|
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_5997759,00.htmlSky Sports posted:Pompey to return to court I find it so odd that British law has taken away the tax collector's usual status as a preferred creditor. If I was in HMRC, I'd be pissed off too. Iggy Pop Barker posted:Actually, Redknapp's attitude towards European competition when he does qualify has always been pretty shocking, hasn't it? plays kids and 3rd stringers to avoid fixture congestion... so that they can concentrate on getting back into europe next season? How often has he had to deal with European competition? He had a UEFA Cup run last season. Anything else? Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Mar 1, 2010 |
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
TyChan posted:http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_5997759,00.html he got there with West Ham at least once - I think he got in once through league qualification, once via the Intertoto (or he went out at the final round of the Intertoto?). Also with Portsmouth, though as a 'small club' expectations were low. Bizarrely he's been far more dismissive at Spurs than previous clubs, playing really weak lineups despite having far more squad depth than any other club he's been at.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:Worth pointing out that while he has obviously been a success in terms of pure results, he's so far only got you to pretty much where Martin Jol did a few years back before lasagna-gate or whatever it was. Spurs have had plenty of false dawns and 30-game seasons in recent years, I'd wait until someone keeps you winning over one full uninterrupted season before you talk of CL football The comparison to Martin Jol is fair at this point, but Spurs play much better football and have a stronger future than we did under Jol. I don't think in all of Jol's time there, we actually beat any of the top four (something is telling me we may have beat Chelsea once, but I'm not sure). We're 16 points off our best points tally under Jol with 10 games left with, in my opinion, a much tougher league standard. Jol did have more meddling occur and it would be interesting to see what would have happened had Jol been given a free reign. Redknapp doesn't care about the Europa League, and neither do I until the last 16. The group stages are a boring distraction; I'd be a bit more interested in a 2 leg knock out system, but essentially it's too many extra games for too little a reward. But we don't aim high in the league to get into Europa, that's just an unwanted side effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8544183.stm Portsmouth are to return to the High Court on Tuesday after Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs challenged the club going into voluntary administration. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:redknapp effortpost cheers for that, I've heard it said many times what a massive oval office he is but nobody's given such a good explanation of why
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
TyChan posted:http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_5997759,00.html The preferential creditors are employees or past employees first then anyone who gave a loan that's specifically tied in with an asset (like a mortgage or finance lease or something) which is kind of fair. Everyone else is ranked equally
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:02
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:"I got a percentage of sell-on [fees] in my contract if I sold a player. The club paid me five per cent [for Crouch]. I went to Milan because I had signed a new contract that said five per cent but I said, 'No, when I signed Crouch it was 10 per cent, so I want 10 per cent' and Milan said, 'OK.'" How prevalent are bonuses like this for selling-on players in manager's contracts? This just seems like a horrible (and clearly easily abused) way to reward manangers, particularly upon first hiring them. I certainly see the benefit of what such a bonus is trying to achieve, but surely there are better ways to go about it (net cost for a sold player, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:11
|
|
new home, old colors, same Arsenal
|
pimpslap posted:How prevalent are bonuses like this for selling-on players in manager's contracts? This just seems like a horrible (and clearly easily abused) way to reward manangers, particularly upon first hiring them. I certainly see the benefit of what such a bonus is trying to achieve, but surely there are better ways to go about it (net cost for a sold player, etc.) I don't think they're very common, or ever have been in Britain - because they're so easily abused that even your average loving idiot chairman can see the incentive for squad turnover vs squad improvement. I'd be staggered if Barry Fry didn't have something like this going on when he was at Birmingham, he once used something like 59 players in one season - very few of whom were there from August right through to May. There was also a spell where he both owned and managed Peterborough iirc, so that's a safe bet. Other than that, it's always a possibility with Redknapp (pre-Portsmouth), Venables, people like that - but we'll probably never hear about it unless they brag like 'arry has here, or a disgraced chairman tries to clear their name (and who will believe them). As I understand it, when 'bungs' on transfers were rife (i.e loving everywhere until ~1990) they were generally underhand 'brown paper bags in motorway service station' jobs rather than this sort of arrangement signed off by the club on record.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
Just had a text about some group launching a bid to buy Man Utd. Anyone heard anything? Told you all something like this would happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
brapbrapbrap posted:Just had a text about some group launching a bid to buy Man Utd. Anyone heard anything? Its not going anywhere. Even if you told everyone nobody cares.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
brapbrapbrap posted:Just had a text about some group launching a bid to buy Man Utd. Anyone heard anything? If rumored bids and indications of interest meant actual purchases, Liverpool would have had at least 3-4 new owners by now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
brapbrapbrap posted:Just had a text about some group launching a bid to buy Man Utd. Anyone heard anything? Craiglen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11667_5997961,00.htmlquote:Sky News sources understand leading city financiers have met to discuss a potential takeover bid for Premier League champions Manchester United. This is all very preliminary conjecture. EDIT: Also, if you need a fan boycott to damage the targeted business' revenue and force someone to sell, that basically means that there's not enough money or interest among people who work with actual business concerns in mind right to purchase the club (at least at an asking price which will leave the present owners relatively whole). Manchester United is going to have to take some major hits in order to make the Glazer family sell and take the huge loss on the club because no one is going to raise that much money just to pay off someone else's debts. Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Mar 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
duggimon posted:The preferential creditors are employees or past employees first then anyone who gave a loan that's specifically tied in with an asset (like a mortgage or finance lease or something) which is kind of fair. Everyone else is ranked equally Nope. It's the 'footballing creditors' thing. League rules mean that other clubs and players get paid first, not employees. HMRC gets to come after that. Hence why they're a bit pissed off, and why they may well really gently caress Pompey over to make an example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:37
|
|
I am the law, but an easily bribed kind of law.
|
"However, if enough people - and I am talking about thousands - stop turning up to matches and do not renew their tickets, then that does it. The supporters have to hurt the Glazers in their pockets. "They have to be prepared to take the pain of not watching their club in order to achieve a long-term gain. Supporters have to be galvanised to say, 'We will not come. We will not buy programmes and merchandise'." I've been saying this for ages, since this whole Glazer thing started. That's the only way of standing by your convictions and sending a message. I wonder how many feel so strongly about the issue that they're prepared to give up their Champions League finals, Cup finals and Premiership title races? Very few I would guess, as has been proven so far by the little amount of interest in FC United (and half of that lot still go and watch Man Utd anyway).
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
When will these people learn that a fan boycott of United will not work because there are thousands of people who would fill each empty seat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:52
|
|
|
brapbrapbrap posted:"However, if enough people - and I am talking about thousands - stop turning up to matches and do not renew their tickets, then that does it. The supporters have to hurt the Glazers in their pockets. Craiglen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
Hey guys I've not seen any of the footage but this player deserves a red card.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:57
|
|
|
brapbrapbrap posted:"However, if enough people - and I am talking about thousands - stop turning up to matches and do not renew their tickets, then that does it. The supporters have to hurt the Glazers in their pockets. when five live talked to pompey fans, only half put their hand up when they asked if they would trade the fa cup for not being in a mess. No matter what people say, in the end they are going to walk through the turnstile and want their team to be doing well. Also the glazers are not going to sell, they are just at the point of being able to really start making money from the club. I also really really doubt that these 'red knights' are willing to throw away a billion to get the glazers out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:57
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:when five live talked to pompey fans, only half put their hand up when they asked if they would trade the fa cup for not being in a mess. No matter what people say, in the end they are going to walk through the turnstile and want their team to be doing well. I'm not sure that increasing United's debt by cutting their ticket income is a great way to be able to afford buying the club. Also the Glazers are already making money, the accounts show they are skimming loads off the top.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
brapbrapbrap posted:"However, if enough people - and I am talking about thousands - stop turning up to matches and do not renew their tickets, then that does it. The supporters have to hurt the Glazers in their pockets. Then why did you say this? brapbrapbrap posted:Told you all something like this would happen. You're basically saying that the club is going to have to go down in value or prestige before lowering in price and getting bought up by someone else, but you don't seem to agree when anyone else basically says the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 23:06
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Then why did you say this? You've lost me. I've always said that if this anti-Glazer lot actually cared as much as they want people to think they do, they'd stop going to games and start protesting in meaningful ways. They'd still be absolute cretins of course but I'd at least have SOME respect for them for standing by their convictions. As it is, they're content to buy Newton Heath scarves (who sells these by the way? - nice little earner), whilst watching their team lift the Carling Cup and play in the Champions League etc - still pissing and moaning about the evil Glazers, whilst hypocritically continuing to feed the monster they claim to hate. Even the majority of the FC United retards still go to Man Utd games. Says it all really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
MattWPBS posted:Nope. It's the 'footballing creditors' thing. League rules mean that other clubs and players get paid first, not employees. HMRC gets to come after that. Hence why they're a bit pissed off, and why they may well really gently caress Pompey over to make an example. didn't realise there was specific rules for clubs, was just applying the general rule. HMRC are even further down the list than they would be then, not surprised they're pushing for this then but I reckon they're unlikely to see much of the tax back either way
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
brapbrapbrap posted:You've lost me. I've always said that if this anti-Glazer lot actually cared as much as they want people to think they do, they'd stop going to games and start protesting in meaningful ways. They'd still be absolute cretins of course but I'd at least have SOME respect for them for standing by their convictions. As it is, they're content to buy Newton Heath scarves (who sells these by the way? - nice little earner), whilst watching their team lift the Carling Cup and play in the Champions League etc - still pissing and moaning about the evil Glazers, whilst hypocritically continuing to feed the monster they claim to hate. Even the majority of the FC United retards still go to Man Utd games. Says it all really. I got the impression that you have always assumed that the Big 4 would stay the Big 4 because there's always a billionaire or a group of billionaires waiting to buy something up and perpetuate the old order, regardless of what kind of trouble a club like Liverpool or Man-U found itself in. I don't see how the situation with Manchester United's potential buyout supports that idea, which you appeared to reiterate by saying "I told you something like this would happen." This is a separate issue from your disdain for most Manchester United fans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
TyChan posted:I got the impression that you have always assumed that the Big 4 would stay the Big 4 because there's always a billionaire or a group of billionaires waiting to buy something up and perpetuate the old order, regardless of what kind of trouble a club like Liverpool or Man-U found itself in. I don't see how the situation with Manchester United's potential buyout supports that idea, which you appeared to reiterate by saying "I told you something like this would happen." I never said the Big 4 would always remain the same, my point was that there is absolute no way a club like Man Utd would be allowed to be relegated, never mind go out of business. There'll always be someone out there to bail them out before it got close to that kind of situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 23:49
|
|
|
Yeah I mean look how Leeds were bailed out when they had financial trouble, good job that happened or they wouldn't have won the Champion's League last year!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
Scikar posted:Yeah I mean look how Leeds were bailed out when they had financial trouble, good job that happened or they wouldn't have won the Champion's League last year! Different club in different times. No way would Sky, the Premier League and all the sponsors allow Man Utd to get relegated. All sorts of strings would be pulled to prevent it, 100% guaranteed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
duggimon posted:didn't realise there was specific rules for clubs, was just applying the general rule. HMRC are even further down the list than they would be then, not surprised they're pushing for this then but I reckon they're unlikely to see much of the tax back either way This is the point i understand it. Due to the rules i struggling club can just stop paying the taxman first as they are last in line. HMRC are unlikely to get anything either way but they want future clubs in trouble to pay up or risk getting liquidated instead of a trip to the league below
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
brapbrapbrap posted:I never said the Big 4 would always remain the same, my point was that there is absolute no way a club like Man Utd would be allowed to be relegated, never mind go out of business. There'll always be someone out there to bail them out before it got close to that kind of situation. Well, I think that all the measures that you point out as being necessary in order to shift Manchester United to a more sustainable business and ownership model would probably result for a short, steep decline in fortunes that could easily result in relegation. I don't think dissolution is that strong of a possibility, but as many clubs have shown, certain massive financial corrections are going to result in undesirable results on the pitch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 23:58
|
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/01/city-bankers-manchester-united-bid more details on the people behind this takeover bid. They are a chief economist, hedge funds partners and bankers. All very very wealthy, worth hundreds of millions but no where near rich enough to make a cash purchase of a majority stake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
The scarves (the official ones, at least) are sold by MUST at or close to cost price. Any profit they do make on MUST ventures goes back into MUST, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 00:55
|
|
|
One day when I win the lottery I am going to pay £300k for Pompey for shirt sponsorship. For the following 12 months the players and fans will find themselves wearing this shirt (I had the boys in R&D knock this preview up)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
£300k will buy you the whole club, you can have a Storrie away kit and a 3rd strip sponsored by a big pile of dead Angolan children (representing the Gaydamak era)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 01:08
|
|
|
can mattWPBS or someone else with a good grip on the debt repayment schedule explain to me why the government has waited until now to make a example of a football club for following what seemed like normal protocol? why on earth would HMRC have ever allowed for the players/lesser debtholders to jump ahead in line? did they feel bad about potentially being responsible for the downfall of so many clubs and decided to hold back? i know it's probably insensitive, but if i were HMRC i would be throwing the women and children into the flames to get my piece of the pie...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
The new Deloitte list is out... http://in.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idINIndia-46573820100302 quote:MILAN (Reuters) - Real Madrid and Barcelona topped the world's richest club followed by Manchester United, according to an annual survey by accountancy firm Deloitte released on Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
Look at Liverpools matchday revenue, they are lagging an easy 40 mil a year behind the rest of the sky 4 cause they can't get a new stadium.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 04:10
|
|
|
Nice Milan has the highest matchday revenue out of the big 3 Italian teams. Sucks that it's piss poor compared to every other league.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 04:12
|
|
|
how does Chelsea make so much more than Liverpool on matchday? double ticket prices or do they have THAT much more corporates?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 04:24
|
|
|
GravityDaemon posted:Nice Milan has the highest matchday revenue out of the big 3 Italian teams. Sucks that it's piss poor compared to every other league. This has dropped a poo poo load for 2009/2010 hasn't it?  I think attendance is around 42,000 or something. It's definitely a lot smaller than Inter's. Stim fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Mar 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
Adnar posted:how does Chelsea make so much more than Liverpool on matchday? double ticket prices or do they have THAT much more corporates? London tax
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 04:35
|
|
