Oil club spending

[Oranges038]

I've seen reports that PSG already have an outlay of 250m this summer on free agents, transfer fees and contract renewals, these were about 3 weeks ago now.

Add in Messi for about 40m per year and it pushes their reported wage bill up to the 400m mark and their annual revenue is supposed to be about 500m. Whether or not the figures are accurate I don't know, but it's seems totally crazy.

FFP was a load of shite to begin with, it was full of loopholes and get out clauses. It was all just posturing at best. It wasn't worth anything and as we have seen it couldn't be enforced, it was the traditional top clubs trying to keep the sugar daddies from spending their way to success.

Football was never really a level playing field anyway in terms of money, I don't see how any amount of restrictions will create one.

 

[Utd77]

State run clubs should be capped in relation to what they can spend, otherwise it is simply not a level playing field
in the transfer market, its giving the oil rich clubs carte blanche, an unfair advantage tbh.

 

[Oly Francis]

I've seen reports that PSG already have an outlay of 250m this summer on free agents, transfer fees and contract renewals, these were about 3 weeks ago now.

Add in Messi for about 40m per year and it pushes their reported wage bill up to the 400m mark and their annual revenue is supposed to be about 500m. Whether or not the figures are accurate I don't know, but it's seems totally crazy.

FFP was a load of shite to begin with, it was full of loopholes and get out clauses. It was all just posturing at best. It wasn't worth anything and as we have seen it couldn't be enforced, it was the traditional top clubs trying to keep the sugar daddies from spending their way to success.

Football was never really a level playing field anyway in terms of money, I don't see how any amount of restrictions will create one.

That cannot be true, we didn't renew any contract for an higher amount that the previous one. Even Neymar took a (relatively small) paycut. As for the agent fees, no credible news was released about that so this figure is totally made up. The only tangible figure that we heard of was Hakimi for a transfer fee of 60-62M + bonuses.

FFP did have a positive impact on oil clubs since it forced PSG to try to build a sustainable business plan. Was it enough? Probably not, we had to much leeway for the first couple of years but it worked to a certain extent (we'd have built a far better team after Neymar/MBappé without it, we couldn't really spend but it's pretty normal, we shouldn't have bought 2 players that were that expensive).

 

[Harry190]

Making a joke out of the spirit of competition in general. Clown show.

 

[jakko]

Chelsea’s net spend is still less than Man Utd’s net spend in the last 5 years.

We also win trophies.

It's not just less its alot less, even Arsenal have spent more than us.

 

[Tyrion]

That's why I found the Super League arguments hypocritical. Where is the strong reaction by pundits, fans, media, governments against such absurd spending? Isn't that destroying the game?

Exactly. "How horrible! A super league would mean the game was dominated by the rich!" This the same year City and Chelsea make the CL final.

 

[SirReginald]

So £98 million is out of control.. remind me how much you guys have spent?

I agree these sums are outrageous for just a single player but if it’s within the constraints of the budget, what’s the problem?

You guys have spent over £100 million and Ole still wants more. You guys only have your second place money to spend. I’d suggest you see how much money you’ve lost once the window is closed.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

So £98 million is out of control.. remind me how much you guys have spent?

I agree these sums are outrageous for just a single player but if it’s within the constraints of the budget, what’s the problem?

You guys have spent over £100 million and Ole still wants more. You guys only have your second place money to spend. I’d suggest you see how much money you’ve lost once the window is closed.

And still dwarfing your yearly revenue by about 400 million

 

[Hulksmash]

I don't wanna know what spending would be this season if there was no corona.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

Our spending is no where near Citys. We negotiated with Dortmund for a year to the point we walked away. City just paid 100m for Grealish in a matter of weeks and are after Kane. We now have to sell to buy to get Trippier.
We are nothing alike.

Our wages bill is in most reports more than city. Our spending in the post fergie era is very comparable to city’s and we have currently spent more than city this summer (in fact we have spent more than anyone) in period were by most accounts we have lost about 200 million over the past 2 years.
So feels more than a bit hypocritical to point the finger.

 

[LoneStar]

You could also argue that the absurd Neymar transfer to PSG started this all. Wonder when one of these clubs will break the 150M or 200M mark for a player. United at least are in a privleged position, being very successful in marketing and have a global fanbase.

But this essentially kills a repeat of Leicester happening when teams like City who won the league comfortably now spend 100M on Grealish and potentially more on Kane.

What is to stop some other Sheik or oligarch to buy a club like Leeds and pump unlimited money in?

 

[cyberman]

Our wages bill is in most reports more than city. Our spending in the post fergie era is very comparable to city’s and we have currently spent more than city this summer (in fact we have spent more than anyone) in period were by most accounts we have lost about 200 million over the past 2 years.
So feels more than a bit hypocritical to point the finger.

I wouldn’t go by wages bills etc. City are being investigated by the league for a reason. Our spending is nowhere near City’s. it’s when fans say this like spending 600m odd to 950m odd is somehow neck and neck is when it starts to ring hollow.
Honestly, does it work the other way? Does anybody point at a team that spends 40 percent less than us and say we spend similar amounts?

 

[Oranges038]

That cannot be true, we didn't renew any contract for an higher amount that the previous one. Even Neymar took a (relatively small) paycut. As for the agent fees, no credible news was released about that so this figure is totally made up. The only tangible figure that we heard of was Hakimi for a transfer fee of 60-62M + bonuses.

FFP did have a positive impact on oil clubs since it forced PSG to try to build a sustainable business plan. Was it enough? Probably not, we had to much leeway for the first couple of years but it worked to a certain extent (we'd have built a far better team after Neymar/MBappé without it, we couldn't really spend but it's pretty normal, we shouldn't have bought 2 players that were that expensive).

I don't know where the 250m came from, I don't even remember where I read it. I can only assume it is the transfer fees and the overall cost of the contracts for the players signed this summer. It could also include transfer fees amortised over the length of the contracts from previous years.

It could also be that the figure is just plucked out of someones arse.

To the first team squad, they've added 3 free transfers plus two other signings, who have added about another 40m a year to the wage bill. Messi if he goes will add another 40m to a wage bill that is already up on 400m when annual revenue is only about 500m. The wage bill makes up nearly 1/3 of the entire amount for Ligue 1.

 

[Oly Francis]

Can’t believe that someone actually said that Messi basically paid for himself through sponsorship deals you can bring in because of him . Reminds me of the time that people used to do with players and the number of jerseys sold

The Atlantic reported today that the club consideres he would, so there's nothing absurd about that. A player like Messi generates revenues, that's a fact. The only question is how much.

 

[Hester_manc]

There is something I do not understand about players who choose to represent oil clubs. How can they not care that their wages may come from some rather dubious oil traders? A footballer can earn a mega salary in so many other good clubs in Europe, so why do they still choose to receive a salary from a club where you really do not know where the money comes from?

 

[Berbasbullet]

The Atlantic reported today that the club consideres he would, so there's nothing absurd about that. A player like Messi generates revenues, that's a fact. The only question is how much.

Yeah but when you hear people say things like “a third of all Barca’s revenue is through Messi” then you have to laugh.

 

[VorZakone]

There is something I do not understand about players who choose to represent oil clubs. How can they not care that their wages may come from some rather dubious oil traders? A footballer can earn a mega salary in so many other good clubs in Europe, so why do they still choose to receive a salary from a club where you really do not know where the money comes from?

No they can't. Only the likes of Man Utd and Bayern could perhaps match the rest but they can only field 11 players. So when City, PSG or Chelsea come calling with high wages, are you gonna say no?

Also, why put the moral onus on footballers?

 

[Pickle85]

The Atlantic reported today that the club consideres he would, so there's nothing absurd about that. A player like Messi generates revenues, that's a fact. The only question is how much.

But of course the club will say that. They're not going to say 'yes, it's absurd money that we'll be paying him but it doesn't matter because we have unlimited reserves on which to draw'. They'll obviously try to make it look like a smart move financially

 

[Oly Francis]

But of course the club will say that. They're not going to say 'yes, it's absurd money that we'll be paying him but it doesn't matter because we have unlimited reserves on which to draw'. They'll obviously try to make it look like a smart move financially

Still, I don't understand how people can dismiss the idea that bringing Messi to a club will generate at least a significant part of his salary in extra revenues. It's Messi, one of the best player who ever played this game, he'll probably be Ballon d'or this year, and a lot of people who don't care about PSG will watch only for him.

 

[JPRouve]

Still, I don't understand how people can dismiss the idea that bringing Messi to a club will generate at least a significant part of his salary in extra revenues. It's Messi, he'll probably be Ballon d'or this year, and a lot of people who don't care about PSG will watch only for him.

Because it won't, you are not going to get significant extra revenue overnight. It could have been reasonable idea if we were talking about a much younger Messi who was potentially linked to the club long term.

 

[Oly Francis]

Because it won't, you are not going to get significant extra revenue overnight. It could have been reasonable idea if we were talking about a much younger Messi who was potentially linked to the club long term.

I'd be very surprised if, between a couple of extra side marketing deals (especially in Asia), advertisement paid per click/view, jerseys or Jordan clothes, he doesn't generate 20M. I don't really think people here realise the kind of attraction Messi represents in the world, even at 34.

 

[RoyH1]

The mental gymnastics by state owned club supporters has gone from embarrassing to amusing. Carry on.

 

[Hailee]

There is something I do not understand about players who choose to represent oil clubs. How can they not care that their wages may come from some rather dubious oil traders? A footballer can earn a mega salary in so many other good clubs in Europe, so why do they still choose to receive a salary from a club where you really do not know where the money comes from?

You can start by boycotting the usage of oil and oil products.

 

[Oly Francis]

The mental gymnastics by state owned club supporters has gone from embarrassing to amusing. Carry on.

There's no mental gymnastics in wondering how much bringing Lionel Messi to your club generates in revenues in comparison to his salary to try to figure out how much he really costs. But i'll admit it, it's far easier to just go with "obscene salary, obscene money, bad oil club, cheaters".

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

The mental gymnastics by state owned club supporters has gone from embarrassing to amusing. Carry on.

They will keep pushing it for years until it becomes a fact.

 

[sun_tzu]

It’s because FFP has been relaxed due to covid. Clubs can make much bigger losses for a season or two and still meet FFP requirements. Will be interesting to see what happens when FFP kicks back in.

Some variant of the European super league probably back on the table

 

[Nytram Shakes]

I wouldn’t go by wages bills etc. City are being investigated by the league for a reason. Our spending is nowhere near City’s. it’s when fans say this like spending 600m odd to 950m odd is somehow neck and neck is when it starts to ring hollow.
Honestly, does it work the other way? Does anybody point at a team that spends 40 percent less than us and say we spend similar amounts?

Cities net spend over the past 5 years is reportedly about 6 million more than us 457 to 463. Hardly 40%
And I don’t know what’s going on with city been investigated, but realistically is hard to see our wage bill being bigger than city even if you don’t belive the numbers reported. We are renowned for paying ridiculously high wages, it’s why we have such issues selling players.We have also handed out the two biggest contract in premier league history: Sanchez and DeGea. Luckily managed to pay one of the to leave.
Our spending is very comparable to city’s.

 

[Zaboot]

The mental gymnastics by state owned club supporters has gone from embarrassing to amusing. Carry on.

State owned clubs and their fans spend their time trying to convince everyone else they earn their own money and downplaying the big fees they spend on players. They are going to spend their whole life trying to convince others which is laughable because it is blatant lies.

FFP has been relaxed. Rich clubs have been giving free licence to spend as much as they like so this money will reach clubs who are in big trouble.

 

[Bob Rivers]

So you're replying a question by asking another question, it seems that you don't have a lot of elements to back your claim.

It was reported PSG considered the Messi option for months now, Neymar pushed really hard for it. Then it was dropped when it seemed he would extend with Barcelona. So it's hardly "in a matter of days", they probably set things in motion months ago even if it was put aside.

We don't have to pay any transfer fee (even if there's agent/signing fees). The issue here is his wage, and i'm pretty confident you can find juicy marketing deals when you tell companies that they're going to get Messi for there commercials.

Even if I don't think Messi did really generate 30% of Barcelona's revenues (the widely reported study said 200M+/year), i'm still pretty sure he pretty much pays for himself with a 35M net salary.

You can't possibly believe that.

If it all takes to cover Messi's sign-in fee + agent's fee + wages etc. is just finding juicy marketing deals when you tell companies that they're going to get Messi for there commercials, as you put it, why PSG were the only side after him? There are bigger and more famous clubs out there with much bigger global fanbase and yet none came forward. If only they could employ the geniuses from the PSG marketing department, right?

Probably the most talented player of his generation is available on a free and no other club came calling? Why? If recouping Messi's expence was as simple as you explained, there'd be a line of top clubs courting him, trying to convince him to join. I mean, who would say no to Messi, especially if you get your money back through marketing, it's a no-brainer.

Unless, of course, he's been dreaming to spend the last years of his career playing in a French league, well, I guess anything's possible.

 

[Oly Francis]

You can't possibly believe that.

If it all takes to cover Messi's sign-in fee + agent's fee + wages etc. is just finding juicy marketing deals when you tell companies that they're going to get Messi for there commercials, as you put it, why PSG were the only side after him? There are bigger and more famous clubs out there with much bigger global fanbase and yet none came forward. If only they could employ the geniuses from the PSG marketing department, right?

Probably the most talented player of his generation is available on a free and no other club came calling? Why? If recouping Messi's expence was as simple as you explained, there'd be a line of top clubs courting him, trying to convince him to join. I mean, who would say no to Messi, especially if you get your money back through marketing, it's a no-brainer.

Unless, of course, he's been dreaming to spend the last years of his career playing in a French league, well, I guess anything's possible.

I'm not saying it'll necessarily cover all of it but a good portion yes.

I've read a lot of "you can't believe this or that" in this thread that isn't backed by any kind of proof beside the fact that almost everybody here hate PSG and CIty (and you're allowed to).

Yet, ALL the news that are released for a couple of days tend to show that he'll get a pretty reasonnable salary compared to what he used to have in Barcelona, especially considering the attractivity he brings.

He's 34, he might want something else than just going to the most competitive league he can find. He has a lot of friends in Paris (Neymar is one of his best friends and he pushed for his arrival for 2 years now), and it's a far more enjoyable City for his family than going to Munich or Manchester. There's several factors to take into account, there's nothing binary about this deal.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Our wages bill is in most reports more than city. Our spending in the post fergie era is very comparable to city’s and we have currently spent more than city this summer (in fact we have spent more than anyone) in period were by most accounts we have lost about 200 million over the past 2 years.
So feels more than a bit hypocritical to point the finger.

We actually have fans to generate the income.

We have spent less. Plus City Cook the books to hide payments. E.g. mancini payoff.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

There's no mental gymnastics in wondering how much bringing Lionel Messi to your club generates in revenues in comparison to his salary to try to figure out how much he really costs. But i'll admit it, it's far more accurate to just go with "obscene salary, obscene money, bad oil club, cheaters".

Fixed.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Slightly off topic but any sort of financial figures stuff that I read has United pretty high up the list . We are pretty high on the net spend list and our wage bills are crazy high too. I get the whole earning money part but jeez this club has wasted so much money for little to show for in results over the last 8 years

 

[Oly Francis]

Fixed.

Sums up pretty well the level of the arguments brought forward in this thread.

That being said, i'm off. I'm just wasting my time.

 

[Eplel]

Slightly off topic but any sort of financial figures stuff that I read has United pretty high up the list . We are pretty high on the net spend list and our wage bills are crazy high too. I get the whole earning money part but jeez this club has wasted so much money for little to show for in results over the last 8 years

The difference is that United has had a consistent revenue income in the past 25 years, and that was built mainly on brand, not oil money (meaning it can and will stand in the test of time). PSG and City, I don't want to knock their achievements, but if say the oil money runs out today, within 3-4 years they'll be back exactly where they were 20 years ago, mid-table clubs.

 

[Zaboot]

I'm not saying it'll necessarily cover all of it but a good portion yes.

I've read a lot of "you can't believe this or that" in this thread that isn't backed by any kind of proof beside the fact that almost everybody here hate PSG and CIty (and you're allowed to).

Yet, ALL the news that are released for a couple of days tend to show that he'll get a pretty reasonnable salary compared to what he used to have in Barcelona, especially considering the attractivity he brings.

He's 34, he might want something else than just going to the most competitive league he can find. He has a lot of friends in Paris (Neymar is one of his best friends and he pushed for his arrival for 2 years now), and it's a far more enjoyable City for his family than going to Munich or Manchester. There's several factors to take into account, there's nothing binary about this deal.

They are all good points why he would want to go to PSG but you forgot to mention money. I suppose it would be in the several factors you mentioned.

 

[Dan_F]

It's not just less its alot less, even Arsenal have spent more than us.

I don’t think anyone is seriously comparing the likes of City and PSG to Chelsea right now. Chelsea are 10 years ahead in their development and clearly rely less and less on daddy to finance them.

Also worth noting that the way Chelsea sell/Loan players can only be admired. £7 million loan fee for Zouma to Everton a few years back, or £8 million for some guy I’ve never heard of to Bristol City. It’s really mad.

If anything, United are an example of what happens with shit owners coming into football who don’t care about anything apart from making money. The complete opposite to oil money, but both examples damage football in different ways.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

We actually have fans to generate the income.

We have spent less. Plus City Cook the books to hide payments. E.g. mancini payoff.

I mean currently we seem to be spending by increasing our debts going by all the accounts that have come out over the past 2 years and we still havnt go the full picture of what the pandemic cost us last season. So we can defiantly make a case that we are spending money we haven’t earned.

As for cooking books. Again I don’t know the ins and outs of City’s books. But we have made some pretty hefty payments that don’t show on the wage bill or transfer in out outs. To name a few….Mourinho’s pay off was rumoured to be just short of 20 million, the signing on fee’s for Zlatan, Cavani and Sanchez were all around the 8 figure + mark. We paid Nani to play for sporting for a year as part of the Rojo deal.

Having ago at any other club for there spending with our level of spending just seems hypocritical.

 

[Lentwood]

Chelsea’s net spend is still less than Man Utd’s net spend in the last 5 years.

We also win trophies.

And all those players you sold where also bought with oil money, so it's a moot point.

Net doesnt apply in the same context to oil clubs, since it was all artifical cash at some point

 

[Zaphod2319]

And all those players you sold where also bought with oil money, so it's a moot point.

Net doesnt apply in the same context to oil clubs, since it was all artifical cash at some point

Ie Real Madrid oil money?