Football Finances, come laugh at portsmouth

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

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Vando posted:

Is it bad that if this is what it takes to get ownership of the club by the fans, I would take it immediately?

No. It's completely unthinkable to some though.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2010 18:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:00

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Does any other club offer "financial services" on their website? Portsmouth seem to have an entire section for "PFC Financial Services" which basically tries to sell you credit cards and offer you saving schemes. All the profit is meant to go into helping the club.

I know they're desperate but I wouldn't feel confident giving my money to a website that spells soccer with 3 C's.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2010 18:43

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

w00bi posted:

Anyone know how close this is to Liverpool finances currently?

It's incredibly different. Leeds hosed up by taking a huge gamble, signing players like Robbie Fowler for silly money via loans assuming they'd be getting paid for CL broadcasting rights. Then we all know what happened next.

We've had safe Champions League football for years but are now in a situation where we haven't improved our squad enough to guarantee a place this season.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2010 17:14

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Irn--Bru posted:

i hope liverpool get bought by a super rich billionaire and they buy their way to multiple titles just to see what the liverpool posters say about it.

what's your point?

# ¿ Aug 2, 2010 18:55

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

brapbrapbrap posted:

"Wah wah wah the club is doooooomed, the American owners are to blame for everything, Torres and Gerrard are going to be sold, we're going to get relegated, I'm gonna support FC Anfield instead wah wah wah."

*Chinese businessman Kenny Huang is one of "several" candidates who have submitted a bid to buy Liverpool, BBC Sport understands.*

"Er...never mind."

Man Utd fans - this is your future so please shut the gently caress up whinging about the Glazers and chill. It'll all be OK in the end.

Once again brap3 cannot make a post without throwing a giant strawman into millions of peoples mouths. Grow up mate.

# ¿ Aug 2, 2010 19:31

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

MJBuddy posted:

Clearly foreign bellends care more about the team.

E: I have no idea what that word means. Bellends.

lol by the way

# ¿ Aug 2, 2010 23:37

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

It still doesn't feel quite right talking about anyone deserving this when 99.999% of the people affected had absolutely no say at all in this. Even if the majority of fans were vocally opposed to the way the club was being run it's not as if the owners would give a poo poo.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2010 23:33

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

w00bi posted:

If China buys Liverpool's debt, the jokes would be endless.

we will truly never wok alone

- the daily star

# ¿ Aug 5, 2010 00:27

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

w00bi posted:

Can't say I'm happy about this. The longer Liverpool continues to suffer, the closer 'Nando in a Chelsea kit is to becoming a poster on my wall.

How nice it must be to have ensured that's your biggest worry.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2010 21:10

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Simiain posted:

loving Hell, and I had finally managed to stop hating Liverpool as well.

Scousers literally are the worst.

you hate liverpool again because some dumb d-list celebrities acted stupid, congrats on a wonderful resolve

# ¿ Oct 8, 2010 13:51

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Masonity posted:

Or they could just make sure that it's filled to the rafters with home fans every 2 weeks...

By calling it the Job Center Plus Stadium.

Excellent post.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2011 17:53

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

adumb posted:

You people are such morons.

Good point.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2011 15:56

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Ninpo posted:

Lmao Liverpool haven't even broken back into the top four yet and they already think they can get more cash from Sky than the rest of the none top fours?

And as we all know, the current top four are always the most profitable.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2011 17:17

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

I'm just confused as to why Ayre thought this would be a good thing to say when it's obvious that most other clubs wouldn't agree to it. Quite rightly too.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2011 17:37

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Ninpo posted:

Top four or not, there's more potential profit for Liverpool than other clubs who don't have CL football. So yes, the club is "right" in the sense that they think they could get more cash. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2011 03:21

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Ninpo posted:

The post you initially replied to, apparently.

Great snarky comment that doesn't address anything. Are you going to explain? Didn't think so.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2011 04:06

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Jippa posted:

So is this the famous "liverpool way"? Shankly would be proud.

great post

*barca do thing* "Is THIS 'More Than Club'??" :hehe:

Ninpo posted:

What the hell has any of what you or 8raz said, got to do with me basically saying "Lol, Liverpool want to try and angle for more money off Sky already, they're not even back in the top four yet"?

do you not understand how me saying that liverpool are more profitable than a lot of other english clubs whether they're in the top four or not is related to your post? you seriously don't understand this?

and then...

and then you were so misunderstood you tried a zinger?

amazing

# ¿ Oct 13, 2011 17:31

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Cuban Chowder Factory posted:

I read 8raz's argument as "there's no correlation right now between current place on the table and profitability", and accordingly, Liverpool have plenty to gain by breaking up the current TV deal even if they're not in the top four. I don't like their attitude, but they're spot on from a financial perspective. I don't understand why you disagree with him.

Pretty much. Whether we're in the top four or not, Liverpool still have a huge amount of followers around the world because we won a few things some time ago. Liverpool and Utd have a ridiculous amount of fans worldwide and the suggestion that the current top four is somehow indicative of the amount of potential money to be made by exclusive TV deals is stupid.

Liverpool don't think they can get more money than most of the other "none top fours" Ninpo. They know they can. Now whether or not that's morally acceptable(it isn't) is up for debate(it isn't) so let's just stick to that instead of whatever...you're trying to do.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2011 18:44

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/18/manchester-city-biggest-ever-loss

quote:

Manchester City have announced the biggest loss in English football history, �197m for the most recent financial year. The loss on that huge scale, bankrolled by the club's oil-rich owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan during the third year since he bought City in 2008, eclipses the previous biggest loss ever made, �141m by Chelsea in 2005, the second year of their ownership by the oil oligarch Roman Abramovich.

City's loss was made principally by buying players to make Roberto Mancini's squad strong enough to top the Premier League, and paying wages of �174m, �21m higher than the club's entire turnover. During the 2010-11 financial year City signed J�r�me Boateng for �10.5m, Edin Dzeko for �27m, David Silva for �26m, Yaya Tour� for �24m, Aleksandar Kolarov for �19m, Mario Balotelli for �24m and James Milner for �26m, an extraordinary series of player purchases totalling �156.5m.

Mansour made it clear when he took over that he would spend the fortunes necessary to make City successful, and since June 2010 he has personally poured a further �291m into the club. Added to the �500m Mansour invested up to May 31 2010, he has now spent an unprecedented �800m on the football club, to bankroll the expenditure on transfer fees and wages the club would otherwise not have been able to afford. All the money has gone in as equity, in new shares, making it permanent, not as loans. The net loss City made on their operations, �160.5m, was increased by �34.4m writing off the value of several players signed previously, including the Brazilian striker, J�.

A loss on such record-breaking scale raises immediate concerns about whether City have any chance of complying with Uefa's "financial fair play" rules, which will apply to clubs in European competitions from the 2014-15 season. Uefa will analyse top clubs' accounts for the three years before that, starting with the current 2011-12 financial year, and the rules allow clubs to lose just �45m (�38.5m) in total over those three years. Uefa's rationale is that such subsidised overspending is relentlessly inflating players' wages throughout European football, which has driven clubs insolvent.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2011 15:30

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

"The game dun' changed!" - HBO's The Wire. Except not really.

The metagame of football now comes down to owner investment outside of club profit. All City have done is play the metagame correctly and abused the fact that there isn't any real rule against spending �200m in a financial year, yet. By the time the rule comes into play they will already be in a strong position and will be an attractive prospect for All The Players. These are the rules of the sport we follow and City haven't done anything wrong. They've just taken what's there. What are they meant to do? Not use all of their available resources because of some misguided sense of honour?

Y'know, I almost respect what City have done. It's the most outrageous and honest buying of the league in history and rules will only come into place when someone takes it to such an extreme. At least Chelsea were already in the Champions League when they got bought by Roman. City were hovering around 9th-10th and suddenly found themselves buying Robinho. I think that really says a lot about the sport.

Football has always favoured whoever has the most money regardless of were it comes from. Success only generates more potential success and we can't pick and choose what perks are acceptable until the rules of the sport indicate otherwise. These are the same rules which have enabled the "top" clubs to stay comfortable for decades. Who complained when they got more money because they happen to be successful or when they snap up other clubs best/youth players? How can a club build anything when all your best prospects are made offers that they can't refuse? Football has an inherently flawed model for a supposedly "fair" game and City are using it to their advantage like many other clubs do.

The problem isn't sugardaddys wanting to throw money into clubs. The problem is that there isn't anything in place to prevent it or promote a more even playing field in the sport. Do you think City fans give a poo poo about the integrity of how they got to the top of the table after suffering two decades of one way traffic mocking from Utd fans, many of whom have never known anything else? This is the game of football, as it is, 2011. It's a funny old game and will remain so until the rules change.

In summary, football is not dead. It was never alive and it will only ever be "born" when every club is restricted to �30m in the transfer window.

Hala sheiki, ha lini falla
Mili ha lan shi inni mala
We getting Arab money
We getting Arab money

- Busta Rhymes

# ¿ Nov 23, 2011 03:20

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Vinestalk posted:

Restricting transfer fees doesn't solve the big problem. If anything, you're just hurting smaller clubs dependent on selling the players they nurture/create. The big clubs would absolutely love it if they were almost always guaranteed to be able to sign whoever they wanted for �30mil. The Fabregas saga in particular would have had a slightly more hilarious/depressing outcome had there been a cap on spending per window.

Not per player. In total!! But otherwise, yeah.

Lot 49 posted:

I quite like City. I don't think there's anything wrong with spending all your owners money and if United don't win the league then I hope City do. Manchester pride

I just think it's silly to say that how they are achieving success is the same as how United did it.

But it doesn't really matter how it was achieved because once you do achieve it, the current structure favours keeping you there. This creates an environment where other clubs aren't really left with any option but to spend a lot of money to compete for anything.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2011 15:22

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Byolante posted:

Looking forward to Qatar bankrolling a 400m per year loss to supplant City with Reading.

Thought experiment Byolante: Stoke get bought tomorrow and become the richest club of all time. They then buy Barcelona FC and simply field their starting 11. How do you react?

# ¿ Nov 23, 2011 15:33

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

Ninpo posted:

People 2009-2013: Lol United are poo poo why don't they buy midfielders lol jeez
People 2012-2014: Lol United are poo poo they only have Nani and Valencia and Young buy some wingers lol jeez
*United buy Di Maria, Herrera, Daley Blind*

People now: Lol United spent money on players lol

it's not fair is it? you wouldn't see utd fans making these sorts of comments, that's for sure

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 15:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:00

8raz: Jun 22, 2007; He's Scouse, He's Sound.

ephex posted:

Calm down, Aatrek.

lol

# ¿ Dec 20, 2014 19:14

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