|
Grez posted:It's not the amount of debt that counts it's the profit/losses made. what is stopping them making some super limited edition diamond encrusted replica shirt and selling it to a proxy for millions
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
Xabi posted:You've developed a smug, cuntish behaviour yourself and that's just because of a bag of money. I'm not sure what's worst, but a neutral might chime in with his/her view. I can't hear you over the sound of us spending another 100m this summer 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:I can't hear you over the sound of us spending another 100m this summer ...and finishing 5th again.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
As a United fan who hates all of you but probably comes down on Jollzwhin's side most of the time when it comes to arguments about City's money, I have to say Xabi and c0burn are right here. It's a letter from a Liverpool fan and previous owner to Liverpool fans, of course it's going to talk up their love of the club and what they feel it deserves. I can't see anything objectionable in that letter whatsoever, and though I know little about Moores the culture of having owners with lots of money who don't actually support the club is tragic and doing English football no favours whatsoever. United haven't been owned by someone who genuinely supports the club in my lifetime and ultimately that's brought us to where we are now - successful at the cost of stability, all in the name of money rather than football. There's a lot of unfair criticism levelled at City just because they're doing the only thing they can to compete and I don't think that's acceptable, but frankly any football fan should feel ashamed reading that letter knowing that it's happening right across the country and nobody is doing anything to stop it. Scikar fucked around with this message at 14:32 on May 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
Scikar posted:There's a lot of unfair criticism levelled at City just because they're doing the only thing they can to compete and I don't think that's acceptable, but frankly any football fan should feel ashamed reading that letter knowing that it's happening right across the country and nobody is doing anything to stop it. No, you are right. Certainly my position has always been that I disagree in general with the vast spending in the top flight, however since it is the state of the game I'd rather be at the top than the bottom. I remember Pearce and the Wardle era and I'd rather not go back to it thanks. I'm generally as smug as possible about our financial situation because I know how much it irritates people on here.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
Grez posted:It's not the amount of debt that counts it's the profit/losses made. You're right of course, but I think my general point still stands in that the financial people at big clubs will find a way around it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 15:08
|
|
|
Robert Patrick posted:I liked this bit Think of it as like Catalonia vs everywhere in Spain that isn't Catalonia. I kind of appreciate that they're there, jabbing at the rest of Canada. Canada has this insufferable smugness about it simply because it's not America whose foundation is kind of shaky.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 15:14
|
|
|
GravityDaemon posted:You're right of course, but I think my general point still stands in that the financial people at big clubs will find a way around it. Yes, but I think it's going to be hard to go "well our mysterious sponsor really wanted that corporate box and spent 400m on it". If it pushes clubs even a bit towards financial stability it is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 15:15
|
|
|
partipo posted:Canada has this insufferable smugness about it simply because it's not America Seems pretty reasonable to me 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 15:16
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:Yes, but I think it's going to be hard to go "well our mysterious sponsor really wanted that corporate box and spent 400m on it". If it pushes clubs even a bit towards financial stability it is a good thing. I agree, Im just being pessimistic about it. I have little faith in the owners of most big teams in every European country.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 15:16
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:Seems pretty reasonable to me It just gets very frustrating because there seems to be this air of 'We're the best' that goes around, regardless of what the actual circumstances are. While I appreciate my semi-public health care, my Westminster parliamentary system, and my Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it gets very trying to hear about how much of a world-class club Toronto FC are, how much of a global city Toronto is, and how our public transit is apparently so good. It's just my little gripes, I guess. edit: gently caress, just stupid complaints that come from people living anywhere. partipo fucked around with this message at 15:31 on May 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 15:27
|
|
|
I can't say whether Moores is genuinely sorry about the consequences or not. However, it is irritating in that he responds to the criticism of the lack of a background check on Hicks & Gillett's track record with sports teams by blaming the Rothschilds and Price Waterhouse Coopers when he should know that the financial sector's definition of "sound" and "real money" are completely different from what those terms mean for football clubs and footall fans. Plus, he took Gillett's word on the financial state of Hicks and that was sufficient? While he might not be an Abramovich, I cannot believe he was that incredibly naive or stupid either. There's also something incredibly annoying about anyone who says "I don't feel the need to justify myself," and then goes on for the next couple of paragraphs to do just that. Anyway, whatever he says is really academic at this point since Hicks and Gillett have displayed, at best, an apathy towards how they are perceived by the public. I don't see how this will accelerate the sale that the club desperately needs. I do think administration is inevitable as the banks don't seem to have the appetite to force a sale. By the way, a friend of mine in London Business School attended a talk by a representative of the Glazers. Apparently, they were very reluctant to say anything about their own enterprise, but kept using Liverpool as an example of how hard it is to make a football club sustainable and successful. EDIT: For extra outrage! Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 15:54 on May 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 15:33
|
|
|
And in related news... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article7136659.ece quote:RBS is losing patience with pair’s inflated asking price Do people perceive the Times known as a pro-Liverpool newspaper? They seem to have given more thoughtful coverage to Benitez and Liverpool than any other paper besides the Echo.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
TyChan posted:And in related news... overcompensation for The Sun by a Murdoch stablemate
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
Grez posted:It's not the amount of debt that counts it's the profit/losses made. The obvious way round this for me is simply for said owners to start sponsoring their own shirts for a crazy fee.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
partipo posted:Think of it as like Catalonia vs everywhere in Spain that isn't Catalonia.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
Robert Patrick posted:oh I can definitely see the Montreal-Barcelona comparison, but I wasn't aware that Scousers considered themselves to be "apart" in the same way You've never seen the "We're not English, We're Scouse," banners? I didn't think it was a superiority complex as much as Liverpudlians feeling themselves ignored and derided by the rest of England. It struck me as more of a "you don't like us so we don't like you," type of thing.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 16:46
|
|
|
The cringeworthy scouse or "Republic of Mancunia" poo poo can in no way be compared to the Catalan situation. One group is basically a bunch of arrogant, superiority complex bellends, the other... actually yeah they are pretty similar.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 16:53
|
|
|
It's not really comparable though, is it?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
Robert Patrick posted:It's not really comparable though, is it? Being serious, no it's not comparable at all.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
Posting my advance support for Stoke's EUFA Champions League bid in 2011/12 thanks to sound rules put in place by Mr Platini.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
partipo posted:it gets very trying to hear about how much of a world-class club Toronto FC are this has literally never happened the rest of toronto is pretty neat though
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
Byolante posted:Posting my advance support for Stoke's EUFA Champions League bid in 2011/12 thanks to sound rules put in place by Mr Platini. Won't the new spending rules just entrench the superclubs further? Unless Stoke have an untapped gold mine of overseas fans and sponsoships how can they be expected to grow and maintain success without a significant bit of financial investment and/or risk.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
MoPZiG posted:Won't the new spending rules just entrench the superclubs further? Unless Stoke have an untapped gold mine of overseas fans and sponsoships how can they be expected to grow and maintain success without a significant bit of financial investment and/or risk.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
JingleBells posted:Well they are owned by the chap that owns Bet365, I'm sure they've got plenty of cash to spend based on how well goons bets go But he cant spend it unless Stoke's revenue improves. Guess Coates could just charge himself a million quid each time he uses his own directors box.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 18:30
|
|
|
^^^ Our revenue doesn't need to improve because we are currently turning a profit.MoPZiG posted:Won't the new spending rules just entrench the superclubs further? Unless Stoke have an untapped gold mine of overseas fans and sponsoships how can they be expected to grow and maintain success without a significant bit of financial investment and/or risk. Where we stand currently is turning a small profit, with a small (15m) ammount of interest free debt owed to the owner Peter Coates (as JB says he has a stake in BET365 which is pretty much a family company run by his daughter iirc). Coates has repeatedly said the money is there to buy players if we need to but obviously we aren't currently looking like we need to. Since this new rule looks at profit and loss primarily, clubs like City and Chelsea where the owner sunsidises the club to a large degree will fail to qualify if they don't start making changes to the way they work. Stoke would qualify under these rules purely because the club is trying to stay at a level that won't make them do a pompey/sunderland/leeds.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 18:30
|
|
|
JingleBells posted:Well they are owned by the chap that owns Bet365, I'm sure they've got plenty of cash to spend based on how well goons bets go Thirteenth Step alone has surely covered a Drogba or Torres purchase.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
MoPZiG posted:Won't the new spending rules just entrench the superclubs further? Yes. This is why they are bad.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Do people perceive the Times known as a pro-Liverpool newspaper? They seem to have given more thoughtful coverage to Benitez and Liverpool than any other paper besides the Echo. Their football editor (I think), Tony Evans, is a massive fan. You might have heard him on their football podcast.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
How does Man U have so much debt?!?!?!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 04:22
|
|
|
ODoyle8D posted:How does Man U have so much debt?!?!?! Hi
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
ODoyle8D posted:How does Man U have so much debt?!?!?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Glazer_ownership_of_Manchester_United This sums things up quite nicely.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 04:48
|
|
|
quote:Nike sell around 2m United shirts each year holy loving poo poo 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
Honestly that would have been lower than I'd guess.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 09:39
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Yes. This is why they are bad. Not bad news if you are Sky though.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 10:05
|
|
|
Dudley posted:Honestly that would have been lower than I'd guess. Me too. I wonder what the figure is if you consider the amount of fakes knocking around Asia.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 10:42
|
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/united-say-they-will-meet-new-uefa-spending-criteria-1983730.htmlquote:Manchester United insist they will pass Uefa's new "financial fair play" test, which is set to become part of European football's rules today. I havent looked a great deal into the new Financial fair play system though its obviously going to start getting more and more press over the next 12 months, does anyone have an idiots guide to it?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 10:46
|
|
|
I just want to see a list of clubs and what they need to do to pass the new rules.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 11:14
|
|
|
Ive looked up a bit bon it to find more The Guardian says quote:Uefa will also seek to prevent owners bypassing the rules by means such as sponsorship. All deals will be market-tested for fair value, a move that might be noted at City, who this week announced a deal with the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority. Which would mean the suggestion of just getting owners to put money in through sponsorship wouldnt work. In a seperate article they also said quote:In 2008-09, the most recent year for which the Premier League's 20 clubs' accounts are published, 14 made substantial losses. One other, Blackburn Rovers, made a £3.6m profit but were subsidised with a £5m loan from the club's owners, which will no longer be permitted. But dont state which 14 clubs, but mention that Fulham, Villa, Sunderland and Liverpool all had big investment from their owners which wouldnt be covered in the financial fair play scheme. Heres a link to the Uefa sites financial fair play scheme on their website http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/index.html
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 11:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
Haha, so the FA are somehow going to rule on what they think an "Acceptable" commercial deal is? Are they also going to mandate a set ticket price? Set shirt price? Set box price? Set price for loving pies?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 11:28
|
|