As Forest take on Spurs, a lot of people are asking how they can afford to recruit so many players over the course of the summer, so here's a possible explanation #NFFC
Under PL profitability & sustainability (P&S) rules a club can lose up to £15m over 3 years, plus a further £30m for each season in the PL and £8m for each season in the EFL that is injected in the form of equity shares, so for Forest it is £15m + £30m + 2x£8m = £61m
In addition expenditure on infrastructure, women's teams, academy, promotion costs, & community are excluded from the calculations. Forest were only allowed to lose £39m over three years in the Championship & initially things looked tricky...
...however, 2020 and 2021 were impacted by Covid, so direct costs (loss of matchday revenue, testing, extra travel and accommodation due to social distancing etc) were allowed, I've conservatively estimated these at £10m. Reduces the P&S loss to £44m
Clubs also allowed to combine 2020 & 2021, & take average of losses for those years as a single assessment. Therefore now assessed over 2018, 2019 & combined 2020 & 21. All the above combined results in Forest's P&S loss of £30m up to 2021 so potentially some carry over into PL
Compared to other clubs, Forest are the second highest spenders over the last decade following promotion, but Wolves, Villa, and Fulham all had bigger existing squads and lower wage bills when they went up.
If Forest have signed players on average of 4 years contracts, then their amortisation cost will be about £32 million in 2022/23. Income for promoted clubs has increased on average by £93m and for clubs not in receipt of parachutes £117m. This allows Forest a lot of wages leeway
Wages do rise significantly following promotion, and also tend to by high in the year of promotion too as clubs pay out big bonuses (excluded from P&S)
Forest wages have doubled over the last decade, and have exceeded income every year during that period.
Forest wage bill competitive by Championship standards, but not excessively so. Note the 2021 figures cover 13 months not 12, and figures for Derby from 2018, when Mel Morris could last be bothered to publish accounts.
Forest could therefore in theory take themselves to a wage bill in the region of £110m (average of 'Other 14' was £120m) and increase amortisation by £32m and still remain within the P&S loss limit of £61m
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Bristol City publish 23/24 accounts: 🔑figs:
⚽️Revenue £42.4m ⬆️16% despite only covering 12 months instead of 13 in 22/23
⚽️Wages £34.9m ⬇️3%
⚽️Underlying losses £22.5m ⬇️20%
⚽️Player sale profits £21.7m ⬆️128%
⚽️Player purchases £3.7m
⚽️Player sales £21.7m
⚽️Total losses over the years £224m
⚽️Total Steve Lansdown investment £282.4m
Development at Ashton Gate has been a big driver of ⬆️revenue at Bristol City, with commercial income now 60% of total. This means that City generate more revenue than any other non-parachute payment club. (Most figures are for 2023, except for the clubs that have not published 2024 such as #BCFC, and Reading, who have a rogue owner who thinks the law does not apply to him).
Main costs for clubs are player related. Staff numbers slightly ⬆️but wage bill ⬇️ due to only 12 months period. Average weekly wage of £16K very competitive for a non-parachute team but wages continue to fall as a proportion of income. Other player related cost is amortisation (player transfers spread over contract life) and this is mid table by divisional standards.
Hull City publish 23/24 accounts: 🔑figures
⚽️Revenue £21.2m ⬆️17%
⚽️ Wages £29.6m ⬆️25%
⚽️Average weekly wage £13,700
⚽️Underlying losses £26.4m ⬆️28%
⚽️ Player sale profits £8.3m ⬇️45%
⚽️Player purchases £8.5m
⚽️Player sales £10.4m (plus £30m post season)
⚽️Loans from owner in year £27.9m
Revenue fairly evenly split, rise in year mainly due to better commercial sales and slight rises in matchday and new EFL TV deal. Only a handful of clubs have submitted 23/24 accounts, Reading's owner thinks the laws of the land do not apply to him so has not yet submitted 22/23
Main costs for clubs are player related. Substantial increase in wages and amortisation (player signings spread over contract length) as new owner invested heavily in playing talent resulting in Hull being at top end of non parachute payers.
A history of Premier League transfer spending. First season (1992/93) total spend was £65m and QPR spent just £197k. Newly promoted Blackburn were the biggest spenders due to Jack Walker's investment in the likes of Alan Shearer, Stuart Ripley, Kevin Gallagher & Graham Le Saux.
1993/94 spending up to £78m. Blackburn continue to be the biggest spenders, Champions Manchester United were outspent by...err...Swindon.
First £100m spend season, Everton became the first team to eight figures spent in a season with Ferguson, Samways, Amokachi and Barrett all joining the club on big deals. QPR again smallest spenders. Man City and Chelsea outspent by Wimbledon.
Chelsea FC Holdings submit 22/23 accounts. 🔑 figs
⚽️Revenue £512m ⬆️ 6%
⚽️Wages £404m ⬆️ 18%
⚽️Player costs (wages & amortisation) £119 for every £100 of revenue
⚽️Day to day losses £249m
⚽️Player purchases £745m
⚽️Player sales £203m
⚽️Borrowings in year £428m
Losses ⬆️ from £242m to £249m for day to day running of club but sale of hotel to another part of group, £30m of financial settlements & player sales ⬇️ this to £90m
Chelsea have cash in bank, total losses adding all the years together now £1.135 billion
Whilst #Rovers 🔑 revenue streams, matchday, broadcast & commercial all ⬆️ significantly. However general overheads ⬆️ too which meant no change to op losses. Sale of Armstrong in 21/22 halved losses
Both accounts & audit report reference that there is a material uncertainty over ability of club to trade as a going concern. Should no noted that audit report dated December 2023 & things may have improved since then
Burnley publish 22/23 accounts; 🔑 figs
Revenue £65m ⬇️ 47%
Wages £54m ⬇️ 42%
Loss pre player sales £41m
Player purchases £84m
Player sales £21m
Borrowings £101m
Big change in pre tax profit of £36m in 21/22 to a loss of £36m in 22/23. Mainly due to ⬇️ in revenue following relegation and player sale profits ⬇️ from £54m to £11m.
Burnley still have substantial cash but this due to the Club borrowing substantial amounts during the year as liabilities ⬆️. Burnley still profitable over the years.