Frenkie de Jong

[Jombi]

Excuse?

Yeah like there must be another reason why the club would take on such costs.

You're making the excuses for this here and keep talking endlessly about Arsenal without mentioning our rivals.

 

[Luftstalag14]

Are profits not used to pay dividends? Are increases in profits not associated with increases in dividend payments?

Is Kroenke, who is the majority shareholder at Arsenal, not trying to buy 100% of the shares of the club? That would make him the sole receiver of dividends at the club. Currently he's the majority shareholder but as that graph I posted shows, he invests none of the money he recieved from the club (through dividends, salary or whatever).

I don't know what these dividend payments are to these shareholders, nor do I care to look them up for you, but he's not re-investing a penny of it into the club is he?

Sigh…

I don’t know how you are looking at that graph to arrive at that conclusion. Once again, that graph simply shows Arsenal is not relying on external money such as loans, owner’s money etc. and is completely self-sustained as all of its funding came from its own operations (ie. match day, broadcasting and commercial/merchandising). It tells absolutely nothing about what it does with its net profit. Period.

It is certainly possible that 100% of the net profit Arsenal earns are issued to its shareholders but you don’t know that. My speculation would be only a small portion that goes to the shareholders and the majority is reinvested.

 

[Devils]

You're making the excuses for this here and keep talking endlessly about Arsenal without mentioning our rivals.

I'm not making excuses at all. I'm providing a reasonable financial explanation why the club would take on a high wage bill present day for sporting and economic reasons.

You are just crying wolf.

 

[Jombi]

I'm not making excuses at all. I'm providing a reasonable financial explanation why the club would take on a high wage bill present day for sporting and economic reasons.

You are just crying wolf.

If it was similar to our main rivals it would be reasonable. But almost twice what our main rivals pay, no way.

 

[Devils]

Sigh…

I don’t know how you are looking at that graph to arrive at that conclusion. Once again, that graph simply shows Arsenal is not relying on external money such as loans, owner’s money etc. and is completely self-sustained as all of its funding came from its own operations (ie. match day, broadcasting and commercial/merchandising). It tells absolutely nothing about what it does with its net profit. Period.

It is certainly possible that 100% of the net profit Arsenal earns are issued to its shareholders but you don’t know that. My speculation would be only a small portion that goes to the shareholders and the majority is reinvested.

You can't just claim that a club the size of Arsenal is completely reinvesting the majority of its profits into operations when lower mid-table teams are outspending them in transfers. What are they using the majority of their revenues for then? Debt? Marketing? Salaries? Stadium?

Arsenal's majority shareholder increases his dividend payouts based on increase in ticket sales:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/23/stan-kroenke-arsenal-dividend-fans-anger

This is greed.

But you want to speculate that only a small portion of their profits are allocated to shareholders?

I'm disagreeing completely with you as everything points to Arsenal's majority shareholders making big money off the club but don't re-invest.

 

[Vilarrubi]

You can't just claim that a club the size of Arsenal is completely reinvesting the majority of its profits into operations when lower mid-table teams are outspending them in transfers. What are they using the majority of their revenues for then? Debt? Marketing? Salaries? Stadium?

Arsenal's majority shareholder increases his dividend payouts based on increase in ticket sales:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/23/stan-kroenke-arsenal-dividend-fans-anger

This is greed.

But you want to speculate that only a small portion of their profits are allocated to shareholders?

I'm disagreeing completely with you as everything points to Arsenal's majority shareholders making big money off the club but don't re-invest.

+1

The guys on Arsenal Fan TV are constantly complaining about Kroenke and how he’s not reinvesting in the club. They’ll know the ins and outs better than anyone.

 

[Devils]

I accessed the KPMG report and read it over.

Before anyone else wants to have a meltdown over the salary costs. Please read:

 

[soul24rage]

when you see that all Arsenal can afford is to get Denis on loan, it's hard to imagine that the owner is reinvesting in the club.

[youtube]4jb6NQ4i7lE[/youtube]

 

[Luftstalag14]

You can't just claim that a club the size of Arsenal is completely reinvesting the majority of its profits into operations when lower mid-table teams are outspending them in transfers. What are they using the majority of their revenues for then? Debt? Marketing? Salaries? Stadium?

Arsenal's majority shareholder increases his dividend payouts based on increase in ticket sales:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/23/stan-kroenke-arsenal-dividend-fans-anger

This is greed.

But you want to speculate that only a small portion of their profits are allocated to shareholders?

I'm disagreeing completely with you as everything points to Arsenal's majority shareholders making big money off the club but don't re-invest.

I don’t know what Arsenal’s profit back in 2014 was, last year it was 21m pounds and in 2017 it was 54m pounds. Either way 3m can hardly be considered the majority portion of their profit.

 

[Devils]

More Data from the report:

Staff cost/Operating Revenue highlights of the report:

Barcelona - 81%
Bayern - 51%
Porto - 80%
Galatasaray SK - 71%
Juventus- 64%
Manchester City- 52%
PSG- 61%
PSV Eindhoven- 56%

Revenues:

Worth mentioning that this KPMG study was only done for League Champions.

It's funny how a few numbers can make everything seem not so chaotic.

B-b-b-but Barcelona are financially screwing themselves!

In the near future, UNFORTUNATELY when Messi decides to call it a day as well as the likes of Suarez, Busi, Pique, there is a huge opportunity for the wage bill will be lowered significantly and to a rate that isn't much higher than the average in the upper 60-70ish range.

I believe this is checkmate.

 

[Devils]

I don’t know what Arsenal’s profit back in 2014 was, last year it was 21m pounds and in 2017 it was 54m pounds. Either way 3m can hardly be considered the majority portion of their profit.

Mate, that 3m was based off a 3% increase in ticket sales profits only, not total profits for the club.

 

[Bulgroz]

More Data from the report:

Staff cost/Operating Revenue highlights of the report:

Barcelona - 81%
Bayern - 51%
Porto - 80%
Galatasaray SK - 71%
Juventus- 64%
Manchester City- 52%
PSG- 61%
PSV Eindhoven- 56%

Revenues:

Worth mentioning that this KPMG study was only done for League Champions.

It's funny how a few numbers can make everything seem not so chaotic.

B-b-b-but Barcelona are financially screwing themselves!

In the near future, UNFORTUNATELY when Messi decides to call it a day as well as the likes of Suarez, Busi, Pique, there is a huge opportunity for the wage bill will be lowered significantly and to a rate that isn't much higher than the average in the upper 60-70ish range.

I believe this is checkmate.

I don't really see how those numbers prove your point (well, unless I didn't fully get your point, which is a possibility). The only comparable teams (in terms of level) among the ones you're mentioning in the Staff cost/Operating Revenue ratio are Bayern (51%), City (52%) and Juve (64%). Juve got the CR salary, so they're probably the best point of comparison, and they're still 17 points (!) behind Barca on that ratio. Even with the other wordlwide superstar to pay. 17% of Barca's revenue, according to the numbers you've posted, are roughly 120 million euros. So yeah, without Messi's salary, Barca's ratio will fall (but Messi should be replaced, probably with a player whose salary won't be cheap), and drop to something like 70%. This will still be 15-20 points above the other teams of similar standing in Europe apparently (Juve's ratio, without CR, will probably drop below the 60%).

That doesn't erase the fact that the club is doing very well, thanks to its high revenues, as you pointed out. But it still means that Barca is paying its players a lot more than other big teams in Europe.

 

[Newcomer]

I don't really see how those numbers prove your point (well, unless I didn't fully get your point, which is a possibility). The only comparable teams (in terms of level) among the ones you're mentioning in the Staff cost/Operating Revenue ratio are Bayern (51%), City (52%) and Juve (64%). Juve got the CR salary, so they're probably the best point of comparison, and they're still 17 points (!) behind Barca on that ratio. Even with the other wordlwide superstar to pay. 17% of Barca's revenue, according to the numbers you've posted, are roughly 120 million euros. So yeah, without Messi's salary, Barca's ratio will fall (but Messi should be replaced, probably with a player whose salary won't be cheap), and drop to something like 70%. This will still be 15-20 points above the other teams of similar standing in Europe apparently (Juve's ratio, without CR, will probably drop below the 60%).

That doesn't erase the fact that the club is doing very well, thanks to its high revenues, as you pointed out. But it still means that Barca is paying its players a lot more than other big teams in Europe.

Also, the main purpose why i posted this information was to put in perspective the perceived vision Barça are being cheap in their offers or targetting cheaper options.

As you highligted Devils, this wages bill is sustainable for Barcelona and they are not in any danger.
However, it can become difficult to stretch it any further which totally falls in place with the approach taken.

 

[xXKonan]

Ahh yes, Stan Kroenke.

Dude cares little about Arsenal other than using the club to funnel money to his other projects such as his NFL team the L.A Rams. The man is your standard top hat, twirling mustache villain who would shut down an orphanage if it meant him saving money.

 

[DonAK]

Ahh yes, Stan Kroenke.

Dude cares little about Arsenal other than using the club to funnel money to his other projects such as his NFL team the L.A Rams. The man is your standard top hat, twirling mustache villain who would shut down an orphanage if it meant him saving money.

Dude probably married his wife just because she's a heiress to WalMart too.

A true weasel.