Palace's profits

Red'n'Blue · Feb 12, 2016

Bozza said:
I'd be interested to know more about this if you can surmise and/or copy&paste.

I'd have thought that, relatively speaking, you didn't have many big earners but you'd only just started taking them on and, as such, your wage bill is likely to be only heading one direction from here.

Jez has posted a fair bit above.

We signed lots of players the year we went up as I think our owners panicked a bit, giving some very average players big contracts, (Mariappa, Kebe, Chamakh, Guedioura and Campana were all on fairly big deals for a newly promoted club)

Both Mariappa and Chamakh are on £40k+ p/w but are out of contract in the summer plus Hangeland and Delaney are also out of contract in the summer so a fair chunk will be off the wage bill.

Red'n'Blue · Feb 12, 2016

El Presidente said:
It's certainly gone in one direction to date

2012 £11.7 million
2013 £18.8 million
2014 £45.7 million
2015 £68.0 million

Cabaye is a superb player, and Palace are paying him £80-£100,000 a week. Add to that Bolassie, Delaney and Puncheon signing new contracts, and that will add a lot to the 2015 wage bill.

You can add Dann and McArthur to that list of players who signed new deals. Dann rumoured to be on £65k+ p/w.

KZNSeagull · Feb 12, 2016

Triggaaar said:
That, on the face of it, seems totally unfair. If your club is well funded and not at risk, why should you not be able to spend what the big teams are spending?

This refers to the PL central funding (ie TV revenue). Any club could spend up to 56m of the central funding on wages in the 2014/15 season, rising to 60m in 2015/16. There is no restriction on the club spending money on from other income sources on wages, hence how Palace managed to spend 68m. The larger clubs obviously having larger income sources other than TV revenue. Personally I think that this is a reasonable rule, in as much that a club cannot spend everything it gets on wages but no, it isn't fair.

If I cared about Palace I would have serious concerns that their wages are spiralling out of control and would be asking questions along the lines of "is there provision in the contracts of our players that their wages will drop substantially in the event of relegation?", but apparently the situation is "rosy".

El Presidente · Feb 12, 2016

Red'n'Blue said:
You can add Dann and McArthur to that list of players who signed new deals. Dann rumoured to be on £65k+ p/w.

Palace can easily afford it. The new TV deal gives them enough extra cash to reduce the price of every ticket by £30 and give every player a £23k a week pay rise, without affecting profits.

The only thing I would be wary of is the Yanks. As much as I loathe Palace, Steve Parish is 100% committed as a fan, and if he makes any money out of it it's a bonus to him. whereas the new kids on the block are just looking for a return.

Swillis · Feb 12, 2016

El Presidente said:
Palace can easily afford it. The new TV deal gives them enough extra cash to reduce the price of every ticket by £30 and give every player a £23k a week pay rise, without affecting profits.

The only thing I would be wary of is the Yanks. As much as I loathe Palace, Steve Parish is 100% committed as a fan, and if he makes any money out of it it's a bonus to him. whereas the new kids on the block are just looking for a return.

In that swissramble says that the yanks have 38%, is that the case? In which case I'm not that bothered.

Joshski · Feb 12, 2016

Red'n'Blue said:
Big thread on our forum about it. Basically we can't afford to sign any more players until we get a few off our books. Luckily for us a few of our big earners are out of contract in the summer.

And I suppose sugning Adebayor helps with the FFP :wink:

Swillis · Feb 12, 2016

Joshski said:
And I suppose sugning Adebayor helps with the FFP

Only until the summer, I'm sure the maths worked out.

Dougie · Feb 12, 2016

Joshski said:
And I suppose sugning Adebayor helps with the FFP

With bamford going back and Spurs paying a cut of his wage it won't make a lot of difference with FFP .

Dougie · Feb 12, 2016

El Presidente said:
Palace can easily afford it. The new TV deal gives them enough extra cash to reduce the price of every ticket by £30 and give every player a £23k a week pay rise, without affecting profits.

The only thing I would be wary of is the Yanks. As much as I loathe Palace, Steve Parish is 100% committed as a fan, and if he makes any money out of it it's a bonus to him. whereas the new kids on the block are just looking for a return.

They will want a return el pres that is a given . it will be interesting to see this years accounts next year and see what the owners take out of the club .

Mackenzie · Feb 12, 2016

In all seriousness, it's great seeing a mediocre team like palace doing well. It just shows what can be done with a small fan base and decrepit facilities.

Dougie · Feb 12, 2016

North Stand Nutter said:
In all seriousness, it's great seeing a mediocre team like palace doing well. It just shows what can be done with a small fan base and decrepit facilities.

It's amazing isn't it .

Mackenzie · Feb 12, 2016

Dougie said:
It's amazing isn't it .

Yes.

Hats off to you guys, real Phoenix from the flames stuff. The terrible hardships that you've suffered, those humiliating administrations, and yet now one of the worlds greatest teams in the worlds greatest league.

It's the stuff of dreams, south London and proud.

Swillis · Feb 12, 2016

North Stand Nutter said:
Yes.

Hats off to you guys, real Phoenix from the flames stuff. The terrible hardships that you've suffered, those humiliating administrations, and yet now one of the worlds greatest teams in the worlds greatest league.

It's the stuff of dreams, south London and proud.

Using sarcasm to hide the hurt, its okay. We understand :thumbsup:

Mackenzie · Feb 12, 2016

Swillis said:
Using sarcasm to hide the hurt, its okay. We understand

Im paying you a compliment. Did it seem sarcastic?

Sweeney Todd · Feb 12, 2016

Swillis said:
Using sarcasm to hide the hurt, its okay. We understand

I would rather be hurt than embarrassed.

Swillis · Feb 12, 2016

Sweeney Todd said:
I would rather be hurt than embarrassed.

Easy mate, no need to discuss your sex life on the internet

Swillis · Feb 12, 2016

North Stand Nutter said:
Im paying you a compliment. Did it seem sarcastic?

No, not at all :laugh:

Mellor 3 Ward 4 · Feb 12, 2016

When is the redevelopment of the ground starting?

El Presidente · Feb 12, 2016

CPFC G said:
Always a good read the SwissRamble. God knows how he holds down a job and produces such clear and interesting reports on clubs finances.

As I understand it, he doesn't hold down a 9-5, having made his millions in the City and taken early retirement.

He's an Arsenal fan who also used to watch the Albion when younger too, and has an EXCELLENT taste in music, as we went to some of the same gigs back in the late 70's (not that I knew it at the time).

El Presidente · Feb 12, 2016

eaglejez said:
Only just realised the impact of the so called STCC part of the Premier League rules a week or so ago ! Basically in summary:

The Premier League don't have FPP per se but they have two rules that work over 3 year cycles (which seem to coincide with the TV deals !) - 2015/16 is year 3 so a new cycle starts from next season

Rule 1 - the bit that everyone seems to focus on ! you can only make 15m aggregate loss over the 3 years unless the owner funds the excess loss with equity (aka their actual money aka no 'debt' !). If they do this then their club can make losses over the 3 years up to 105m

Rule 2 - Short term cost control (STCC) that has suddenly come into the football media since it potentially could hit all clubs ! The rule says you can only increase your (player) wage bill 4m pa from the previous year. Any excess has to be funded (IN THAT YEAR) by either player trading profits or increases in non TV money ie tickets / commercial etc. So eg if Spurs player wage costs was 90m last season and if its 100m this season they need to show they can pay for this from player transfer profits (as per the P&L) or increases in non TV revenue. You can exclude contracts entered into before 2013 (I'm guessing that would mean you could exclude bonuses agreed in old contracts etc) and also if your player wage bill is 52/56/60 for the three years then you are exempt (in order to allow the promoted clubs to increase their wage bill).

Well as with all these things you can sort of see the logic (ie clubs shouldn't 'leverage' themselves on the big TV money since they went down they would struggle etc etc) but as ever the people coming up with these things and agreeing them very rarerly understand what they are doing nad never do the maths !! (why wouldn't they use the parachute payments if they went down and sold players etc ?)

The trouble with STCC is that it restricts smaller clubs from increasing their wage bill to catch up with the 'big' clubs ie the latter can afford to pay the high wages but the smaller clubs will take time to catch up.

In our case for YE June 15 our total wage bill was 68m so even with big bonuses to pardew et al I'm sure our player wages were near or over the 56m and if so then the STCC rule applied. Looking at the bare accounts our player wages would have jumped up over 4m from 2013/14. Our player transfers profit was 0.5m and the non TV revenue increase c7m. So all the moving parts that we don't know about (previous contracts, how much of the wages were non player costs, what was non central distribution revenuie etc) I'm assuming meant we just managed to comply but I'm sure it was close ! We made a profit and banked over 20m cash over the last 2 season yet were in danger of violating FPP. That can't be what the rules were intending to do ! For the next cycle the 52/56/60 will be increased but if these don't go up that much then its going to be pretty restrictive ie getting Cabaye in on his own would be an increase of 4m pa and we will make an accounting player transfer loss for YE16. You can see why we couldn't get Austin !

The other elephant in the room that everyone is just discovering is that STCC implies that tickets need to keep going up !! In theory under the new TV deal everyone could be let in for free for every match and the clubs would still have more money than this season but it would massively hit them under STCC ! again this is all counteproductive.

For clubs coming up they will initially be exempt but once they breach the barrier they are going to struggle to catch up the wage bills that they new TV deal will make worse and that the big clubs can afford.

Now that clubs like Liverpool are waking up to the fact that the could be hit not to mention the fact that STCC suggests ticket prices need to go up then perhaps the rule will change ?

STCC does seem like the elephant in the room, but, given that the rules were brought in by the clubs themselves, they can just as easy be relaxed, in the same way that FFP has been relaxed in the Championship (and is likely to do so in the Champions League too).

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Palace's profits

New member

New member

Well-known member

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

Banned

Active member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Old Brightonian

Well-known member

Old Brightonian

Banned

Old Brightonian

New member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

Share this page