LeazesMag 0 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 http://www.toontasti...n/page__st__220 Can't see Leazes taking the piss anywhere. He doesn't have a post in the entire thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 "Every 1% that it (wage ratio) drops should increase operating profits by £20m to £25m." Surely that's hyperbole? As we've gone from wages accounting for 90% of turnover in 09/10 to, what was it? 60%? Wouldn't that mean our operating profit was now £750m? Or does he mean if the Premier Leagues wage/turnover ratio were to drop by a percent it would mean the leagues operating profit would increase by £20-£25m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44881 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 "Every 1% that it (wage ratio) drops should increase operating profits by 20m to 25m." Surely that's hyperbole? As we've gone from wages accounting for 90% of turnover in 09/10 to, what was it? 60%? Wouldn't that mean our operating profit was now 750m? Or does he mean if the Premier Leagues wage/turnover ratio were to drop by a percent it would mean the leagues operating profit would increase by 20-25m? Total revenues for the Prem is 2.27bn. 1% of that is 22.7m. That's how he's calculating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Or does he mean if the Premier Leagues wage/turnover ratio were to drop by a percent it would mean the leagues operating profit would increase by £20-£25m? That's it. The Premier league earned £2.27bn, so 1% of that is £22.7m. He's just saying every percent of income used on wages is one percent that moves from the profit column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 That's an odd fact to state though, when you consider the teams whose responsibility it is to reduce their wages. If Chelsea or Man City don't hack away at their behemothic wage bill it doesn't matter a jot what Southampton or Swansea etc. do, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 That's an odd fact to state though, when you consider the teams whose responsibility it is to reduce their wages. If Chelsea or Man City don't hack away at their behemothic wage bill it doesn't matter a jot what Southampton or Swansea etc. do, surely? He needs to give a soundbite tbf, he can't go through the specifics at each club. He's right that every club reducing their wage bill by 1% will add £22m profit to the league as a whole, but there's no reason for the likes of us to worry about it because we're much better off than the 70% target. We can extend our bill by 10%+ without breaching guidelines, but like Gemmils post above suggests Man City should cut theirs by 44%. He's basically saying it needs sorted without pickig on anyone in particular, like when you shared a room with your messy brother and your dad would berate you both and tell you to get it tidied, even though your books are lined up and your beds made already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racing_argentina 0 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Please Cisse, Ba and Ben Arfa, stay forever in the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now