|
Adnar posted:how does Chelsea make so much more than Liverpool on matchday? double ticket prices or do they have THAT much more corporates? i was surprised by that too, since Anfield has a slightly higher capacity in terms of pure numbers. I wasn't sure how much of it was the fact that everything in London is apparently much more expensive, though.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 03:39 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 05:04 |
|
|
quote:Freddie Ljungberg proved to be an expensive signing for West Ham Photograph: David Rogers/Getty Images http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...n-dyer-west-ham Kieron Dyer is apparently on 60k/week. Unbelievable.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 04:31 |
|
|
Transatlantic Gulp posted:London tax Yep. That and we shill the gently caress out of corporate boxes.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 05:01 |
|
|
Bovine Delight posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...n-dyer-west-ham No surprises there. Unlike Chelsea, whose petrodollars have yet to dry up, we could not afford to make these kind of mistakes.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 05:31 |
|
|
Bellamy was pretty much perma-crocked too while he was there wasn't he? At least they were able to sell him on for decent money, but buying him, Dyer and Ljungberg, all made of paper by that stage, so closely together was crazy.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 05:43 |
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:Bellamy was pretty much perma-crocked too while he was there wasn't he? At least they were able to sell him on for decent money, but buying him, Dyer and Ljungberg, all made of paper by that stage, so closely together was crazy. You were rightfully slagging off Harry earlier, compared to Curbishley though hes a prudent saint. If the financial crisis hadnt have happened our Icelandic owners wouldve eaten these sunken costs, probably even bought more turnips, and noone would care if we even became 500m in the red. Anyone trying to slag West Ham off as anything other than unlucky is a stinkyhole. MoPZiG fucked around with this message at Mar 2, 2010 around 05:54 |
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 05:50 |
|
|
Bit harsh bringing Ashton into it.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 05:52 |
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:Bellamy was pretty much perma-crocked too while he was there wasn't he? At least they were able to sell him on for decent money, but buying him, Dyer and Ljungberg, all made of paper by that stage, so closely together was crazy. I enjoy watching Ljungberg in MLS now hah.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 06:45 |
|
|
I think it's mostly corporates at Chelsea, the ticket prices for the league are high but I don't remember them being that much higher that Liverpool. And the cup seats are usually half the price of league.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 08:56 |
|
|
Dudley posted:I think it's mostly corporates at Chelsea, the ticket prices for the league are high but I don't remember them being that much higher that Liverpool. corporate is a massive earner, 30% of matchday income at the emirates comes from club level and boxes
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 09:02 |
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:corporate is a massive earner, 30% of matchday income at the emirates comes from club level and boxes 20% is from temporary briefcase storage.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 09:04 |
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...ster-united-bid Key will be persuading the Glazers to sell This is the crux of the matter though isn't it. They wont sell.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 09:38 |
|
|
DickEmery posted:Key will be persuading the Glazers to sell BUT IF WE WAVE GREEN AND GOLD SCARVES IN THEM FACES THEYLL HAFTA SELL INNIT
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 12:47 |
|
|
Cuban Chowder Factory posted: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... HMRC don't make the tax laws, they enforce them. It was decided by the government who do make the rules that employees of companies should be preferential creditors and anyone with specifically secured loans gets those repaid out of the money made when those assets they're secured against are sold. In addition, according to Matt, I didn't know this, there's an additional rules for football clubs that makes other clubs preferential creditors too. HMRC are not exactly bottom of the pile but they are in the bottom pool of creditors along with a number of other organisations I'm sure. The point of what HMRC are trying to do now is not to recover their money but to make an example of Portsmouth because too many clubs go into administration, decide on an agreement with their creditors that allows them to become debt free but only pay back part of the debt and then trade out of it leaving HMRC out of pocket. If they push instead for the winding up of the club then they hope to discourage others from getting in this situation in the first place or at least to encourage them to pay HMRC in full before administration becomes inevitable.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 13:03 |
|
|
duggimon posted:HMRC don't make the tax laws, they enforce them. It was decided by the government who do make the rules that employees of companies should be preferential creditors and anyone with specifically secured loans gets those repaid out of the money made when those assets they're secured against are sold. One of the links here earlier (can't find the post now, but it's http://www.thelawyer.com/paying-by-...1003055.article ) says that HMRC tried to change the football creditors law in the courts and lost, not sure whether they're going to try again with the pompey case
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 13:34 |
|
|
JingleBells posted:One of the links here earlier (can't find the post now, but it's http://www.thelawyer.com/paying-by-...1003055.article ) says that HMRC tried to change the football creditors law in the courts and lost, not sure whether they're going to try again with the pompey case even if they did they'd still be bottom of the pile but the football creditors would be ranked along with them
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 14:00 |
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foo...uth/8544183.stm From what I could gather through Matt Slater's twitter was that the judge felt administration was the best course of action for the club. Apparently the next court date is to determine validity of appointment (which I assume means the appointment of an administrator).
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 14:44 |
|
|
Akileese posted:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foo...uth/8544183.stm They mean this specific administrator. Apparently someone's uncovered links with one of the 11,000 people that have owned Pompey this week.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 18:23 |
|
|
quote:Lawyers told the court that Portsmouth's debts stood at £86m, £8m higher than the figure given by the administrator on Sunday. They valued the squad at £21m, £17m less than the estimate of the chief executive, Peter Storrie, last week. I can't believe the club owe that much.. it means they were in debt like 160 million before they sold all the players? Anyone else think they're going to uncover some mass fraud or theiving when this all comes out in the wash?
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 19:21 |
|
|
I don't know what to think anymore, part of me thinks it must have been building for a fair while, but part of me wonders how they'd have convinced anyone to buy the club if the books said "Owe a bajingo million quid, losing millions a month, no real assets as we haven't paid for any of the players we've brought in yet, short term prospects = need mo money"
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 19:28 |
|
|
Adnar posted:Anyone else think they're going to uncover some mass fraud or theiving when this all comes out in the wash? or to keep the thread shorter, does anyone think they WON'T? remember Mandaric, Storrie and Redknapp are all facing criminal charges. remember also that they never paid anything like the full amount owed for most of the players they sold on in the first place - so money from sales is owed to someone else the second they recieve it. Glen Johnson, Sulley Muntari, Nadir Belhadj and Jermaine Defoe I know they were massively behind on payments for, I'm sure it's the same with most of their other names, past and present.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 20:39 |
|
|
There's a reason Spurs went in for Defoe, Crouch, Kranjcar and Kaboul. It was the easiest way to ensure they got something out of it before Portsmouth died completely.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 21:02 |
|
|
MrBling posted:There's a reason Spurs went in for Defoe, Crouch, Kranjcar and Kaboul. It was the easiest way to ensure they got something out of it before Portsmouth died completely. That's quite the gamble if Portsmouth hadn't had gone under but it's definitely paying off for spurs.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 21:08 |
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:That's quite the gamble if Portsmouth hadn't had gone under but it's definitely paying off for spurs. I'm pretty sure that Redknapp could tell Levy exactly how bad things were at Pompey, and since they still owned money to Spurs from buying Defoe, Kaboul, Kevin Prince Boateng and probably even back to the Mendes, Davis and Pamarot triple deal it was easier to just say "we'll take these guys and then forget about the money you owe us".
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 21:15 |
|
|
MrBling posted:I'm pretty sure that Redknapp could tell Levy exactly how bad things were at Pompey, and since they still owned money to Spurs from buying Defoe, Kaboul, Kevin Prince Boateng and probably even back to the Mendes, Davis and Pamarot triple deal it was easier to just say "we'll take these guys and then forget about the money you owe us". I just hope Levy is bright enough to stop 'Arry doing the same thing to Spurs. I believe he is - financially he runs Spurs better than most of the other clubs in the premiership, but Redknapp seems to have a silver tongue...
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 21:22 |
|
|
i think if 'arry was going to run Spurs' transfer kitty/profits dry we would have seen a bunch of bizzare signings by him already. so far, so good...
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 21:33 |
|
|
The main thing I don't understand about the Portsmouth saga is that even with all this chaos surrounding them at start of the season, they decided to buy Tommy freakin Smith for £2million on a four year contract.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 21:40 |
|
|
Monday Bandele posted:The main thing I don't understand about the Portsmouth saga is that even with all this chaos surrounding them at start of the season, they decided to buy Tommy freakin Smith for £2million on a four year contract. i guess they just wanted someone to put a bulge into the ol' onion bag.
|
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 21:48 |
|
|
Cuban Chowder Factory posted:i think if 'arry was going to run Spurs' transfer kitty/profits dry we would have seen a bunch of bizzare signings by him already. so far, so good... there have been some, but low-level - he bought Pascal Chimbonda for a fairly small fee when they didn't really need him, sold him on ASAP for another smallish fee - goes without saying his agent is Willie McKay. fits his dodgy as gently caress model of transfer activity with certain agents purely for its own sake, but is insignificant enough not to matter on its own, especially at a big, financially stable club. re: Tommy Smith - they didn't actually pay for him and this was a big factor in Watford narrowly avoiding administration a few months back - I *think* that's been sorted now when the PL just paid Pompey's TV money installment straight to their creditors. Still, Portsmouth's financial meltdown is toxic for football in general - Watford's problems in turn meant Rotherham missed out on payments from them, etc etc. Babby Thatcher fucked around with this message at Mar 2, 2010 around 23:39 |
| # ? Mar 2, 2010 23:37 |
|
|
Financial-Fairplay rules have been delayed. quelle surprise
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2010 01:29 |
|
|
MoPZiG posted:Financial-Fairplay rules have been delayed. loving bullshit
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2010 01:38 |
|
|
MoPZiG posted:Financial-Fairplay rules have been delayed. We all know it'll now get delayed till 2018 and then promptly forgotten about. UEFA will never green light these rule changes while they'd pretty much exclude 90% of top flight teams in most western leagues. You'd end up with a Bari vs WBA champs league final.
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2010 02:46 |
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:We all know it'll now get delayed till 2018 and then promptly forgotten about. UEFA will never green light these rule changes while they'd pretty much exclude 90% of top flight teams in most western leagues. Harriers/East Stirlingshire Europa final.
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2010 03:31 |
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:We all know it'll now get delayed till 2018 and then promptly forgotten about. UEFA will never green light these rule changes while they'd pretty much exclude 90% of top flight teams in most western leagues. P sure Arsenal already meets the requirements.
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2010 07:58 |
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:We all know it'll now get delayed till 2018 and then promptly forgotten about. UEFA will never green light these rule changes while they'd pretty much exclude 90% of top flight teams in most western leagues. No the champs league would be a series between spurs and arsenal
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2010 08:20 |
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:P sure Arsenal already meets the requirements. So does Stoke
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2010 08:27 |
|
|
Real Madrid would win every year after the local council buy a square foot of land off them for €400m.
Scott Bakula fucked around with this message at Mar 3, 2010 around 09:18 |
| # ? Mar 3, 2010 09:02 |
|
|
And Jose has hit it. Because they can't ban rich owners. All a Chelsea or a City has to do is come up with some insane "Executive package" season box and sell it to *SOMEONE RUSSIAN* for £44.6M or so. There's a million ways to dodge it and short of literally mandating prices, nothing they would be able to do.
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2010 09:05 |
|
|
Capello speaks on footballers' pay.quote:England manager Fabio Capello has blamed the amount of money paid to his stars for contributing to a series of off-field controversies. Young football players get a bunch of money, and are irresponsible with it? 
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2010 14:12 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 05:04 |
|
|
Thought you might like this. Its a debate about football finances from yesterday with a few people involved in the game and an audience of fans. BBC blurb: Mark Pougatch presents a special programme discussing the future of finance in football, live from Manchester. Including guests Gordon Taylor from the PFA, West Ham joint chairman David Gold, the BBC's Chief Economic Correspondent Hugh Pym, and Dan Johnson from the Premier League. TV Show (50mins) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...iness_of_Sport/ Has a break for the news half way through, fast forward a bit. Radio 5 Live Version (1hr 30mins) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...iness_of_Sport/ again has two breaks for news, fast forward again.
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2010 14:17 |
|
