Football Finances, come laugh at portsmouth

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Ray Parlour > Football Finances, come laugh at portsmouth

«‹›194 »

Dudley: Feb 24, 2003; Tasty

Jollzwhin posted:

If they'd won it and we had got 4th, well the odds on that would be ridiculous because there was no way Liverpool were going to win it this year but that's one of those "welp, it happens" situations, we'd have been setting out the stall for next year anyway.

To clarify, this was the situation I was referring to yes.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 23:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 23, 2024 20:13

lewi: Sep 3, 2006; King

Unfortunately Pompey got through to the next round of the FA cup. I was hoping that they would run out of prize money sooner rather than later...

# ? Jan 13, 2010 00:35

Loving Africa Chaps: Dec 3, 2007; We had not left it yet, but when I would wake in the night, I would lie, listening, homesick for it already.

lewi posted:

Unfortunately Pompey got through to the next round of the FA cup. I was hoping that they would run out of prize money sooner rather than later...

its not like they are going to see a penny of it but yes, i'm hoping they go bust before they get relegated to try and bring some sense to the league.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 00:37

The Clit Avoider: Aug 11, 2002; El Profesional

The company looking to buy holdings in west ham had their chief exec die at the weekend, putting the bid under question: jesus christ, the club is cursed

# ? Jan 13, 2010 01:16

Stim: Sep 6, 2006; We are not feeling edgy; the system is feeling nervous.

The Guardian posted:

The ownership of Manchester United's Carrington training complex could be transferred to a holding company controlled by the Glazer family and leased back to the club, according to the prospectus circulated to potential investors in a �500m refinancing scheme this week.

The �500m bond and a new �75m credit facility, which will add to an overall debt pile of more than �700m, will be secured on the majority of property owned by Manchester United, including Old Trafford.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/13/glazers-manchester-united-training-ground

Not going to comment on whether or not this will be successful but the Glazers picked an awful time to release it.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 02:21

MoPZiG: Jun 6, 2006

Gr31lly posted:

The company looking to buy holdings in west ham had their chief exec die at the weekend, putting the bid under question: jesus christ, the club is cursed

They really could write a west-end play about our fortunes since returning to the premier league in 2005. 'From Cup Final to Court Battles, from Tevez-gate to Ashton-ate etc.'

# ? Jan 13, 2010 03:39

Zip!: Aug 14, 2008; Keep on pushing
little buddy

Stim posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/13/glazers-manchester-united-training-ground

Not going to comment on whether or not this will be successful but the Glazers picked an awful time to release it.

So basically the Glazers are going to squeeze United's money tit even harder?

# ? Jan 13, 2010 04:20

Adnar: Jul 11, 2002

MoPZiG posted:

They really could write a west-end play about our fortunes since returning to the premier league in 2005. 'From Cup Final to Court Battles, from Tevez-gate to Ashton-ate etc.'

Orlando Bloom should buy them

# ? Jan 13, 2010 05:53

MoPZiG: Jun 6, 2006

Adnar posted:

Orlando Bloom should buy them

idgi do you mean Elijah Wood? pass

# ? Jan 13, 2010 09:23

Jollzwhin: Oct 13, 2004; Just like watching Brazil

Stim posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/13/glazers-manchester-united-training-ground

Not going to comment on whether or not this will be successful but the Glazers picked an awful time to release it.

It's right next door to City. We could have a youth ground and bail out our neighbours perhaps.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 11:20

Hashtag Banterzone: Dec 8, 2005; Lifetime Winner of the willkill4food Honorary Bad Posting Award in PWM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/13/manchester-united-debt-glazer-family

I finally understood what the Glazers are doing with this bond issue.

They are refinancing the loans the club has from 5% interest to around 9.25% interest. They are doing this because Man U's current loans don't allow the Glazers to take money out to use to pay off the 200m debt the Glazers themselves have from the PIK (Hedge Fund) loans that they took out to buy the club at around 14% interest. The 500m bond allows for up to 70m of it to go towards the Glazers, allowing them to pay off the high interest loans belonging to the Glazers.

The bond issue is going to cost Man U about an extra 20m a year in interest payments, and when you combine that with the 35m this year that the club lost due to going for a fixed interest rate for their debt instead of a variable one, that is 55m extra losses due solely the Glazers.

Apologies if I am just rehashing stuff people have already said, I was happy to finally understand wtf was going on and thought I would share.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 16:04

Flayer: Sep 13, 2003; by Fluffdaddy; Buglord

The world of finance is loving retarded. It's just a game for certain type of people to essentially steal as much money as they can.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 16:11

Scikar: Nov 20, 2005; 5? Seriously?

Flayer posted:

The world of finance is loving retarded. It's just a game for certain type of people to essentially steal as much money as they can.

I agree with Flayer ( :gonk:

# ? Jan 13, 2010 16:21

rocket_Magnet: Apr 5, 2005

willkill4food posted:

Glazers

So let me get this straight, they're refinancing the club so they can get money out of it so that they can pay off debts on the loan they took out to buy the club. Resulting in increased debts to the club as a direct result of the glazer take over?

Jesus gently caress

# ? Jan 13, 2010 18:15

Akileese: Feb 6, 2005

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=724598&sec=england&cc=5901

He's spent millions you see! Millions! Of course it doesn't specify how many millions so I'd bet not very much.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 18:20

Loving Africa Chaps: Dec 3, 2007; We had not left it yet, but when I would wake in the night, I would lie, listening, homesick for it already.

rocket_Magnet posted:

So let me get this straight, they're refinancing the club so they can get money out of it so that they can pay off debts on the loan they took out to buy the club. Resulting in increased debts to the club as a direct result of the glazer take over?

Jesus gently caress

Yes, what they will say is they are increasing debt but reducing the high interest loans in order to make the club more stable. Really they are saddling the club with more debt whilst reducing their own liability as up to now if the club went belly up they would be �200 million in the red, once that's gone they can start really having fun with the club.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 18:20

duggimon: Oct 19, 2007; If I had a horse I'd buy it oats and fuck it

rocket_Magnet posted:

So let me get this straight, they're refinancing the club so they can get money out of it so that they can pay off debts on the loan they took out to buy the club. Resulting in increased debts to the club as a direct result of the glazer take over?

Jesus gently caress

most of the debt from buying it was shovelled onto the club, now they're trying to do that with the rest

# ? Jan 13, 2010 21:09

Couch: May 16, 2004; COME ON TOT!

How was the Ronaldo deal done? �80m up front or installments?

If it were installments would they count �80m profits on the books? The profit (losses) less Ronaldo might not be that bad.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 21:57

duggimon: Oct 19, 2007; If I had a horse I'd buy it oats and fuck it

Couch posted:

How was the Ronaldo deal done? �80m up front or installments?

If it were installments would they count �80m profits on the books? The profit (losses) less Ronaldo might not be that bad.

installments but under accounting standards the full profit is recognised in the first year

# ? Jan 13, 2010 22:01

Literally Lewis Hamilton: Feb 22, 2005

duggimon posted:

installments but under accounting standards the full profit is recognised in the first year

It was paid in full.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jul/01/cristiano-ronaldo-one-off-payment-real

# ? Jan 14, 2010 03:10

MoPZiG: Jun 6, 2006

Papers have yet another consortium coming in for us. This time its an Italian-American venture. Arent we popular? :v:

# ? Jan 14, 2010 03:57

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

MoPZiG posted:

Papers have yet another consortium coming in for us. This time its an Italian-American venture. Arent we popular?

The Mafia-owned club have put in a shock �5 move for Torres, which has, remarkably, been accepted.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 10:28

duggimon: Oct 19, 2007; If I had a horse I'd buy it oats and fuck it

Bovine Delight posted:

It was paid in full.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jul/01/cristiano-ronaldo-one-off-payment-real

No way, crazy, I only heard anything about planned payments before the deal was finalised.

Anyway, point was that the full profit is realised as soon as the sale goes through regardless of when the money is received

# ? Jan 14, 2010 10:29

Starbucks: Jul 7, 2002; Your daily cup of fuck you.

I am just awaiting the creation of Manchester United Land in Abu Dhabi, they will create a giant football shaped island with an exact replica of Old Trafford in the middle of it, and build a Manchester United Rollercoaster there which has dates around it detailing the ups and downs of Manchester United, ending in a Oblivionesque Glazier buyout bit at the end, It will have a hotel there based upon an exact replica of the Copthorne Hotel near Old Trafford exact a bit bigger to make the "home" fans who travel to Manchester United feel at home.

It will have giant walking characters of manchester united players, and an Alex Ferguson with a bottle of whiskey. Every single clock has 65 minutes to an hour, so you know you always have that bit of extra time.

Marketing Genius here fellas, I am open to be recruited.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 14:41

Dudley: Feb 24, 2003; Tasty

^^ I love this.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 16:25

Bacon of the Sea: Oct 17, 2008; Dog Suicide Bridge BBQ Team 2k10

Would definitely visit.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 17:19

oystertoadfish: Jun 17, 2003

but abu dhabi bought manchester city, right? 'abu dhabi united'

oh, now i get it. they're going to buy the two clubs and merge them. seems logical

# ? Jan 14, 2010 19:18

Scikar: Nov 20, 2005; 5? Seriously?

"Manchester City United" actually kind of works grammatically.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 19:30

serious gaylord: Sep 16, 2007; what.

So ol Harry has been charged with Tax evasion, along with Gaydamak. Apparently Harry was getting chunks off of Gaydamak from his secret bank account in Monaco.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 21:04

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

So Portsmouth now have;

Mandaric - Tax Evasion

who sold onto;

Gaydamak - Tax Evasion (and funded by his father, who can't really come to home matches, being an international arms dealer)

who sold onto;

Sulaman Al-Fahim, who kept 10% of the shares he had bought with bank loans secured on the club and has yet to pay back, who sold onto

New guy who I can't remember, who is getting Far-East money to pay players, again secured on the club.

The whole time, this band of idiots has been employing Harry Redknapp, who likes brown envelopes as well.

Jesus gently caress.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 21:08

serious gaylord: Sep 16, 2007; what.

Sorry its just Mandaric, I mis read the BBC report on it. Gaydamak hasnt been keeping money from the chancellor, well as far as we know at the moment.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 21:31

oystertoadfish: Jun 17, 2003

Scikar posted:

"Manchester City United" actually kind of works grammatically.

and then it would actually be two clubs, united, which i believe man u currently isn't

# ? Jan 14, 2010 22:14

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

oystertoadfish posted:

but abu dhabi bought manchester city, right? 'abu dhabi united'

oh, now i get it. they're going to buy the two clubs and merge them. seems logical

The real question is, what does a starting XI with both City and Uniteds squads look like?

Annnnnnnd GO!

# ? Jan 14, 2010 22:49

Craiglen: Sep 2, 2006

cheese posted:

The real question is, what does a starting XI with both City and Uniteds squads look like?

Annnnnnnd GO!

code:

            Given

O'Shea  Ferdinand Vidic  Evra

   Fletcher  Hargreaves

 Tevez Rooney Adebayor Bellamy

Craiglen fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jan 14, 2010

# ? Jan 14, 2010 23:08

Meat Wagon: Jul 14, 2004

cheese posted:

The real question is, what does a starting XI with both City and Uniteds squads look like?

Annnnnnnd GO!

I hate you so much for this.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 23:12

fat gay nonce: May 13, 2003; _{actual penis length: |-----------|}

Winner, PWM POTM January

cheese posted:

The real question is, what does a starting XI with both City and Uniteds squads look like?

Annnnnnnd GO!

I pick your mum in every position.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 23:16

Scikar: Nov 20, 2005; 5? Seriously?

code:

                      Foster
Neville   Onuoha   Brown   Sylvinho
Nani     Vieira    Anderson  Welbeck
                Jo          Benjani

# ? Jan 14, 2010 23:59

Jollzwhin: Oct 13, 2004; Just like watching Brazil

Hey Onouha is class

# ? Jan 15, 2010 11:04

puchu: Sep 20, 2004; hiya~

Remedial class

# ? Jan 15, 2010 13:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 23, 2024 20:13

pimpslap: Nov 27, 2002; new home, old colors, same Arsenal

Read this article this morning and thought it was an interesting analysis of a brief history of clubs and money in England. Writer has an Arsenal blog (http://blog.emiratesstadium.info), so obviously it's a bit biased, but worth a read regardless.

blog.emiratesstadium.info posted:

Welcome to Football 3.0 and bid farewell to the old regime.

To recap and explain (or vice versa) Football 1.0 started when Preston North End were thrown out of the FA Cup in 1884 after a complaint from Upton Park FC that Preston had been paying their players.

As a direct result of this Preston got together with other northern clubs and formed the Football League wherein professionalism was legitimised, and the long period of growth of the professional game was launched.

In this era English clubs were owned by the professional classes, and were widely mismanaged, resulting in clubs often piling up huge debts and going into liquidation. I�ll be developing the story of Football 1.0 on the Woolwich Arsenal site in the coming weeks. The story of Arsenal�s own financial collapse is told in my book.

Football 2.0 took a long time to evolve, but might be said to have started with events such as George Eastham�s one man strike against his contract in 1960, and the ending of wage restraint (taking us through 2.1, and 2.2 and into 2.3)

The change was slow at first, but it was ultimately accelerated by issues such as the Bosman ruling, the EU freedom of employment legislation, the change from TV being seen as something to be kept at arms length to becoming the paymaster, and the power of the Champions League.

But these were in the end just mechanisms which enabled the biggest change of all � the change that brought about the collapse of Football 2 and the evolution of Football 3.0.

But this period was necessary because what Football 2 gave us was a totally different way of seeing the relationship between money and football.

During the Football 1 era, Directors were allowed to put money into clubs (Henry Norris spent the equivalent of millions and millions of today�s money in building the modern Arsenal at Highbury), but they were not able to take money out. (Norris was banned from football for having Arsenal pay for this chauffeur when he went to one particular away game, and for taking �130 out of the till when the club bus was sold.

But what brought down Football 2 were the changes that meant one could have the obscenely rich put in wealth as never seen before, and spend it on any player they wanted while other owners began to get the idea that they could make money out of football.

Football 2 also saw the end of life as we knew it in the lower reaches of football. Amateur football attended by big crowds, leading up to the Amateur Cup Final with a sell-out Wembley crowd, went by the wayside.

Likewise the smaller professional clubs that had existed on selling on one great potential player every now and then had to change their approach, as the big clubs were able to buy players in from Europe. (It is a style of existence that Everton cling on to � showing how much Football 1, 2 and 3 overlap).

But the biggest change of all was the attitude of the money men. Previously football in the UK had been seen as a mugs� game. You put money in, and then you put money in. The local fans abuse you because your club is not top of the league, so you put money in. The club wins something and the fans salute the players, and then demand a repeat, so you put money in.

Under Football 2.0 however it became possible to get money out of clubs. Owners were able to write clauses into their ownership that meant they could take a percentage of each player sale. Marketing became a method of raising money. There could be all sorts of deals with TV companies that were never written into contracts at all.

And then along came the idea of asset stripping and leverage buy outs. In the former the new owner buys the club, takes over the land, sells it for development, and leaves the club sinking. (An alternative version I have just heard from France involves buying the club and selling all the top players, taking the money out, and then selling the land).

In the buy out approach the club is bought, the debt from the purchase is put into the club, and the owners have a club bought for zero. They then either asset strip (selling off the ground etc, as Manchester United now propose) or they sell to someone else. Either way they make money.

These people have been attracted in by the fact that shares in clubs can go up in value � buy a load of shares, and if they increase in value, you have your profit.

Meanwhile at the other end of the scale Chelsea and Man City have had the billions pumped in � money which served to raise the salaries of players and the cost of transfer fees. They of course did not invent the plan � that honour probably goes to Blackburn, who bought an early EPL title, but Chelsea and Man City are now synonymous with such activity.

The situation however is totally untenable in the long term. Football is subject to fashion as much as anything else, and anyone who has ever looked at the history of the game will know how attendances declined year on year after the second world war, and only started rising in general terms when the EPL gained world wide status.

Crowds can go up and down.

But fortunately for us all, in the background Football 3.0 has been growing. This is not to say that there are no clubs still following the 1.0 or 2.0 approach. But slowly a handful of open-minded clubs have in the last ten years seen the new way and started to follow it.

This evolution into a new way of doing football happened on many fronts.

First, it has been recognised that as in all other aspects of business, the aim is for the club to make a modest profit, and to make sure that any debts it has are manageable, and not based on wild speculation. This is because it is recognised that everything changes and the outcomes of changes cannot be predicted. UEFA and FIFA can change rules. Government can change tax rates. Public appetite can wane. TV audiences can change.

(I started writing this piece a few days ago, and just in the last two days there has been a change with Ofcom � the TV regulator in the UK � saying that Sky must radically slash the wholesale price of its sports channels. It may or may not happen but it shows how volatile the market is).

Second, given that individuals can lose interest, become ill, be arrested, be shot, or live in a country that is liable to a coup, it is good if the whole club is not owned by one person.

Third, the processes of the club need to be proven (rather just wild) ideas. In other words, it is not a bad start to acknowledge the insanity of the dot com revolution, and the insanity of bankers and see them as warnings, not as blue-prints.

And so the clubs that were bright enough to see a change on the horizon have looked forward to a new world, and started to build. Here are some of their areas of activity.

Academies. The idea is to bring in youngsters as early as possible and try and keep them together, playing in the way that the club plays. It might take eight years to get a result, and that is what marks out Football 2 from Football 3. Football 3 involves waiting, building, and looking at the longer term.

Attractiveness. Winning is good � and many fans are hooked on the propaganda they have been fed that winning is everything. But winning everything by a goal or two, and then playing defensively doesn�t bring in the crowds. Football 2.0 emphasised winning, no matter how you win. Football 3.0 emphasises attractiveness. In a sense it takes us back to the early days of football when it was fun.

World wide scouting. In Football 1.0 the transfer policy started out as taking players who turned up locally (see my thoughts on the various transfers that Woolwich Arsenal did on https://www.blog.woolwicharsenal.co.uk) and then moved into taking the occasional player from another club. In Football 2.0 it moved into a European wide search, with a few others brought in from non-EU countries. By Football 3.0 we are into the full development of world-wide scouting.

But this is not just about the stars � World Wide Scouting can bring in 16 and 17 year olds from the other side of the planet.

Reduced dependence on the transfer fee. In Football 3.0 it is recognised that a scouting network in a country that costs �1 million a year will save the club many more millions if it just turns up one decent player every could of years. It is such an obvious statement that it is almost impossible to understand why others have not set up the network. But under Football 2.0 they didn�t.

The return of the smaller clubs. Raped by their owners, mismanaged into destruction, and finally destroyed by Winding Up orders, a new type of club has started to arise� step up AFC Wimbledon and FC United. Not every venture flourishes � the Ebbsfleet experiment didn�t work out as planned, but there is hope. More experiments, more ideas� and in a way that is what Football 3.0 is about.

The old ways (winning at all cost and who cares about the bailiffs) are set aside, and new creative initiatives are brought forward.

The dinosaurs with their court cases in Jersey and their ownership in the Caymen Islands and Virgin Islands are doomed. Welcome to the new world.

Welcome to Football 3.0

Thankfully we are part of it.

I'd be interested to hear what others think of this hypothesis. Assuming his argument is valid, I'd say that not only Arsenal are part of "Football 3.0", but Aston Villa, Wigan, and West Ham in the PL are all on the same path (albeit to varying degrees). What about other examples of the "smaller clubs" he mentions reemerging from Championship or lower?

# ? Jan 18, 2010 20:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Ray Parlour > Football Finances, come laugh at portsmouth

«‹›194 »