KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Our wage bill higher than City and Arsenal

The problem is that Liverpool is supposed to be a self sustainable club.

We don't have the same muscles as Chelski, Citeh, Manure and Arsenal.

This year we have a threadbare squad that for obvious reasons have problems to stay top 4.

What's wrong with questioning the amount of non playing employed staff under these circumstances?

If we could free up funds for a few more tcp's by letting a few suits go then I fail to see why people in here might have problems with that.

I mean we apparently have 500 non playing staff employed, but fail to put 11 good players on the pitch at times! Where's the balance in that equation?

I don't think anyone has a problem with it but who are these mythical suits and how much, realistically, do you think they earn to even think they might be taking anything away from player wages?

The MD for the company I work for gets around £150k a year. That's just one week for Coutinho so unless they're all on comparable money to the players, it'll be a drop in the ocean.

If we have around 500 employed non playing staff and then around 35 players it does matter.

I'm not sure how much the non playing staff on average are earning per person.

But if we try and make some fair assumptions, then I think it might look something like this:

Player salaries: £ 150 m a year

Non playing staff salaries: £ 30 m a year

This means about £ 580 k a week on the latter category.

We can't let them all go of course, but a reduction of say 100 of them would mean we'd have financed at least one extra player on £ 115 k a week.

Bamboozled by statistics, don't any of you guys know that there's lies damned lies and statistics, and that's before you get me started on accountants, shysters and medics.

???

Yes I do wear one, every single working day. As do most people who work in a consultancy and or sales based role. You cannot tarnish all people with the same brush so I don't see your point at all.

What if we need all of them? This report has no context of how many non playing staff other clubs have.

arguments like this are pointless. As people don't really know what they are talking about and are just making wild assumptions. pointless....

Since we don't have the same wage level for our players as for example City have (their player salaries are around £ 200 m a year), and since our total wage bill is higher than theirs, then it simply has to be that we are paying more to our non playing staff than what they do. And that discussion was exactly what this thread started with.

And I guess Your argument would be viable when discussing players aswell.

We have trimmed the squad down to facilitate a positive economic result as we don't have any European football this year.

How about doing the same with the rest of the staff?

This is stating it's for the 15 - 16 season when we bought in 9 first team players including Milner and Firmino on over £100k a week and also Clyne on around £70k a week. We still had Benteke on £140k a week and also the likes of Coutinho, Sturridge and Hendo on big contracts. We will have a hefty wage bill for playing staff. Add to that the fact that we sacked Rodgers and his staff which could all have been added to the wage bill and the hiring of Klopp and his staff and it could all be skewed. Like I said, there's no context to anything in this report, just a figure.

And I don't see how City can have a player wage bill of £200m when this report says their total is £198m??

I also don't think the wage bill was trimmed to show a positive financial result as we don't have European football. We got rid of all the dead wood in the summer and I can't think of anyone bar Benteke that I would've wanted us to keep and even that's a stretch.