Premier League Broadcast and Merit Payments for 2013/14

(courtesy of @sportingintelligence on Twitter)

Should help our "precarious financial situation"

To put it into context...

Nabil Hassan @NabilHassan79

#saintsfc receive £76.9m 'central revenue payment' (TV revenue) from the Premier League for 2013/14 season. Up from £43.8m for previous year

30 million extra to spend, CRISIS! How many businesses improve revenue by 30 million in a year and have dire financial problems.

Surely I can't be the only one that's a bit annoyed that Liverpool have had TWENTY-EIGHT of their 38 league games televised this season?

No problem with the TV companies broadcasting the top teams more often than the rubbish ones, but surely there should be an upper limit of, say, 20.

Is it paid in one lump in arrears or spread out?

Thanks Steve, excellent information! So we are soooo desperate, in need of cash we will have to off load our star players! Hmmmm, more like we have some cash to spend on strengthening the squad to push on next season!

Is it paid in one lump in arrears or spread out?

Not sure. Obviously the merit payment (i.e. depending on finishing position) isn't known until the end of the season, but the portions that are equally distributed are known from the start, so it's possible (probably quite likely, actually) they're paid in two or three lumps during the season to ensure clubs' cashflows remain stable.

Surely I can't be the only one that's a bit annoyed that Liverpool have had TWENTY-EIGHT of their 38 league games televised this season?

 

No problem with the TV companies broadcasting the top teams more often than the rubbish ones, but surely there should be an upper limit of, say, 20.

You are not alone.

Some of that increase would have been factored into the clubs budgets - likely in the range of the £18M increase clubs like Fulham and Norwich saw. Therefore the real 'additional' and unexpected increase (windfall) is in the region of £15M.

This is the point Barry would come in and say it was a fragile financial model.

RIP on the ugly.

West Ham 14 times on the telly......

Surely I can't be the only one that's a bit annoyed that Liverpool have had TWENTY-EIGHT of their 38 league games televised this season?

 

No problem with the TV companies broadcasting the top teams more often than the rubbish ones, but surely there should be an upper limit of, say, 20.

I'm with you but it is demonstrative of the problem that exists in football. You have the top 6 (and this obviously doesn't include Everton) and the rest. I know that I am biased, but I would have thought that the style of football that we played deserved screening more than Aston Villa's 16 times. The whole league is designed really so that the big 6 can get into CL and prosper. The other 14 are bit part players. The amount of attention we were getting when we were in the top 3 or 4 was down to the fact that so many people find the PL so boringly predictable as to who fills the top 6 positions. Or lets be honest, you can say top 4 and be right most the time. Top 4 next season - Man C, Man U, Chelsea with the forth place being played out between Arsenal and Liverpool. So there, that's the mystique of next season - is it Arsenal or Liverpool. And I'll stick my neck out and say the same for the season after that, and the one after that. Spuds might think that they are there, but they fight for 5th or 6th.

As it is I don't have Sky or BT Sport as I have no interest in watching the top 6 playing week in, week out.

I'd sooner watch Liverpool than the Stokes and Hulls of this world.

West Ham 14 times on the telly......

Obviously booing yer manager win, lose or draw generates more income?

West Ham 14 times on the telly......

I see your eyes are following their hoofballs there.....good, keep the neck still so you dont get hurt

I fully expect the extra £33million to be combined with £20mill from selling Osvaldo and Ramirez, plus an extra £30mill from our owners as per the last two seasons. That gives us £83mill to spend, lovely.

I fully expect the extra £33million to be combined with £20mill from selling Osvaldo and Ramirez, plus an extra £30mill from our owners as per the last two seasons. That gives us £83mill to spend, lovely.

I fully expect the extra £33million to be combined with £20mill from selling Osvaldo and Ramirez, plus an extra £30mill from our owners as per the last two seasons. That gives us £83mill to spend, lovely.

That should be reality, but we all know we are never going to invest that sort of money unfortunately otherwise we wouldn't have the uncertainty around us that we currently have. Knowing the figures it arguably makes it even more frustrating!

That should be reality, but we all know we are never going to invest that sort of money unfortunately otherwise we wouldn't have the uncertainty around us that we currently have. Knowing the figures it arguably makes it even more frustrating!

I was joking, but yeah it kinda shows how much penny pinching is going on if we have to sell to carry on previous levels on spending. Pochettino would certainly have a reason to be ****ed off if club income has gone up £30mill and his transfer budgets being slashed.

I fully expect the extra £33million to be combined with £20mill from selling Osvaldo and Ramirez, plus an extra £30mill from our owners as per the last two seasons. That gives us £83mill to spend, lovely.

Surely you dont think selling Ramirez/Osvaldo would give us £20m as rubbish as you think they are?

Quite surprised that we were only on tv 10 times considering how much attention we've got.

That said I would expect that to rise next season, especially if we keep Pochettino.

That should be reality, but we all know we are never going to invest that sort of money unfortunately otherwise we wouldn't have the uncertainty around us that we currently have. Knowing the figures it arguably makes it even more frustrating!

We only know one specific bit of the figures. We don't know how much the club has made from matchday revenue (although last season's figures give us a reasonable indication), and we certainly don't know how much the wage bill and other costs have increased by. I think it's fair to say that a large part of the increase in the "equal share" parts of the Premier League money will have been eaten up by new signings and contract extensions, and there wasn't a particularly big exodus of fringe players on big money.

Surely you dont think selling Ramirez/Osvaldo would give us £20m as rubbish as you think they are?

Why not, we spent £30mill on them.

- Saints got £76.9m 'central revenue payment' in 2013/14, add the commercial, match day income and other revenue streams and turnover will be £100m+.

- Wages not much over £50m

- Outstanding transfer fees of £27m, of which £22m to be paid in 2014/15

Yet the media only focus on the outstanding transfers fees and describe Saints as a club desperate for money! Actually looks pretty healthy financially to me despite what Hans Hofstetter said.

I was joking, but yeah it kinda shows how much penny pinching is going on if we have to sell to carry on previous levels on spending. Pochettino would certainly have a reason to be ****ed off if club income has gone up £30mill and his transfer budgets being slashed.

Sorry I know, I should have used a The point still stands though.

Ultimately it seems we are facing up to one of two options....

A) Everything we are reading in the media complete rubbish

B) KL has been advised that the value of the club has hit a ceiling and won't significantly increase from this point forward without Champions League. It therefore would make no sense to spend anything over our existing revenue as the investment needed would ensure no significant ROI upon a future sale.

I know which one I'm leaning towards.

- Saints got £76.9m 'central revenue payment' in 2013/14, add the commercial, match day income and other revenue streams and turnover will be £100m+.

- Wages not much over £50m

- Outstanding transfer fees of £27m, of which £22m to be paid in 2014/15

 

Yet the media only focus on the outstanding transfers fees and describe Saints as a club desperate for money! Actually looks pretty healthy financially to me.

In part because that's the picture the club presented to media.

The main issue is how much the board is still sticking to this line. For all we know, it might have been a convenient card to play to smear Cortese and put clear blue water between it and the past. If it served this purpose, it may little bearing on its plans and ambitions for the future. Or perhaps, the board still feels that even with these figures a period of retrenchment is necessary -the additional risk is not worth the additional return. Hopefully its the former not the latter -because while we're perhaps punching below our weight, we're certainly not recklessly managed.

Yet the media only focus on the outstanding transfers fees and describe Saints as a club desperate for money! Actually looks pretty healthy financially to me despite what Hans Hofstetter said.

Well of course now that the season is over, the media is going to turn on us as we are some upstart that dared to think that it could join the boys at the top table.

At the rate my feelings are turning against football, it's likely I won't use my season ticket at all next year. I've got to the stage of not really caring any more and not really wanting to be part of this obscene circus that only cares about itself and how much money it can screw out of people.

Well of course now that the season is over, the media is going to turn on us as we are some upstart that dared to think that it could join the boys at the top table.

 

At the rate my feelings are turning against football, it's likely I won't use my season ticket at all next year. I've got to the stage of not really caring any more and not really wanting to be part of this obscene circus that only cares about itself and how much money it can screw out of people.

You've bought a Season Ticket, but aren't going to use it? Yep, that'll show 'em.

I don't know how much Leicester got for finishing top of the championship....................but I bet it's a lot less.

Therefore why sell your best players and risk relagation from this financia gravy train?

The only reason must be if the players want to go, otherwise why sell?

- Saints got £76.9m 'central revenue payment' in 2013/14, add the commercial, match day income and other revenue streams and turnover will be £100m+.

- Wages not much over £50m

- Outstanding transfer fees of £27m, of which £22m to be paid in 2014/15

 

Yet the media only focus on the outstanding transfers fees and describe Saints as a club desperate for money! Actually looks pretty healthy financially to me despite what Hans Hofstetter said.

What Hans said was all PR guff as I said at the time. We are clearly not in financial trouble.

What I can't figure out is the motive. Was it to discredit Cortese in favour of the new board? Or are the owners trying to pull the wool over our eyes whilst they offload a few assets and pocket the cash? Because clearly, Cortese knew exactly what he was doing with the owners cash... despite us all being told differently. He was given a budget, and turned a small intitial investment into what, a business worth in the region of £150m?

The only other reason I can come up with, is that we are planning on spending this summer, and we are deliberately trying to seem poor... but then surely other clubs can see the figures for themselves...??

Another key point people seem to gloss over recently, they all respond to RK's comments and pointing to it meaning weakness, indecision and our likelihood of selling assets. But he is in charge of the commercial side, and Les Reed is in charge of the playing side, transfers, contracts etc etc... The only thing Les Reed has said is that he is very happy with the MoPo situation, and that enquiries for players will most likely be met with a firm "No"...

I am secretly harbouring a small flicker of hope that this summer may prove to be a good one after all. But then that is the trouble with hope

One thing I remember from when Markus bought the club was that it was said that th nLiebherrs did not approve of borrowing. It stuck in my mind because I was amazed that any big company could work without borrowing.

if that come t was true, I wonder if it explains some of the comments about our finances now that Katharina is properly on the scene. Maybe she is more unhappy with the outstanding transfer fees etc than most business people would be?

Those sums are eye-watering.

How do they compare to the Championship and sides with parachute payments this year?

Those sums are eye-watering.

 

How do they compare to the Championship and sides with parachute payments this year?

Championship clubs get £1.7m each in solidarity payments and those clubs with parachute payments get roughly £60m spread over 4 years, with the first two years being larger amounts than years three and four.

Cardiff City earned more in TV revenue in 2013/14 finishing bottom than Man Utd did for winning the league in 2012/13. Just highlights how important it was to stay up last season as the new TV deal is huge.

One thing I remember from when Markus bought the club was that it was said that th nLiebherrs did not approve of borrowing. It stuck in my mind because I was amazed that any big company could work without borrowing.

 

if that come t was true, I wonder if it explains some of the comments about our finances now that Katharina is properly on the scene. Maybe she is more unhappy with the outstanding transfer fees etc than most business people would be?

Anyone with any sense isn't going to go and purchase a neon sign to say how much money they have to fritter away over a transfer window, spread a myth that the departing CEO was a bit naughty leaving a Skeleton in the cupboard so we are a bit skint, Man U have made no secret that they have a bulging war chest and punted an opening bid for Luke of £27m which knowing that, we have alledgedly told them to go away.

Trouble is Swiss secret (nothing to do with you) business practise is being applied and with all the media spin on what they assume we as fans get caught and confused by the smoke and mirrors bring applied.

just a mere rambling thought.

Can somebody show this to the Daily Mail and Alan Hansen? And everybody else that's selling our entire team with the excuse that we 'need the money'?

Surely I can't be the only one that's a bit annoyed that Liverpool have had TWENTY-EIGHT of their 38 league games televised this season?

 

No problem with the TV companies broadcasting the top teams more often than the rubbish ones, but surely there should be an upper limit of, say, 20.

Totally agree Steve.

What were the 10 games shown live? BT showed 4/5? Man City, Spurs , Sunderland, Chelsea…. Sky Liverpool, can't remember the others!

You've bought a Season Ticket, but aren't going to use it? Yep, that'll show 'em.

not trying to show the club anything. its a personal thing. of course I'll use it but my enthusiasm isn't as bright as it once was.

What were the 10 games shown live? BT showed 4/5? Man City, Spurs , Sunderland, Chelsea…. Sky Liverpool, can't remember the others!

West Ham (h), Fulham (h), Liverpool (h), Everton (h), Man City (a), Sunderland (a), Chelsea (a), Spurs (h), Spurs (a), Swansea (h).

Surely I can't be the only one that's a bit annoyed that Liverpool have had TWENTY-EIGHT of their 38 league games televised this season?

 

No problem with the TV companies broadcasting the top teams more often than the rubbish ones, but surely there should be an upper limit of, say, 20.

Yep, seems a bit mad. I appreciate that the likes of Fulham and Stoke might not attract quite the viewing figures of the likes of Liverpool but 8 v 28 doesn't sound right and only 10 for Saints after all the plaudits we've had for entertaining football!

So live TV won 3, drew 2 lost 5, also two games 2 nil up drew and lost…..TV is a bit of a curse! Extra points higher place money versus TV money, whats the equation?

If you finish 17th you get £4.9 million prize money or £16.1 million prize money for coming 8th. An £11.2 million pound difference. It doesn't make any sense to sell your best players especially when they're on long contracts.

Three consecutive 8th placed finishes rather than 17th place finishes and we've made the money we'd have made selling Luke Shaw (if the current stories are to be believed)! Surely it's in our best interests to dig our heals in, show ambition and go for high Premier League finishes and not sell our best players.

2.5m for finishing about Newcastle. Was worth it.

Crazy amounts for the teams going down.

That's a lot of cheese.

Why were Aston Villa on TV 16 times this season? Their football has been pretty uninspiring. Maybe someone important at Sky supports them? They earned £4.5 million more than us for 'facility fees'. Hardly seems fair for us or for the football watching public.

Why were Aston Villa on TV 16 times this season? Their football has been pretty uninspiring. Maybe someone important at Sky supports them? They earned £4.5 million more than us for 'facility fees'. Hardly seems fair for us or for the football watching public.

Because it's Aston Villa, an age old club with a massive following amongst the illiterate of Birmingham and it's suburbs. They have seriously underachieved, probably because their manager doesn't know what he's doing.

Because it's Aston Villa, an age old club with a massive following amongst the illiterate of Birmingham and it's suburbs. They have seriously underachieved, probably because their manager doesn't know what he's doing.

Not really. Rather its because Lerrner decided after the MoN years that Villa had to become self-financing.