|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13313804.stm Plymouths' creditors have accept the deal. 0.77p for every pound. Crazy.
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
Midnight- posted:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13313804.stm this owns (in the sense that seeing a club dissolve would be so sad)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Midnight- posted:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13313804.stm it's a relief but at the same time it's loving shameful how badly we've treated the creditors (parasites excluded). worried by the nature of some of the bids though - yes it's great we'll continue as a league club but 2 out of the 3 interested parties look like they're concerned largely - probably only - with the property development opportunities
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:it's a relief but at the same time it's loving shameful how badly we've treated the creditors (parasites excluded). worried by the nature of some of the bids though - yes it's great we'll continue as a league club but 2 out of the 3 interested parties look like they're concerned largely - probably only - with the property development opportunities That's because there's no opportunity left in the football team 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 12:05
|
|
|
quote:Queens Park Rangers supporters have reacted angrily after learning they will be charged up to £72 to watch their team in the Barclays Premier League next season. Those prices are nuts. What kind of state are QPR's finances in for the owners to think that these ticket prices are justifiable? Or is the intention really to price out the oi polloi and rif raff?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 14:16
|
|
|
QPR are mean rich, their owners combined wealth dwarfs Man City. Abramovich is worth £8bn, Lakshmi Mittal who owns 20% of QPR is worth £18bn. Ecclestone is worth another couple of billion, Briatore another billion or so. Loftus Road's tiny too. I really think they give no fucks about who's paying them, they've just decided to maximise the £ for the seats available.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:QPR are mean rich, their owners combined wealth dwarfs Man City. Abramovich is worth £8bn, Lakshmi Mittal who owns 20% of QPR is worth £18bn. Ecclestone is worth another couple of billion, Briatore another billion or so. i thought abramovich was about 15bn?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 14:35
|
|
|
I also suspect Sheikh Mansour's family are helping fund Man City
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 14:37
|
|
|
Chuggo posted:i thought abramovich was about 15bn? He lost a lot in the financial crisis.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 15:14
|
|
|
QPR must have some galactico signings lined up
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 15:24
|
|
|
Biggy_ posted:QPR must have some galactico signings lined up Either that or corporate boxes filled with shoes.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
QPR will be buying the best 30 year old Championship journeymen that money can buy.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 16:58
|
|
|
crosspost someone mentioned secondary sponsors the other day and how good united are at bringing in extra revenue with them, and it seems liverpool have taken another step in the right direction by announcing a three year deal with honda motorbikes
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
i think they signed the wrong Honda
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 16:08
|
|
|
how can you t (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
What is red and falls over easily in traffic?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
wooo yayyy wooo yayyy http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13614706.stm quote:Convers Sports Initiatives, controlled by London-based Russian businessman Vladimir Antonov, have completed their takeover of Portsmouth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
Edit: I posted something old by mistake, woops.
c0burn fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Jun 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 10:47
|
|
|
For those of you who didn't believe me about United's massive cash pile, there's a nice article on andersred: http://andersred.blogspot.com/2011/06/facts-about-manchester-uniteds-cash.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
I never said it would be spent on players, just that we have the cash pile. Same as Arsenal. Obviously the debt is still a massive worry, but that doesn't mean the business doesn't have cash to spend if need be. The real question with United is how the gently caress the PIK loans got paid off. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
Marcotti's new WSJ article is a pretty good summary on the futility of football for most clubs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 08:43
|
|
|
Reports say the Glazers are looking at floating the club on the Hong Kong Stock Exhange valuing the club at 1.7 billion
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 09:51
|
|
|
Taff posted:Reports say the Glazers are looking at floating the club on the Hong Kong Stock Exhange valuing the club at 1.7 billion Getting out before Ferguson leaves the club in limbo is a sage move.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 09:55
|
|
|
Taff posted:Reports say the Glazers are looking at floating the club on the Hong Kong Stock Exhange valuing the club at 1.7 billion if this happens make man utd move and play in the hong kong league imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 10:41
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:if this happens make man utd move and play in the hong kong league imo HK Dons
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
Half the teams in the Spanish first and second division filed for bankruptcy or are nearing that point (21 out of 42). And the best thing is: once filed until the 30th of June the club cannot be forcefully relegated (which happens when you cannot pay your player wages) thanks to a loving stupid court ruling, meaning clubs that are financially sane get the shaft. Go Spain!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
Moved,delicious beef posted:The bond repayments (to bond holders rather than a bank( are counted as exceptionals in the balance sheet and when I read through the documents it wasn't actually clear as to how exceptional items are counted in terms of FFP, especially in the first few years. United have a positive 'break-even', Chelsea don't. If it's break-even that UEFA use then United qualify and Chelsea don't. I think all the speculation now will be a lot more clear, say, next Summer. I remember from reading the guidelines that UEFA can ask for a lot of documentation to follow the exact money trail so I expect a lot of case-by-case basis. Precedents will be set, decisions made, etc. UEFA is probably aware of the impact holding companies have on club finances so I wouldn't doubt something coming out this year regarding how the finances of the club and holding companies are related to the financial rules. Or like others mentioned, UEFA will drop it the second they have to kick out a big club. I found this in the pdf quote:Net debt: A club’s net player transfers balance (i.e. net of accounts receivable from players’ transfers and accounts payable from players’ transfers) and net borrowings (i.e. bank overdrafts and loans, owner and/or related party loans and finance leases less cash and cash equivalents). Net debt does not include trade or other payables. I think holding companies fall into related party. Annex VI also goes into what you have to disclose and what counts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
That net debt figure just means that more information might be requested if net debt is more than turnover, it's not something used to pass or fail teams. The relevant bit for United isquote:Finance costs include interest and other costs incurred by an entity in respect This means the regular interest payments on the bonds are counted, which is around £45m a year. The one off charge from this year which led to the massive loss won't be counted, and according to andersred's calculations, United would qualify for FFP of the most recent figures, along with Arsenal and Spurs. The BBC backs this up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9450671.stm Like I was saying, United have a positive break-even, even if they have a negative PBT. This might change if the Glazer's started taking out their dividends. Chelsea don't have a positive break-even
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
delicious beef posted:This means the regular interest payments on the bonds are counted, which is around £45m a year. By the holding company, right? I guess Part D and E is what deals with this owner/company finances and how it relates to the club. quote:The one off charge from this year which led to the massive loss won't be counted, and according to andersred's calculations, United would qualify for FFP of the most recent figures, along with Arsenal and Spurs. Yeah I see the 121m one-off now. I'm confused why it gets ignored though by UEFA, can you clarify? Also thanks for the mention of andersred, reading the blog now. It seems that the commercial increase is helping United but the blog points out this will be a challenge to maintain. w00bi fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Jun 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
It looks like Chelsea is -52m in the break even category. Chelsea's staff cost is 173m, 40m higher than the next closest United. Looking at one of the Chelsea articles this popped out. quote:Chelsea's total staff costs rose an eye watering 12.8% [Excluding Scolari payoffs in 08-09] Staff costs are 84% of revenue vs. 46% at United and 47% at Arsenal (and a bonkers 107% at City). The sacking of Arnesen and a lot of the scouting network should hopefully get that 84% down. And hopefully with the shipping out of older players on large wages this year and the next the 173m will go down. Although the transfers of Torres/Luiz add another 70m to the transfer balance, the bigger issue is going to be the staff cost change the next few years as UEFA starts paying attention. The club also raised ticket prices to try to bump that 67m matchday revenue closer to United's 100m. If you take the ticket price increase with the same attendance you have an increase to 78m matchday revenue (+11m). I doubt the attendance multiplying factor will remain the same so it's probably going to be less than 78m. So staff cost reduction or bust. w00bi fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jun 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
Staff costs are going to have to fall for every big team in Europe, it's the real threat to team's survival, especially with growth being several times faster than turnover growth. Wages have utterly exploded in the past few years, and City and Chelsea really haven't helped that (even if they're not paying players £200k a week, they are forcing up wages not just for superstars but also average players on big teams). Revenues will also go up, ticket prices will be squeezed as high as they can be and corporate entertainment will become very very important, but it's wages falling that is vital vital vital.w00bi posted:By the holding company, right? I guess Part D and E is what deals with this owner/company finances and how it relates to the club. Red Football Ltd makes those payments and loses money, that's the ultimate holding company iirc. Having reread the document I think those payments will be counted, but it might be different if Red Football Ltd also did other things, it would certainly make things more complicated. I wouldn't be surprised if UEFA mandated a corporate structure that makes it very clear what income and costs are associated with the club. The £121m is what it cost to change over the debt from the old loans to the new bond issue. It was a one-off, 'exceptional', and isn't connected to day-to-day and year-to-year flows of money in and out of the business. The bonds are going to cost around £45m a year in interest and there might be other exceptionals to come if things get rearranged again but United's losses will drop because the PIKs are paid off (nobody knows how). The PIKS were probably paid off this year so as to avoid FFP difficulties. UEFA are interested in clubs not losing money in their business activities, costs of restructuring aren't really important in that regard. It's like if you were looking at investing in a company and they had bought a smaller company the year before - the cost of that acquisition would make it look like their PBT had dropped, but in reality it wouldn't have changed their ability to make money year on year. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jun 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Yeah I see now why UEFA wouldn't look too hard at the 121m. And even if they did, it won't be there next year when the monitoring starts anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 05:02
|
|
|
It's just not relevant because it doesn't impact on the business's ability to make profits doing it's everyday activities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
delicious beef posted:Wages have utterly exploded in the past few years, and City and Chelsea really haven't helped that (even if they're not paying players £200k a week, they are forcing up wages not just for superstars but also average players on big teams). It's wages falling that is vital vital vital. Yeah, the departures of Michael Ballack, Joe Cole, Juliano Belletti, Ricardo Carvalho will shave ~£20m off that 173m figure. I can imagine Zhirkov, Drogba, Anelka, and Malouda by themselves would take off another huge sum if they all go. Lampard's contract is up in 2013 and Terry's in 2014. They account for ~£17m per year. w00bi fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jun 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
w00bi posted:Yeah, the departures of Michael Ballack, Joe Cole, Juliano Belletti, Ricardo Carvalho will shave ~£20m off that 173m figure. I can imagine Zhirkov, Drogba, Anelka, and Malouda by themselves would take off another huge sum if they all go. Lampard's contract is up in 2013 and Terry's in 2014. They account for ~£17m per year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
Players coming in won't be on small wages either - what's Torres rumoured to be on? Wages just have to go down in general across the industry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:But won't they get caught paying huge transfer fees to replace those players? The clubs wages will go down, but I'm not sure it'd be much of a net win. If you cut two players each making a crazy 200k/week, you can only spend 20m to break even over the year. It'll bring down long-term costs, but I don't think long-term is their issue. If Chelsea buys young players on low(er) wages now they won't have to keep spending in two-three years. delicious beef posted:Players coming in won't be on small wages either - what's Torres rumoured to be on? Torres is probably somewhere around 150k. But both Ramires and Luiz are ~40k. I would expect Lukaku and de Bruyne to be around there. If Modric comes it would probably be around 100k. Can't see Neymar going above 70-80k. The goal has to be getting players under 100k at least. Remember that Chelsea gave Shevchenko and Ballack both 130k when they joined. Those days have to be over. w00bi fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Jun 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
w00bi posted:Yeah, the departures of Michael Ballack, Joe Cole, Juliano Belletti, Ricardo Carvalho will shave ~£20m off that 173m figure. I can imagine Zhirkov, Drogba, Anelka, and Malouda by themselves would take off another huge sum if they all go. Lampard's contract is up in 2013 and Terry's in 2014. They account for ~£17m per year. but they've got to replace them as at least four of them are pretty important first team players. If they buy in stars that's the savings pretty much cancelled out, if they actually put faith in some of their better youths and they become the replacements they'll still want wages befitting their squad status relative to other key players after a year or two tops. That's assuming they aren't on stupid wages anyway - Daniel Sturridge, for example, was asking for £75,000 a week from City when he left so he's presumably on at least half that to Not Play For Chelsea Ever e: Luiz on £40k sounds really really low for a Brazilian international coming from another club where he could have earnt at least very nearly that without moving Babby Thatcher fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Jun 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
The problem is that you can't just cut wages inside Chelsea because all your good players will move to City or Madrid where they can get paid more.w00bi posted:If Chelsea buys young players on low(er) wages now they won't have to keep spending in two-three years. Neymar will need massive wages, he's getting paid a fortune at Santos because a bunch of the endorsements are tied to his connection to the club.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 05:42
|
|