General Premier League Thread 2019-20

correction

astradave wrote: »

That was the actual image used for var. They apologised over it and all.. the goal was given as offside. He was actually onside. Heres the proper lines that should have been used

Is his knee and possibly head not offside here?

yourdeadwright

astradave wrote: »

That was the actual image used for var. They apologised over it and all.. the goal was given as offside. He was actually onside. Heres the proper lines that should have been used

This is the problem even in that shot the line is not correct, its gets closer to the white line of the box the further it goes up the screen ,

Trigger

correction wrote: »

Is his knee and possibly head not offside here?

You could be correct actually, when zooming in, it was more to do with the squiggly lines. I took it from a Telegraph article that said he was onside..

Trigger

yourdeadwright wrote: »

This is the problem even in that shot the line is not correct, its gets closer to the white line of the box the further it goes up the screen ,

They should, perspective..

citytillidie

They would need a moving camera going up and down the line like you see for 100m sprinting events, stationary cameras will give different views and hard to judge tight calls

5starpool

astradave wrote: »

You could be correct actually, when zooming in, it was more to do with the squiggly lines. I took it from a Telegraph article that said he was onside..

I actually looked up the story behind this one out of curiosity, and apparently the image with the weird lines posted above was the one released by Hawkeye (the company producing the VAR images) but wasn't the one used by the VAR officials (also supplied of course by Hawkeye) while deciding, which was a different one, I'd imagine the second one posted here, and it was still adjudged offside. Either way, it'll presumably be a bit more polished graphics wise when in official PL use next season.

GavRedKing

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/may/22/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2017-18-accounts-manchester-united-city

Figures for the 2017-18 season

Highest wages :

Utd - 296m
Pool - 264m
City - 260m
Chelsea - 246m
Arsenal - 240m
Spurs - 148m


Highest turnover :

Utd - 590m
City - 500m
Liverpool - 455m
Chelsea - 448m
Arsenal - 403m
Spurs - 381m

Citys ability to "generate" cash is exceptional.

5starpool

GavRedKing wrote: »

Citys ability to "generate" cash is exceptional.

And the ability to negotiate a reasonable wage bill given their playing squad. All above board obviously.

GavRedKing

Utd are getting nothing in return for their "biggest club in England" status.

Spurs are punching well above their weight too.

I suspect that will be changed massively for the 2018-19 accounts, Chelseas figure above counts CL football, if we win the EL next week, we'll still have earned less than we did in 2017-18 when we were K/O'd by Barca.

charolais0153

correction wrote: »

Is his knee and possibly head not offside here?

Level is onside, so he’s on but barely

Deise Vu

GavRedKing wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/may/22/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2017-18-accounts-manchester-united-city

Figures for the 2017-18 season

Highest wages :

Utd - 296m
Pool - 264m
City - 260m
Chelsea - 246m
Arsenal - 240m
Spurs - 127m 148M


Highest turnover :

Utd - 590m
City - 500m
Liverpool - 455m
Chelsea - 448m
Arsenal - 403m
Spurs - 310m 381M

Citys ability to "generate" cash is exceptional.

Your Spurs figures were misquoted. They have closed the gap on Arsenal and will probably overtake them this year with CL money. I would imagine the playing staff will be very interested if the wages bills are still nearly 100M lighter.

Trigger

5starpool wrote: »

And the ability to negotiate a reasonable wage bill given their playing squad. All above board obviously.

Probably supplementing wages with sponsorship deals

The_Kew_Tour

GavRedKing wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/may/22/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2017-18-accounts-manchester-united-city

Figures for the 2017-18 season

Highest wages :

Utd - 296m
Pool - 264m
City - 260m
Chelsea - 246m
Arsenal - 240m
Spurs - 127m


Highest turnover :

Utd - 590m
City - 500m
Liverpool - 455m
Chelsea - 448m
Arsenal - 403m
Spurs - 310m

Citys ability to "generate" cash is exceptional.

Didnt think liverpool wages were that high. United get rid of Sanchez and we have less. Funny cause thought it nearly double.

Ya agree though about City. Spurs doing exceptional.

GavRedKing

GavRedKing wrote: »

Utd are getting nothing in return for their "biggest club in England" status.

Spurs are punching well above their weight too.

I suspect that will be changed massively for the 2018-19 accounts, Chelseas figure above counts CL football, if we win the EL next week, we'll still have earned less than we did in 2017-18 when we were K/O'd by Barca.

Our wage bill is embarrassing.

5starpool

astradave wrote: »

Probably supplementing wages with sponsorship deals

I'd imagine some bonuses or some such that are included as wages for other clubs are under other headings or something. I think I also read that non-playing staff (not sure if this includes Pep and the likes though) are paid by a different corporation, thus reducing this figure more compared to other clubs.

Deise Vu

5starpool wrote: »

I'd imagine some bonuses or some such that are included as wages for other clubs are under other headings or something. I think I also read that non-playing staff (not sure if this includes Pep and the likes though) are paid by a different corporation, thus reducing this figure more compared to other clubs.

There is some smoke around City's wages payments that players also sign simultaneous lucrative sponsorship deals with Qatari connected companies. That was the question that was put to Pep at the presser after the FA Cup (about his own financial arrangements).

His extremely stroppy response to a legitimate question and City's response to the FFP investigation suggests the Qataris are going to double down and fight back twice as hard and twice as dirty. It wouldn't be a big stretch to imagine that they know where one or two bodies are buried if Eufa try to bring in the proposed CL ban.

Morzadec

Yeah I read in the Guardian that Liverpool's wage bill was so high due to bonuses for the run to the CL final.

The club makes serious money from getting that far in the CL so natural that much of it filters down to the players. I imagine Liverpool wouldn't be 2nd on basic wages. But it is true that many key players have got big new deals lately.

Utopia Parkway

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Didnt think liverpool wages were that high.

Pretty much the entire first eleven were given new contracts over the past year so that bumped it up considerably.

Fitz*

I remember that a couple of years ago, one of these lists came out. It turned out that Liverpool's total wage was actually the overall club staff, not just the playing staff - it included players, coaches, staff, scouts etc.

Looking for the article that explained it, but can't find it at the minute.

GavRedKing

Deise Vu wrote: »

Your Spurs figures were misquoted. They have closed the gap on Arsenal and will probably overtake them this year with CL money. I would imagine the playing staff will be very interested if the wages bills are still nearly 100M lighter.

Updated.

And ya, for 2018/19 I suspect Spurs will have closed the gap, Arsenal have signed a new mega money deal with Adidas but I dont know does it count for the 2018/19 reporting or 2019/20.

CL money is mad compared to the EL.

The PL money itself is extreme but you can bank on about 10 million from group stage games if youre a decent side.

From UEFA :

This means that at best, a club can earn €82,450,000 of prize money under this structure, not counting shares of the qualifying rounds, play-off round or the market pool.

Spurs are guaranteed roughly 52m if they lose the final, 56m if they win it.

Liverpool are guaranteed roughly 55m if they lose the final, 59m if they win it.

GavRedKing

Fred The Red wrote: »

Our wage bill is embarrassing.

Ya, if I was a Utd fan id be looking at that ist and bemoaning the return, or lack there of from the players they're paying.

We're stuck with some absolute leeches too at Chelsea on high wages so hopefully we've a bit of clear out this summer and its not like we can add to the wage bill with no new signings. :pac:

Fitz*

Morzadec wrote: »

Yeah I read in the Guardian that Liverpool's wage bill was so high due to bonuses for the run to the CL final.

The club makes serious money from getting that far in the CL so natural that much of it filters down to the players. I imagine Liverpool wouldn't be 2nd on basic wages. But it is true that many key players have got big new deals lately.

It's risen by £60m from the last season according to both Guardian reports. The players salaries can't have risen £60m in one year.

Even adding on a couple £m extra for each player that signed new contracts (TAA, Firmino, Salah, Mane etc) - we'll guess at a £10m increase, add in the salary of Keita, Fabinho, Shaqiri & Fabinho - a guess at £20m extra here. Then take away the departing players (Can, Ings, Karius and handful other low earners) and we'll guess at a saving of £7m.

that's a £23m increase in salaries on the previuos year - could the CL bonus for players really be £40m odd?

I'm a bit skeptical here to be honest.

5starpool

FitzShane wrote: »

It's risen by £60m from the last season according to both Guardian reports. The players salaries can't have risen £60m in one year.

Even adding on a couple £m extra for each player that signed new contracts (TAA, Firmino, Salah, Mane etc) - we'll guess at a £10m increase, add in the salary of Keita, Fabinho, Shaqiri & Fabinho - a guess at £20m extra here. Then take away the departing players (Can, Ings, Karius and handful other low earners) and we'll guess at a saving of £7m.

that's a £23m increase in salaries on the previuos year - could the CL bonus for players really be £40m odd?

I'm a bit skeptical here to be honest.

I believe that Liverpool highly incentivises wages, so the better they do the more they'll pay out, which is fair enough. Also, good players don't come cheap either, so the big fees paid means higher money paid out too obviously in wages.

rob316

United can afford those wages it's only 50% of revenue. Everton, Bournemouth and Crystal palace have dangerously high wage to revenue ratio approaching 80%.

Father Hernandez

correction wrote: »

Any idea about the Saturday 3pm for us Irish yet? They were on Sky last season.

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Gonna be interesting to see Pubs showing matches on Amazon. Is this only effective this year or was it also last year? Don't recall Amazon having rights last year

The 33 Saturday afternoon kick-offs will all be live on Premier Sports. A further 20 games will be streamed live by Amazon, although this pertains to the UK only – the Irish rights for these games were picked up by Premier Sports

PS will be available to Sky users only, presumably under a BT Sport/Premier Sports package from August or so

https://www.the42.ie/premier-league-tv-rights-in-ireland-4536717-Mar2019/

fyfe79

FitzShane wrote: »

I remember that a couple of years ago, one of these lists came out. It turned out that Liverpool's total wage was actually the overall club staff, not just the playing staff - it included players, coaches, staff, scouts etc.

Looking for the article that explained it, but can't find it at the minute.

I wonder how much Ian Graham’s staff of statisticians (detailed in that recent NY Times article) cost? One of them left CERN to join Liverpool, another has an astrophysics masters etc. Those lads wouldn’t come cheap – nowhere near the players wages obviously, but high enough by ‘normal’ standards I’d say.

How much net profit do owners of clubs get per year from owning a football club? Not a massive amount I'm guessing

gimli2112

RoboKlopp wrote: »

How much net profit do owners of clubs get per year from owning a football club? Not a massive amount I'm guessing

I'd say Utd, Spurs and Arsenal show a healthy profit for the owners. Chelsea and Man City not so much. The owners of Liverpool have done very well out of it as they inherited a basket case and turned it around, if they cashed in now it would have been a great investment. In fairness same could probably be said for Chelsea and City.

Patser

From all in the Villa thread!



WE'RE BACK BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:cool::cool::cool::cool:











Please be gentle on us:o

Mr.Nice Guy

Norwich, Sheffield United and Villa feel like a significant upgrade for the Premier League.

thebaz

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Norwich, Sheffield United and Villa feel like a significant upgrade for the Premier League.

particularly Villa - big club - Shefiield united are really the smaller club in sheffield

artanevilla

Hello folks.

Turtyturd

That should be the first manager sacking of next season sown up.

Patser

artanevilla wrote: »

Hello folks.

I like what they've done with the place while we were away, needs a bit more colour though than just Reds arguing and Blues winning stuff

citytillidie

Someone was looking for the table

0 Arsenal Aston Villa Bournemouth Brighton Burnley Chelsea Palace Everton Leicester Liverpool Man City Man Utd Newcastle Norwich Sheff Utd Southampton Tottenham Watford West Ham Wolves

TitianGerm

citytillidie wrote: »

Someone was looking for the table

0 Arsenal Aston Villa Bournemouth Brighton Burnley Chelsea Palace Everton Leicester Liverpool Man City Man Utd Newcastle Norwich Sheff Utd Southampton Tottenham Watford West Ham Wolves

Close race so far.

POKERKING

artanevilla wrote: »

Hello folks.

Well done and welcome back!

Only downfall for you is you have to visit this thread now.....

Utopia Parkway

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Norwich, Sheffield United and Villa feel like a significant upgrade for the Premier League.

Could hardly be worse than Fulham and Huddersfield anyway.

Turtyturd

TitianGerm wrote: »

Close race so far.

Arsenal top alphabetically (should it not be AFC Bournemouth?), will be some bottle job if they lose it from there.

pjohnson

Jaysus Villa have only 14 players left apparently 3 of which are goalkeepers. The 5 loanee's have left (but they want Mings back for good) and released 8 players yesterday.

Huge rebuilding needed there

TitianGerm

pjohnson wrote: »

Jaysus Villa have only 14 players left apparently 3 of which are goalkeepers. The 5 loanee's have left (but they want Mings back for good) and released 8 players yesterday.

Huge rebuilding needed there

Jesus. Why release the 8 players now though? At least wait to get some others in first.

ERG89

Glenn Whelan was one of those released fwiw

Guy:Incognito

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/english-soccer/glenn-whelan-among-eight-players-released-by-aston-villa-1.3912330

All recognisable names. I was expecting mostly lads Id never heard of tbh.

Micah Richards still only 30. Though looking at his stats he hadnt played a league game for Villa in the last 2 seasons and only 2 games the season after they went down. Presumably he was on decent wages an just saw out his contract?

rossie1977

A lot of premier league experience there. Even keeping a few like Whelan, Hutton on a one year deal for the experience they could provide in dressing room or on the bench.. very strange

The_Kew_Tour

I think it's a decision they will regret come August

Unearthly

The owners are very rich aren't they? Not sure if that means they will spend

Agent Coulson

That is pretty much what Fulham did last season and that worked out well for them.

IncognitoMan

To be honest that's a list of has-beens and deadwood. Villa will need to move fast in the market now and clubs will know they are desperate so it could cost them more in transfer fees. Will be an interesting few weeks for them.

JPA

All out of contract, all over 30, huge wage savings to help rebuild with.

Looks extreme but they would have had little or no involvement next season.
Whelan and Hutton would have made the biggest contribution this season but both mid 30s now, simply couldn't contribute next season.

Huge job for the management team ahead to get the squad ready.

LuckyLloyd

I would have completely agreed with the logic of releasing everyone before Fulham did it heading into last season and proved to be absolutely awful. That said, would Whelan and Hutton be a positive at this stage? Probably not.

I think what this does show is that Championship sides have gotten very smart at working one season to the next and offering themselves flexibility in terms of wage bill and ability to change things up should a promotion / relegation occur.