2012/13 Premier League discussion thread part 2

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

The discussion(s) continue here guys.

Unbelievable win for the Canaries tonight which see's Man City top for the first time this season, will they hold on.

QPR - still without a win - look doomed and Aston Villa drop into the bottom 3.

[liverbnz]

[quote="mystiroakey"]

liver you cant use money(turnover) as a gauge here pal.

Everything is more expensive in london so its not like for like.

to make the same profit or break even or to make the same less loss(which is sometimes the case in football) london clubs have to charge more.[/quote]

Rubbish. The majoirty of football clubs expenses are wages of the players ranging from 50% to over 100% if you are Manchester City. The biggest wage bills in the country are the 2 Manchester clubs and Chelsea so yet again your arguement falls short. London clubs charge high ticket prices because they can, not for any desire to break-even.

the running costs of a big club in london(overheads) could be upwards of an extra 30 mill a year..

I have no idea what your 50%- to over 100% means by the way.. would you care to explain?

Player's wages (cost) generally range from 50% to over 100% of revenue. Manchester City's is somethin like 180% so there's a loss straight away before taking into account amort (transfer fees) and operating costs.

http://d2hf1crfnymcyq.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Fig-7-Other.jpg

Link for operating/running costs for top clubs. Generally in in the 20m-25m range except for City who had expenses of 35m in 2011.

[mystiroakey]

of revenue- that makes sense- i thought you were trying to say that the expenses for wages could be over 100% of expenses!!!

[mystiroakey]

arsernal 'other' costs are much higher than uniteds on your graph- which i suppose proves that arsernals are significantly higher prorated with success and fanbase..

man citys are clearly ridiculas and no point trying to work that out-0 they clearly burn money for fun

Cheers for the link


BTW i will note that the graph is made up in a percentage of revenue not in millions- so infact the overhead costs are significantly more than 20-25 mill

[CFCNick]

Yes, but would Chelsea be multiple PL champions and CL winners in the past decade without Roman.

Give me Chelseas last decade over what they were before anyday if I were a fan.

Why do you and some others have this crazy illusion that Chelsea were nothing before Roman?

Do some research and you'll see just how big Chelsea were from the early to mid 90s up to Roman coming along in 2003.

Man City were today's Aston Villa of the league before they got rich. Don't tar Chelsea as a nothing club like that. They had a lot of success before Roman.

50 odd years without a league trophy before Roman? Remind me how many European cups they won before Roman?

Yes, exactly 50 years without a league title but a steady haul of trophies in that time from 1970 to 2000.

[liverbnz]

arsernal 'other' costs are much higher than uniteds on your graph- which i suppose proves that arsernals are significantly higher prorated with success and fanbase..

man citys are clearly ridiculas and no point trying to work that out-0 they clearly burn money for fun

Cheers for the link


BTW i will note that the graph is made up in a percentage of revenue not in millions- so infact the overhead costs are significantly more than 20-25 mill

Yes, your right they are, although it depends on the revenue. Point being the operating costs are similar no matter were in the country you are. In fact, Man City and Liverpool (northern) costs are more than any of the London clubs.

[mystiroakey]

well we should understand that operating costs are higher in london, without any data to back that up.. we all know that surely..

but now that we have established that its a percentage of revenue- not in millions, they should be quite equal in fairness..

remembert that london clubs receive more revenue in gates, but it costs more to be there., so yes it should be close to equal

for instance chelsea had rev of 210 mill in 2011(edit- actually it could be considerbly more than that figure!- cant find exacts here)

liverpool 170 and city 170.(from what i can find)

therefore chelseas operating expenses( minus wages) are higher than liverpools.


totenham are clearly higher because they dont recieve the same revenue.

man u's are much lower due to there massive revenue.

[liverbnz]

Liverpool's revenue in 2011 was 183m. (Matchday 43m) Operating costs were 45m. (24.5%)

Chelsea's revunue in 2011 was 210m (Matchday 67m) Operating costs were 46m. (22%)

Chelsea make more in matchday revenue despite having a lower average attendence yet operating costs differ by a meagre 1m. Is that clear enough for you to concede that London based clubs are at an advantage due to their situ?

[CFCNick]

But Chelsea have bars and restaurants. What does Anfield have?

[liverbnz]

But Chelsea have bars and restaurants. What does Anfield have?

Grass, white lines, metal poles refered to as wood, seats, etc. What on earth is your point may I ask?

[Soldier_Of_Fortune]

But Chelsea have bars and restaurants. What does Anfield have?

Well I would have been worried if the WHOLE of Chelsea never had somewhere to eat and drink

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

We have Delia Smith pies. Suck on them apples bitches

[TopHat24/7]

well we should understand that operating costs are higher in london, without any data to back that up.. we all know that surely..

but now that we have established that its a percentage of revenue- not in millions, they should be quite equal in fairness..

remembert that london clubs receive more revenue in gates, but it costs more to be there., so yes it should be close to equal

See where you're coming from but don't think you're right. Most companies biggest costs are payroll and real-estate. Wages and rents are higher in London which is why it is more expensive to locate here, as per your point. However this linkage falls away when considering football clubs. Firstly, other than the girl who serves the pies at half time, 99% of a football club's payroll is players, management staff and execs, all whom have remuneration that is not geographically biased. If Messi transferred to the Prem, he'd be paid the most irrespective of whether he was playing up north or down south. Secondly, most football clubs own their stadium and training grounds rather than rent. Rent shows geographical bias however finance cost (i.e. the cost of owning rather than renting) does not.

Therefore, as a business, a football club's two most major cost bases are wholly un-correllated to where they are located.

[TopHat24/7]

We have Delia Smith pies. Suck on them apples bitches

[TopHat24/7]

if london had 2 main clubs like liverpool or manchester ..... well not gonna say they woulld be the best two teams- but they would clearly be the most supported teams

however we have 9 top flight clubs(pl and championsip)

arsernal,chelsea, totenham, qpr, fulham, palace, west ham, charlton, millwall..

anyway no sour grapes here.. its the way it is. but the population argument is outweiged by the amount of clubs..

And what's Manchester or Liverpool's population compared to the London Greater Metropolitan Area? London has more club's because it's population can support it. 10m split across 5 top clubs, 2m per club. According to wikipedia (not perfect, I know) Manc & Pool have a c.500k population each, therefore 1m ppl is supporting 4 clubs = 250k per club.

[mystiroakey]

Tophat

I will admit to probally being wrong(yeah i did it!!)

but not as wrong as you suggest

however lets get the figures completly right first

greater manchester is 2.7 million population

greater london is8.1 million population.

so actually pretty even really when we add all the clubs together-I dont think we should stick to just the PL clubs either

obviously we need to also add bolton and all them clubs to manchester as well.

But you shouldnt use an inflated greater london population compared to a manchester city only population- thats hardly fair dude!!

[TopHat24/7]

Tophat

I will admit to probally being wrong(yeah i did it!!)

but not as wrong as you suggest

however lets get the figures completly right first

greater manchester is 2.7 million population

greater london is8.1 million population.

so actually pretty even really when we add all the clubs together-I dont think we should stick to just the PL clubs either

obviously we need to also add bolton and all them clubs to manchester as well.

But you shouldnt use an inflated greater london population compared to a manchester city only population- thats hardly fair dude!!

Firstly you're not comparing like for like, you've taken the minimum figure for London and then the maxim figure for Manchester (i.e. the Metropolitan area). It's either 500k vs 8.1m or it's 2.7m vs 13.7m. And if you're going to chuck in every tom dick and harry club in London then you should really be including the Stockports and Bury's etc for Manchester.

Greater Manchester, which is where 2.7m is derived from, comprises the following boroughs: 'Manchester' itself (pop. 500k), Stockport, Thameside, Oldham, Rochdale, Bury, Bolton, Wigan, Salford, Trafford. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester

[mystiroakey]

Firtsly you need to understand that i am using the greater london area compared to the greater manchester area.. you are now trying to compare the greater manchester area with the metropoliton london area..(point to note- there is no difference between the greater of the metropoliton areas of manchester- however there is in london- a massive difference)

The greater london area inlcudes of 32 bourghs!!! way more than manchesters bourghs- obviously - it has a higher population.

if you wanna use the metropilton area you are including places that stretch all the way down to gravesend!!!- so there is no concern with you including those areas but we need to add loads more clubs to this metropitan area!

"And if you're going to chuck in every tom dick and harry club in London then you should really be including the Stockports and Bury's etc for Manchester."

as i said totally fine with that



anyway the amount of london clubs in the greater london area are about 50 in the leagues(if you wanna add the met area that would signifcantly rise!!), in greater manchesters area there are about 20..

as i said very similar based on population. not much in it really- as i said i admited to being wrong but not that wrong.. 2.7 mill into 20 clubs and 8.1 into 50 is very similar

It is ridiculas not to add all the clubs in the areas- because we are dicussing fans- i dont support a PL club , but by your reakoning everyone of those 8 million people in london are part of your stats!! well take one of your list to start with!!

[TopHat24/7]

Manchester at 2.7m is nowhere near comparable to a London figure of just 8.1m. Not in a month of Sundays! 2.7m includes the entire population of Bolton for Christ's sake!! And Wigan, and Bury.....

If you're going to include them for 'Greater Manchester' then, given how far away from actual Manchester and how seperate they are, you should be using a higher figure for London.

And given the discussion is regarding the advantage London clubs have in the EPL over their peers I think it is entirely right to only include them, thus a like for like comparison. Otherwise you spiral into absurdity of how small a club can be included, conference prem? conference north/south? Smaller even??

[liverbnz]

Mystir I think your middle stump is out of the ground here. Time to return to the pavilion.

[The Special Juan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/4139280.stm

[Crimey]

2005 doesn't seem that long ago, strange to think of all the times in football where things like this could have happened that could have changed everything. Guardiola could have signed for City and then became a coach there and then a manager there.

[DP]

Ali Bernabia, that's a name I'd forgotten!

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Rumor has it that Nigel Adkins has been sacked by Southampton. If true that is absolute madness

[mystiroakey]

Mystir I think your middle stump is out of the ground here. Time to return to the pavilion.

i am out of that one- however i know i am right- after being wrong offcourse..

"Manchester at 2.7m is nowhere near comparable to a London figure of just 8.1m. Not in a month of Sundays! 2.7m includes the entire population of Bolton for Christ's sake!! And Wigan, and Bury....."

i am not sure what you mean by comparible- its very simple- add all the clubs in the area and then divide them by the population.. you then get the figure you want.. You have to use all the clubs because we are discusiing all the potential fans.. I really cannot understand your argument at all.. Your argument was that london had 5 clubs for 10 million people and that manchester and liverpool had 4 clubs for a million- that is beyond crazy dudio!! You can use any area you want i really dont mind, but you need to use the data wisely. a startying point would be that you would have to use the whole population between liverpool and manchester- not just the city centres!! I think Liver suggested that the total is 6.2 million for greater manchester and greater liverpool with everything in between- That would be the figure you need to use.. Offcourse then you can add all the clubs in that area though..

If i was to copy your format of just manc and liverpool centres i could just counter that by only mentioning two london bourghs like chelsea and harringey

BTW back on the main topic

I hope we dont get to many cancelled games this weekend..

I have a good feeling about my multiplier

[JamesLincs]

sandro ruled out for the rest of the season, big blow for us is that, but if it had to happen, im glad it did now. as good as parker is id rather see avb use dempsey along sign demebele in a 4 man midfield. still, gutted for sandro as he imo has been our best player this season

[Crimey]

Apparently Sandro's injury means that Lewis Holtby's summer move might be pushed forward to January with a fee obviously.

On the other hand, I heard AVB is a big fan of Scott Parker and tried to sign him when he was at Chelsea so Parker might just step in straight away.

[JamesLincs]

well technically, parker is a straight swap. but he cant drive us forward in the way sandro does. but saying that, we did more than ok with him in, last season. hes gunna be off the pace for a few weeks though, not what we need with man utd at the weekend. come on snow!

[The Special Juan]

This new Pocahontas guy smacks of AVB (and a bit of Laudrup). He looks far too suave to be a manager.

Poor Nigel, what did he do? I didn't like him but he didn't deserve the sack.

[Guest]

Let's face it, most, if not all, foreign owners know nothing about football. Just look at Venky's or Tony Fernandes at QPR. These owners come in and try and throw money to the cause and try and make the club more appealing and attractive. They see managers like Mourinho and these other clean cut, exciting, technically sound continental coaches and think, yes, we need that, he'll sort the club out and he will also make us play a more attractive style of play, like Barcelona. He also looks young and is in line with our direction of making the club more modern and with the times. Of course, I know, you know......it's pretty much impossible unless you are an Arab or a russian billionaire to make this transition from an average club to the the top echelon of clubs. Adkins, although doing a good job, just didnt suit the owners or the style that these foreign owners are looking for. It's a shame but the reality. The old guard, except Ferguson are basically being shipped out for the younger, apparently superior, european managers all because in my opinion the power that Mourinho type managers now have and possess. Everyone wants them, it's just a shame that english, boring to look at managers in the mould of Adkins are facing the consequences. Agree?

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Now en route to Liverpool!

COME ON YOU YELLOWS!!!!

[hampo17]

No Reina for us today Skrtel and Allen on the bench.

[Liam]

What a start by Loic Remy. First shot first goal. Always rated him and he could be a wonderful signing for QPR. Newcastle must be gutted they didn't get him.

[hampo17]

2-0, apparently a screamer by Henderson and a goal from Suarez after a clever dummy from Sturridge.

[mystiroakey]

remy scored for qpr!!!

[The Special Juan]

It's absolutely amazing what effect Cabaye has on Newcastle. They'll be fine if he keeps fit.

[Guest]

It's absolutely amazing what effect Cabaye has on Newcastle. They'll be fine if he keeps fit.

Amazing player, fans of the top 4 would say he wasn't as good as the current players they have but Yohan would walk right into the centre of Man U's team. Must win game this one. Remy may of scored but he's not prolific and why would we want a player like him who clearly is only interested in money.

Starting to unravel for Norwich & West Ham.......definitely being dragged into this relegation fight

[hampo17]

Come on John that comment about Remy sounds so bitter, lay off the lemons. Cabaye would get in the United midfield because their centre mids aren't great and they rely on Scholes. He would struggle to get in to Chelsea, City or Arsenal.

[Guest]

To be fair to John Remy did probably only move for the money (he wasn't even prepared to talk to QPR a fortnight ago after all) and he isn't prolific. It's a fair point.

[Guest]

It's more than a fair point, just because he scored one goal does not make us feel even more agrieved. He's a 1 in 3 man........that's his stats.

1-1 vs reading now.

[Guest]

Serious trouble now

[The Special Juan]

And the effect Cabaye has on the team is proven again. He'd definitely get into the Man Utd midfield, probably into the Arsenal midfield (Wilshere is overrated), into the City midfield beside Toure as part of the 4-2-3-1 but maybe not into Chelsea (unless beside Luiz in the same formation as City).

No offence to Newcastle but I'd love to see his impact in a team that are contenders for the Champions League.

[mystiroakey]

john I think the problem with your argument is simple- Most players go for the money.. Statements like he is a mercenary only come from fans that are agreived- truth is most players want good money and it doesnt stop them from being playing well or trying hard

[Guest]

We've just signed Yanga-Mbiwa from Montpellier.

Williamson removed and never seen again. Serious trouble now, Villa away next......

[Duty281]

Michael Owen scored today! Once in a blue moon and all that. Newcastle in trouble though, 2 points above 19th place. Didn't Pardew sign a 10 year contract not too long ago?

[Guest]

Why would Ashley sack Pardew, doesn't make sense? It's the appaling injury list and small squad which has hurt us this season and now Ashley is making up for lost time by splashing out on Debuchy, Yanga-Mbiwa and Demba Ba's replacement. He won't want to sack the manager that bought all these foreign players to the club and has gained there respect, especially HBA. No manager coming in now would do a better job than Pardew. The club are buying players and the new manager coming in would have no say in the incoming deals because there already been lined up by Pardew, Llambias and Carr

On a side note - Apparently he would only get a one year pay off according to sources in the North-East.

[Guest]

On a side note - Apparently he would only get a one year pay off according to sources in the North-East.

Yeah you'd have thought they'd have put a sensible clause into his contract, especially one that long.

[Guest]

1-1 against QPR

the problem is we have 3 useless strikers in our squad..

Carroll, Cole and Chamakh...none of them can score

[The Special Juan]

West Brom haven't bothered to turn up but Villa are playing their best football this season that I've seen. When I see what they're capable of doing, it's hard to believe they're in trouble.

[mystiroakey]

palace cant score against a team that hasnt had a clean sheet in 32!!!!

swansea are showing there early form was a blip- back playing competitive footy

Liverpool same..

[hampo17]

Very happy with today's result, sounded like Hendo had a good game and the link up play between Suarez and Sturridge was good.

Exciting times ahead for us, hopefully we can make a push for the European spots as we aren't too far off.

[Sponsored content]