CH is currently second most financially effective Premier League Manager

[T 190]

Just divided current 2012/13 points by wage costs using latest available information on wages costs for each club which is generally the 2011/12 reported total staff costs as a proxy for the 2012/13 staff costs. Not all figures are available for 2011/12 yet but they are consistent with the 2010/11 figures in the Deloittes annual football finance report. The outcome is that currently CH currently generates the second most points for each million spent on staff costs. Not surprisingly Laudrup is first. Full table:

Swansea

Norwich

West Brom

Everton

Wigan

Reading

Fulham

West Ham

Soton

Stoke

Spurs

Newcastle

Sunderland

ManU

Villa

QPR

Arsenal

Liverpool

Chelsea

Man City

 

 

[Rolf Harris 31]

cool

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

I hope we qualify for the most financially effective Champions League.

[chicken 0]

I''m not sure how greatly you can rely on that.

What it does prove is that to be sure of a top six spot you have to spend, spend, spend.

It''s nice to see that we are doing as well if not better than others in the same sort of financial ball park as us, and better than some with more.

[Rolf Harris 31]

[quote user="chicken"]I''m not sure how greatly you can rely on that.

What it does prove is that to be sure of a top six spot you have to spend, spend, spend.

It''s nice to see that we are doing as well if not better than others in the same sort of financial ball park as us, and better than some with more.[/quote]But they have money to spend because of Europe.

[hogesar 9,615]

I don''t particularly have anything to say other than it shows CH is doing a good job (although most of the idiots who''ve been calling for him to be sacked have gone quiet anyway). Just felt like this deserves a reply for the time you spent working out that table! Well done! [:)]

[Salopian 1]

A manager''s effectiveness also depends on the players he inherits from his predecessor(s), of course. Some of the present team were signed by Lambert, and Laudrup inherited some good players. I wouldn''t say that the comparisons are invalid, but merely point out that if a manager inherits a poor squad, he probably has to spread his spending more thinly(- dare I say Aston Villa?), and is perhaps less likely to be successful.

[T 190]

Agree with all the observations. The additional points get more expensive at the top of the league. Man City points costs them four times as much as Swansea in wage costs last season and Lambert is left with the wage bill of players he inherited. Will update at the end of the season for final points and  check the figures against the next Deloitte football finance report but when I compare previous estimates with actual figures from accounts there is very little difference so I doubt that the analysis will change much depending on final points so the figures are robust. Key assumption is assessing 2012/13 using 2011/12 costs as a proxy for the 2012/13 costs but given that there is a very strong corrrelation between 2010/11 and 2011/12 costs for each club I very much doubt it impacts the overall picture.  I would be surprised if  the Bowkett and McNally don''t have access to the report so that they can also benchmark the club''s and the manager''s performance.

[William Darby 0]

What difference does it make if ManC pays 4x Swansea? It won them the league.

It''s fair enough to showing if managers are good value that''s fine. However the bottom line is basically, spending big practically guarantees EPL football each year if of course you have a capable manager.

[mastoola 183]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]I hope we qualify for the most financially effective Champions League.
[/quote]

indeed

there really should be one :D

[Mister Chops 7]

If you are using 2011/12 staff costs then surely the promoted teams at the end of 2011/12 (Reading, QPR, Southampton) need to be given an additional weighting to reflect the difference between 2012/13 Prem & 2011/12 Championship costs?Admittedly, I do just want to see QPR bottom of another league.

[Jacko 0]

Given that some of our budget for this year was being swallowed by servicing debt we were always going to have one of the smallest budgets in the league. It highlights what a good job Chris Hughton (and Paul Lambert before him) have both done. Particularly against a backdrop of promoted teams like Southampton and West Ham chucking a lot of money at things.

[Aggy 751]

When you say staff costs, do you mean the players as well (or juts the back room staff, with up to date players'' wages)? If it''s based on last year''s playing squad''s wage then I''m not sure it''s particularly accurate. The likes of Bassong and Turner will have increased the wage bill significantly one would have thought.

[Al 0]

The figures quoted are for last season so Hughton wasn''t even the manager. Makes the basis of this thread ridiculous

[T 190]

It is just a fairly standard productivity/value-for-money analysis of not just the manger but also the directors and players. Therefore it  would be surprising if Bowkett and McNally do not do something similar at least intuitively and it would be surprising if they did not pay the 600 quid for the annual football finance report which will include a similar analysis and which The Telegraph and Guardian also use.

The Champions League are in a different financial world given there TV and commercial revenue so comparisons with these clubs are limited.

MC makes a good point on the promoted clubs. Broadstairs posted a graph based on the estimated 2012/13 staff costs. On a quiet day I was curious how robust this analysis was so checked the figures against actual accounts or secondly Deloittes football finance report/press releases. There was very little difference between all the estimates and the actual 2011/12 figures but I used the actual 2011/12 actual rather than the estimated figures as these are more robust audited figures. The exception is the promoted clubs where I kept the 2012/13 estimates which looked resonable and West Brom which published the contracted staff costs for 2012/13.  I suspect the QPR staff costs may not reflect the January transfers but did not change the figures for consistency.

It is true that the analysis is also a reflection of PL''s performance last year.

Staff costs include non playing staff. Some clubs voluntarily publish player costs as a percentage of revenue but the total staff costs have to be reported in the accounts so this is a comparable robust audited figure which is available for all clubs.

 I agree that Bassong and Turnur have probably increased the 2012/13 staff costs. The estimate for 2012/13 is 41m compared to the 37m actual 2011/12 costs I have used. I suspect the 41m is reasonable as are budget this year will have benefited from TV bonuses offset by higher loan repayments. However, I kept the 2011/12 as it is robust and consistent. Using the 41m figure would not actually impact the ranking analysis as it is not enough to change the ranking of clubs by wages.

As stated the key assumption is whether the 2011/12 staff costs are a good proxy for 2012/13 staff costs. There is actually a 98% correlation between the 2010/11 staff costs and the 2011/12 staff costs so the assumption seems resonable basis for the relative ranking of staff cost and theerefore the analysis is only 2% ridiculous ;-) This makes sense as the relative ranking of  crowds, TV Money, commerical contracts and player contracts are similar each year.

 

[Mellow Yellow 18]

Good stuff T...I wish I had some of your time!

[T 190]

I''d rather not have time thanks to Cyprus situation. Er -not exactly a massive task to key in the league points and the staff costs, divide one by the other and click sort.  Bit of time to search latest staff costs. I really did not know what would come out although the results are hardly shocking.Clearly, Swansea and West Brom are the ones who have used their money most effectively recently and Ferguson does the business for the big boys which does matter as they are one of the few clubs run as a commercial investment. Abramovich strategy is not the most financially effective but don''t suppose he is worried too much about value for money.  I suspect if I could be bothered Moyes though is the one that has consistently delivered value for money long-term such that their fans would even beat some of ours in a league table of the most ignorant, miserable and ungrateful :-)

What also came out are that is Man City win the prize for best disclosure which normally suggests a well run business who are open with the fans followed by Arsenal.  Difficult to find much data for Fulham.