Definition of REVENUE 1: the total income produced by a given source <a property expected to yield a large annual revenue> 2: the gross income returned by an investment [...]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...bolton-defender-living-the-dream-7682382.html Interesting article. It's led to a debate about player liaison officers (and our apparent lack of) on a Bolton forum. Apparently Jay-Jay Okocha felt quite similar when he joined 10 years ago. However, I have little sympathy when it comes to him eating fast food very day...there are two supermarkets within walking distance of the hotel!
Possibly. But his fast-food phase was while he was living in a hotel. Perhaps without a kitchen to cook in?
http://www.bwfc.co.uk/staticFiles/5c/92/0,,1004~168540,00.pdf Boltons accounts. Income - £67m Wages - £56m Loss for the year - £26m Ps, Nando's isn't fast food, depending what you order it's perfectly healthy for a footballer and most players happily tweet about eating there regularly.
IIRC we were very good at helping players settle in, we did everything we could for the likes of LCY. I suspect this is perhaps Coyle's doing as there has been a massive change of staff since he came in. It's not good though.
I'll break it down for you. Revenue is the amount of money that comes in. This does not take debt into account. Of that 70 something million, some of that is going to be used to pay debts, some will be used to pay existing wages, some will go to other expenses...basically you're only looking at incoming money and not at how much is going out. Even when you then look at profit, no team in their right mind would use every bit of their profit on buying/paying players. Another huge problem with your argument is you cannot look at just English team A revenue compared to Portuguese team B, and make conclusions. Where does the vast majority of EPL teams revenue come from? TV money, that other countries aren't getting nearly as much of. You have to compare English team A to English team B to get a more accurate picture. Whats the total amount of revenue of the other 19 PL teams? It's like saying that the Jacksonville Jaguars are one of the richest American football teams in the world so they should be doing better in the NFL.
Clearly Bolton should use that negative money to buy good players, then income will go up a lot and you won't be negative anymore...geez where do these ppl get their business degrees?
Meh, I've had to do the same thing for several extended ex-patriot periods in non-Anglophonic countries, with less support and less money. It's the language barrier (even if you speak the language to a degree, and others speak English to a degree) that's the most isolating of all. Some people are good at making do. Some people aren't unless others make do for them. The good news is that it hasn't hurt his playing, apparently.
A lot of football clubs are notorious for completely ignoring that say a Nigerian moving to England might have a culture shock. It leads to plenty of instances where a player struggles, moves to a different club and suddenly plays well. Lyon are a club renowned for assigning relocation assistants to foreign players.
Wow, really? Thanks for the breakdown. Too bad you haven't answer Sonoma's question yet: "[Are] revenue and transfer/wage budget [..] the same thing?" "Wages - £56m." So to get back to my statement: Coyle and any other EPL manager have millions to work with: true. Yes because TV money isn't worth as much as real money. Or something. ?!?! Yes I can. If I want to compare EPL teams to a Portuguese team I can. In fact I just did. Never did I claim 'Bolton' should be doing better in the Primeira Liga.
Not just. The completely different environment or culture or the location (ie. hotel) can also be huge problems.
my point was, revenue doesn't directly go into transfer and wage budgets, especially when a club is in massive debt.
Bolton's turnover/revenue (all figures in millions of pounds) 2005-2010 53 55 51 59 59 61 Wages 25 28 31 39 41 46 Profits 3.7 .3 -2 -8 -13 -35 Net transfer spending 11.6 -1.3 10.9 7.7 1.6 Bolton's problem is that their wage bill has skyrocketed long past their operating model's sustaining level. This has basically been written off by their benefactor owner. They actually have made money off their player sales in that period. A lot frankly. Debt to entities other than owner 27 28 42 49 21 8
I'm not sure if English isn't your first language and that may be where some issues are arising. See the other post that mentions Bolton's finances. Wages are not a clubs only expense, Bolton lost money last year. Where do you see these millions to work with coming in. Revenue is only the money coming in to the club and you're only choosing to look at a portion of the money going out. I mentioned the TV money because, as I said, looking at the revenues of 2 clubs from different leagues doesn't tell you a whole lot. Bolton gets way more money that probably 99% of the clubs in the world from TV (43 million pounds last season), but so does every other PL team. If you're trying to keep up with the rest of the PL teams, 70mil isn't much. In comparison the entire Portuguese league earned 61 million pounds last year in TV revenue. The fact that Bolton has more money money than Benfica or Lisbon is irrelevant, because they compete against the other teams with money in England. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/19/premier-league-finances-black-hole this article has a pretty good chart. It seems that where the difference come in between PL teams is largely due to how much money the owner of the team is willing to pump into the club. Fulham are very similar in revenue and wages to Bolton, but Fulham has substantially more debt AND an owner who has put double the amount of money into the team as Bolton. I guess "you get what you pay for" is largely the rule in the PL.
Except in Bolton's case it does, and more over, their wage bill has only been growing. In other wordddsss: Coyle has millions to work with.
And why would I have done that? I didn't have any of Bolton's numbers at hand. The only I thing I could easily find was their revenue; except I didn't know how the number was comprised - and it's not really relevant anyway, if incoming transfer fees would've been included the amount of revenue would've only been bigger. On the other hand I know how these clubs run their business. The spend almost everything or even more on wages, and even when they run a loss, they spend money on transfer fees. In Bolton's case that was an assumption on my part, but I was simply right. You and Sonoma assumed clubs like Bolton would use a lot of their revenue to decreasing debts and losses by shrinking the wage bill. Wrong. They don't. Football is unlike any normal business. Of course at some point they'll be forced to. Just like your previous posts, this one doesn't make any sense. Bolton isn't competing in a closed player (and player staff) market. Bolton has about as much pre season prep and practice sessions as any other team in the world. The only difference is the pressure that comes from having to instantly (that is, within one season) perform to keep from being relegated.
Just like your previous post, I assume you didn't really read it or don't understand English. Once again, revenue is incoming money...transfer money would be included in any revenue statement. Also once again if you'd looked at my link, you'd see that Bolton spent 74% of their revenue (once again, not profit, I'm still not sure you understand the difference) on wages. I never said they are trying to lower their wage bill, if anything it will continue to increase. The fact remains, a club like Bolton does not have money to do whatever they want to improve their team. http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/premier-league/transferbilanz/wettbewerb_GB1_2011.html Bolton made 600k on transfers in the previous year. Your last statements make no sense. I'm not sure what practice time has to do with anything we've been debating.
Well, there is this little thing that's quite popular on that inter tubes thingy. I think it's called googlee. Maybe you'd like to try it.
what he meant to say was "i'm just going to make some stuff up, and not cite any statistics that would totally contradict it"