the club as free transfers, re-signed players and academy products don't have any value in the accounts as far as I recall (which always seems strange to me - a proper accountant, like Sheff may be able to elucidate further and more accurately?).

I wonder if we have academy products in our squad than most - although we are likely to lose a couple shortly!

Yes. I believe you are right aside from Derby County who apparently do revalue their players each year. When Derby County revalued their stadium on the same principles everybody seemed to be opposed to it.  If Derby County, or anyone else for that matter, wants a different accounting policy that is their prerogative albeit that perhaps if we want standard fair play rules within football it is not practicable.

Which method is preferable is a matter of debate. Since player revaluation would to a certain extent be at the Club's discretion, Derby's approach definitely creates opportunity for fair play infringement in a way that perhaps the standard approach does not. The latter being based on transfer fees actually paid allocated over contracted seasons whilst risking being unrepresentative in the way that you indicate is not subject to manipulation.      

[The Raptor 1,574]

Is general wage inflation taken into account? There's no value comparing our spending to Cardiff and WBA who were last in the prem years ago. 

Palaces bill has gone up over 500%!

https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/premier-league-wages-increase-figures/

 

[Google Bot 3,936]

40 minutes ago, essex canary said:

If that is the case the auditors ought to be sacked because that would be an abuse of accounting conventions and requirements.

I'm pretty sure that Smith, Webber and Ward are fine impartial auditors acting within conventions.  I suppose you're going to start questioning the accidental assignment of director bonuses as travel expenses next?