CITY were one of only five Premiership clubs to cut wages in the 2005/2006 season.
The Blues slashed £3.3m from their bill, while Fulham managed £3.8m, reveal accountant Deloitte's annual review.
The review also predicts that the average Premiership footballer will earn around £1.1m a year next season, and that the bumper new TV rights package will see the first £200,000 per week player within three seasons.
Key points of the report:
::Premiership clubs’ total wage costs for 2005/06 increased by 9% - (£69m) to £854m - the year before the clubs’ total wage costs reduced by 3% for the first time in the history of the Premier League.
::The wages/turnover ratio, a key performance indicator, increased to 62% in 2005/06.
::Five English clubs have total wages costs each season greater than £50m - Chelsea (£114m), Manchester United (£85m), Arsenal (£83m). Liverpool (£69m) and Newcastle (£52m). Tottenham were sixth (£41m).
::Five Premier League clubs cut wages costs in 2005/06 - in particular Fulham (down £3.8m) and Manchester City (down £3.3m).
::The highest proportional wage rises came at Tottenham (up £7.5m), Everton (up £6.1m), Charlton (up £5.3m), Aston Villa (up £5.1m).
::Average annual gross annual earnings for a Premier League player next season estimated at £1.1m (2005/06: £0.9m).
::Championship clubs’ total wage costs for 2005/06 increased by 5% to £228m with the overall wages/turnover ratio remaining 72%.
::Premier League revenues are set to exceed £1.7billion next season, the first year of new broadcasting deals - £680million higher than the next highest-earning league, Italy’s Serie A.
::The 92 English clubs’ revenues increased by 4% (£66m) to £1,860m - Premier League clubs’ revenues increased by 3% (£45m) in 2005/06, an average of £69m per club.
::The gap between the average Premier League and Championship club’s revenue was a record £56m in 2005/06 and is likely to increase to over £70m next season.
::Operating profits in the Premier League fell for the first time since 1999/00 to £138m (down 15%) and the number of Premier League clubs reporting operating losses increased from two in 2004/05 (Chelsea and Fulham) to four in 2005/06 (Aston Villa, Charlton Athletic, Chelsea and Fulham).
::Overseas clubs continued to be financial beneficiaries of the Premiership’s success. Net transfer fees leaving the English game were £187m.
::Fees to agents from Premier League and Football League clubs in 2005/06 were estimated to be over £50m.
::The monies redistributed to Football League clubs from the Premier League increased to £48m in 2005/06 (2004/05: £28m); the highest level since the Premier League began.
::Arsenal’s borrowing arrangements for their new 60,000 capacity Emirates Stadium have significantly increased the club’s overall level of debt in recent years. By the end of the 2005/06 season Arsenal’s net debt was £262m, ahead of Chelsea (£180m), Fulham (£167m) and Manchester City (£94m).
::By the end of the 2005/06 season, Roman Abramovich had injected around £485m of new money into Chelsea, through a combination of debt and equity.
::At summer 2006, Manchester United (£203m) topped the table for overall shareholders’ funds - being the excess of assets over liabilities/debt - followed by Arsenal (£131m) and Chelsea (£81m).
::At least 11 Championship clubs have net debt of more than £10m.
What do you make of the figures? Have your say.
Click
here to read our latest sport blogs.
Football finance special: City
May 31, 2007
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Just a few questions.
Why didn't you name the other 3 clubs who reduced their wage bill, or did you? Were their names hidden under the the bulk of useless accountancy speak which bores people to death? And why isn't there a table listing which clubs paid what to their playing staff? The info must be there, or would that make things too clear.
::Arsenal¿s borrowing arrangements for their new 60,000 capacity Emirates Stadium have significantly increased the club¿s overall level of debt in recent years. By the end of the 2005/06 season Arsenal¿s net debt was £262m, ahead of Chelsea (£180m), Fulham (£167m) and Manchester City (£94m).
Worrying?
So our debt is back to £94m - I thought we were down to something like £35m ? Will we ever really know how much mess this club is in .... no wonder it's taking the Thais so long to make their minds up !!!
I notice in the debt column that Arsenal are top and City are mentioned. No mention, however, of the astronomical debts over at the theatre of nightmares, I wonder why ed.?
GET A TOP CLASS MANAGER,NOT A TINKERMAN!!
Nick Lawless - if someone said to you as you sat and watched SP send out a 10 man defence at home against Charlton who were below us in the league at the time or as you listened to the post-match interview of SP on the way home that next season CR would be in charge - a man who doesn't get confused when asked the difference between a tactic and a tictac - are you telling me your heart wouldn't have lifted? Give the guy a chance, that is, if he does become manager. Not my first choice I must admit, but a damn sight better than a lot of others mentioned in regard to the job.
Big Mal,
City's net debt includes the stadium lease and the loans from Dawdle and Makin. External loans at the 31 May 2006 were GBP 42 million. Remember the figures being referred to here are now one year out of date. I estimate that City will have made a loss of upwards of GBP 12 million since then and it is possible that net debt will have increased over the last year although it did reduce in the year in question.
Also, people should expect that City's wage bill has increased this year as that was a tactical decision on City's part (I think descibing it as stategic decision would be too generous).
Absolute waste of time. These figures are for the season before last, so why bother listing what the wage bill was, when the info is so out of date ??
OB1 thanks for enlighteening me - so how much do we owe Wardle/Makin and how much is the stadium lease ?
Hehehe! It's bound to go up next season!
Big Mal,
City owed JW and DM GBP 22 million, including accrued interest, and leases amounted to GBP 42 million. The lease figures are an estimate of course because the stadium rental is determined by attendances.
Totalling misleading pro club PR as usual. Firstly, whilst City's wages bill went down in 2005/2006 thanks to getting monster earners like McMinimum, Fatty Fowler and Anelka, off the books, the half yearly figures released in Dec 06 for the 2006/2007 season showed that the wages bill has shot back up again (to 37.1m) thanks to the disastrous policy of paying top dollar to elderly Bosmans. Having been bitten once courtesy of Mills, Reyna and Co, who simply opted to stay put and see out their contracts rather than leave, we have now similarly saddled ourselves with clowns like Dabo and Corradi. Unbelievable financial mismanagement which leads to us leaking 10m plus per season in trading losses, and which only Frank can now save us from. As to the clubs who spend more than us on wages, all bar Everton and Spurs have billionaire Chairmen, and neither of them has interest of 35m worth of loans to pay off each year. Wardle out, Boler out, Tueart out, Swales out, Frank in!
This kind of thing is putting me off soccer !! Soooo much money going into so few pcokets..i.e the players & there agents
94 million????????????? administration beckons, we're doomed! Who'll buy city now????????? How did we manage to get in such a mess????