The authoritative Swiss Ramble has been hard at work on Christmas Eve taking a look at the accounts of West Ham United. West Ham’s 2017/18 financial results covered their second season at the new London Stadium, which the club described as 'difficult'.
Profit before tax reduced by £25m from £43m to £18m, as revenue fell by £8m (4%) to £175m, though profit on player sales was up £2m to £30m. Despite the revenue decline, wages increased by £12m (12%) to £107m.
Match receipts were £4.1m (14%) lower at £24.5m, due to no Europa League; while commercial fell £3m (9%) to £32m, mainly due to one-offs in the previous year; and broadcasting was slightly lower at £119m, due to lower Premier League place.
Only one Premier League club made a loss in 16/17, but the Swiss Ramble notes that financial results are normally worse in the second year of the TV deal, which is the case in 17/18. Despite the lower West Ham United profit, their £18m is actually second best of clubs that have reported to date, only behind Manchester United £26m.
After a lengthy period of losses (adding up to £144m in the seven years up to 2013), West Ham have now been profitable in four of the last five years (and the 2016 loss was less than £5m).
68% of West Ham revenue comes from broadcasting, but this is the most balanced revenue mix outside of the 'Big Six'. In fact, around half of the clubs in the Premier League earn 80-90% from TV.
The move to the new London Stadium has not exactly been a money-spinner with £25m match day income actually lower than last season at Boleyn (£27m), though a better comparative would be £20m in a 'normal' season.
The average attendance of 56,923 was the fourth highest in the Premier League, only beaten by Manchester United, Tottenham (playing at Wembley) and Arsenal. Capacity will be increased to 60,000 from January.
Since 2013 the club's commercial income is up 61% from £20m to £32m, but absolute growth of only £12m means that the gap to the leading clubs has actually widened, e.g. Manchester United grew by £124m over the same period to an incredible £277m. Stadium naming rights are still up for grabs and in my view are potentially a big game changer in terms of income. However, there seems to be less appetite for this form of sponsorship.
The wage bill increased £12m (12%) from £95m to £107m in 2017/18, increasing the wages to turnover ratio from 52% to a still acceptable 61% following the revenue fall. This is their highest ratio in five years, though it is fairly common for this to worsen in the second year of a three-year Premier League TV deal. Since 2013, wages have almost doubled, pretty much in line with the revenue increase. Despite the increase in the wage bill to £107m, this is still (just) in the bottom half of the Premier League, behind Leicester £113m, Southampton £112m and Palace £112m. Perhaps a better comparison is Everton, whose £145m wages are a sizeable £38m higher than the Hammers.
Comments
Post a Comment