Palace accounts - £54m loss - Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Palace accounts - £54m loss

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 4 << First < 1 2 3 4

Eaglecoops CR3 26 Apr 21 4.07pm
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt True, but then those were very different days. We now have the benefit of premier league TV deal money, though it is difficult to know what constitutes a sensible or sustainable level of debt. What is plain is that even with our relatively limited spending and long stay at the top flight table, we are struggling to break even. That must mean that the business model has reached its limits if nothing else. What is interesting is that even if Benteke had led the line with courage, skill and 20 goals a season for the last four years, ably supported by 15 goal a season Wickham, ahead of a defence brilliantly marshalled by Sakho, who the pundits all agreed was the best centre half outside the top six, the economic picture wouldn't look any different. Unless those investments led us to Champions League football, we would not have seen a return on them financially. Apart from the £1m+ per place the higher up the league we finished, but I take your point.
Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops

CR3 26 Apr 21 4.07pm

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

True, but then those were very different days. We now have the benefit of premier league TV deal money, though it is difficult to know what constitutes a sensible or sustainable level of debt.

What is plain is that even with our relatively limited spending and long stay at the top flight table, we are struggling to break even. That must mean that the business model has reached its limits if nothing else.

What is interesting is that even if Benteke had led the line with courage, skill and 20 goals a season for the last four years, ably supported by 15 goal a season Wickham, ahead of a defence brilliantly marshalled by Sakho, who the pundits all agreed was the best centre half outside the top six, the economic picture wouldn't look any different. Unless those investments led us to Champions League football, we would not have seen a return on them financially.

Apart from the £1m+ per place the higher up the league we finished, but I take your point.

Alert a moderator to this post

palace99 New Mills 26 Apr 21 4.25pm
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt Other way around surely? Competing in the transfer market is what has led to such a high wages to revenue ratio. We got to the point three or four years ago where the club felt they had to start matching the wages that good Premier league players were getting elsewhere. If we are going to do things differently from now then it'll involve not competing in the transfer market, at least not toe to toe with anyone significant. Transfers is only 1 element of the mess we are in. When you buy big names such as Benteke, Sakho and Cabeye clearly they want high wages. However, it is the knock on effect that is arguably just as damaging. Other players then feel they are underpaid in comparisons and so to keep a happy camp their wages get improved too - not to the same level but it all adds up. Similarly would we have paid the wages we did for Meyer if Tekkers and Zaha weren't already on similar? Contracts are usually for 3 or 4 years so once signed they can't be reduced quickly. So 5 years ago average wage was probably c £30k a week now it's nearer £60k and other than Mitchell i can't think of a 1st teamer on less than £50k a week. So say we have 20 players on £20k more than they were a few years ago. That's an extra £20m on the wage bill so is not available in the transfer budget. Hence my point. As a comparison i suspect Burnley's wage bill is considerably lower than ours and they definitely don't have any £100k a week earners - we had 4 at the beginning of this season.
Alert a moderator to this post

palace99

New Mills 26 Apr 21 4.25pm

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

Other way around surely? Competing in the transfer market is what has led to such a high wages to revenue ratio. We got to the point three or four years ago where the club felt they had to start matching the wages that good Premier league players were getting elsewhere.

If we are going to do things differently from now then it'll involve not competing in the transfer market, at least not toe to toe with anyone significant.

Transfers is only 1 element of the mess we are in. When you buy big names such as Benteke, Sakho and Cabeye clearly they want high wages.

However, it is the knock on effect that is arguably just as damaging. Other players then feel they are underpaid in comparisons and so to keep a happy camp their wages get improved too - not to the same level but it all adds up. Similarly would we have paid the wages we did for Meyer if Tekkers and Zaha weren't already on similar?

Contracts are usually for 3 or 4 years so once signed they can't be reduced quickly.

So 5 years ago average wage was probably c £30k a week now it's nearer £60k and other than Mitchell i can't think of a 1st teamer on less than £50k a week.

So say we have 20 players on £20k more than they were a few years ago. That's an extra £20m on the wage bill so is not available in the transfer budget. Hence my point.

As a comparison i suspect Burnley's wage bill is considerably lower than ours and they definitely don't have any £100k a week earners - we had 4 at the beginning of this season.

Alert a moderator to this post

TheBigToePunt 26 Apr 21 5.04pm
Originally posted by palace99 Transfers is only 1 element of the mess we are in. When you buy big names such as Benteke, Sakho and Cabeye clearly they want high wages. However, it is the knock on effect that is arguably just as damaging. Other players then feel they are underpaid in comparisons and so to keep a happy camp their wages get improved too - not to the same level but it all adds up. Similarly would we have paid the wages we did for Meyer if Tekkers and Zaha weren't already on similar? Contracts are usually for 3 or 4 years so once signed they can't be reduced quickly. So 5 years ago average wage was probably c £30k a week now it's nearer £60k and other than Mitchell i can't think of a 1st teamer on less than £50k a week. So say we have 20 players on £20k more than they were a few years ago. That's an extra £20m on the wage bill so is not available in the transfer budget. Hence my point. As a comparison i suspect Burnley's wage bill is considerably lower than ours and they definitely don't have any £100k a week earners - we had 4 at the beginning of this season. All true probably, although I would suggest that we started paying the going rate for premier league players not just because the likes of Zaha were getting a good deal - we paid it because otherwise we'd lose all our best players to other clubs. Dann, for example, was given £60k p/w at a time when he had done so well that some bigger clubs were looking at him. What I have noticed when looking at the various internet sites that claim to list the wage bill is not only the relatively high average wage (for us at least, and skewed as it is by the likes of Benteke and Sakho), but also the lack of an obvious structure to the wages. Is Clyne really worth twice what Ward gets? Was Sakho ever that good as to earn more than twice what Tomkins is on? Ideally our players would move up through the levels, earning progressively better wages as they became progressively better, more productive players - there would be a meritocracy. In our case, the highest paid have turned out to be the least productive (bar Zaha), which is not only an inefficient use of the money we do have, but not conducive to incentivising the players. Not an easy thing to fix mind you - as you say, we sign these guys for three or four years and are stuck with them if they underperform. All transfers are gambles, we've just seen one too many not come off.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheBigToePunt

26 Apr 21 5.04pm

Originally posted by palace99

Transfers is only 1 element of the mess we are in. When you buy big names such as Benteke, Sakho and Cabeye clearly they want high wages.

Contracts are usually for 3 or 4 years so once signed they can't be reduced quickly.

So 5 years ago average wage was probably c £30k a week now it's nearer £60k and other than Mitchell i can't think of a 1st teamer on less than £50k a week.

So say we have 20 players on £20k more than they were a few years ago. That's an extra £20m on the wage bill so is not available in the transfer budget. Hence my point.

As a comparison i suspect Burnley's wage bill is considerably lower than ours and they definitely don't have any £100k a week earners - we had 4 at the beginning of this season.

All true probably, although I would suggest that we started paying the going rate for premier league players not just because the likes of Zaha were getting a good deal - we paid it because otherwise we'd lose all our best players to other clubs. Dann, for example, was given £60k p/w at a time when he had done so well that some bigger clubs were looking at him.

What I have noticed when looking at the various internet sites that claim to list the wage bill is not only the relatively high average wage (for us at least, and skewed as it is by the likes of Benteke and Sakho), but also the lack of an obvious structure to the wages. Is Clyne really worth twice what Ward gets? Was Sakho ever that good as to earn more than twice what Tomkins is on?

Ideally our players would move up through the levels, earning progressively better wages as they became progressively better, more productive players - there would be a meritocracy. In our case, the highest paid have turned out to be the least productive (bar Zaha), which is not only an inefficient use of the money we do have, but not conducive to incentivising the players.

Not an easy thing to fix mind you - as you say, we sign these guys for three or four years and are stuck with them if they underperform. All transfers are gambles, we've just seen one too many not come off.

Alert a moderator to this post

est1905 26 Apr 21 5.35pm
Originally posted by dreamwaverider Is it right Sky and BT are going to pay way less moving forward. Something like 85% of our incomes is from telly rights no? Coupled with our covid accounts which must be dire, we must be looking up a steep hill or are our investors putting up at last? The Premiership inserted an 'upwards only' review on tv rights contracts. Each new contract Sky/BT/Amazon/etc offer can only be the same as the last one. It cannot be less. They would be breaking their own agreement and open to litigation if they went back on the agreement and said, you know what? we're not paying as much as last time. Plus they'd run the risk of the Premiership freezing them out of the next round of negotiations not to mention millions up and down the country cancelling their subscriptions if they can no longer get Prem football.
Alert a moderator to this post

est1905

26 Apr 21 5.35pm

Originally posted by dreamwaverider

Is it right Sky and BT are going to pay way less moving forward. Something like 85% of our incomes is from telly rights no? Coupled with our covid accounts which must be dire, we must be looking up a steep hill or are our investors putting up at last?

The Premiership inserted an 'upwards only' review on tv rights contracts. Each new contract Sky/BT/Amazon/etc offer can only be the same as the last one. It cannot be less. They would be breaking their own agreement and open to litigation if they went back on the agreement and said, you know what? we're not paying as much as last time.
Plus they'd run the risk of the Premiership freezing them out of the next round of negotiations not to mention millions up and down the country cancelling their subscriptions if they can no longer get Prem football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 26 Apr 21 5.37pm
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt True, but then those were very different days. We now have the benefit of premier league TV deal money, though it is difficult to know what constitutes a sensible or sustainable level of debt. What is plain is that even with our relatively limited spending and long stay at the top flight table, we are struggling to break even. That must mean that the business model has reached its limits if nothing else. What is interesting is that even if Benteke had led the line with courage, skill and 20 goals a season for the last four years, ably supported by 15 goal a season Wickham, ahead of a defence brilliantly marshalled by Sakho, who the pundits all agreed was the best centre half outside the top six, the economic picture wouldn't look any different. Unless those investments led us to Champions League football, we would not have seen a return on them financially. How much have we spent on further players in the positions Benteke and Sakho play in because they’re either injured, sh1t, or Sh1t when they return from injury only to get injured again? These purchases were because our scouting was a joke and non existent. It was basically who was available in premier league squads. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 26 Apr 21 5.37pm

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

True, but then those were very different days. We now have the benefit of premier league TV deal money, though it is difficult to know what constitutes a sensible or sustainable level of debt.

How much have we spent on further players in the positions Benteke and Sakho play in because they’re either injured, sh1t, or Sh1t when they return from injury only to get injured again? These purchases were because our scouting was a joke and non existent. It was basically who was available in premier league squads.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

est1905 26 Apr 21 5.39pm
Originally posted by dreamwaverider Is it right Sky and BT are going to pay way less moving forward. Something like 85% of our incomes is from telly rights no? Coupled with our covid accounts which must be dire, we must be looking up a steep hill or are our investors putting up at last? The Premiership inserted an 'upwards only' review on tv rights contracts. Each new contract Sky/BT/Amazon/etc offer can only be the same as the last one. It cannot be less. They would be breaking their own agreement and open to litigation if they went back on the agreement and said, you know what? we're not paying as much as last time. Plus they'd run the risk of the Premiership freezing them out of the next round of negotiations not to mention millions up and down the country cancelling their subscriptions if they can no longer get Prem football.
Alert a moderator to this post

est1905

26 Apr 21 5.39pm

Originally posted by dreamwaverider

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 4 << First < 1 2 3 4

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Palace accounts - £54m loss

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors