|
Starbucks posted:You know the situation with Portsmouth really has me thinking about the "fit and proper" test. I mean if someone can buy the club without disclosing any funds, not actually paying anyone on time in the first year. The test must not be complicated at all, there is no clear evidence of fiscal security that I can see. I think it's mainly there to stop someone like Mugabe coming in and buying Bolton.
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
TyChan posted:That kind of leaves people like the Glazers or H&G up poo poo creek to a certain extent then, doesn't it? No new buyer is going to look at those clubs realistically and think, "oh, I'll buy this low and sell it even higher to someone else." You could do that with Birmingham, maybe, but not with an established player. They don't need to improve it at all though. Glazers are risk free at this point afaik, all the debt is leveraged against the club, they could walk away from the club and let it slide into administration and get bought up by someone else and they'll not be the poorer for it. The only reason they are holding onto the club as it stands is that it pays them a rather nice salary they've been allowed to set themselves based on the success of the club, as soon as the club stops being successful they can just wash their hands of it and walk out with lots of money. They bought the club with loans, transferred the loans to the club so they themselves are now debt free, because they are in charge at the club they choose their own salary and keep taking from the club while the club struggles to pay it's interest on the loans. They won't sell unless someone comes in with a huge freaking offer that makes it more profitable to take a lump sum now instead of their wonderfully fat guaranteed salaries for the rest of their forseeable lives. This is why he got all his kids in on this too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 21:52
|
|
|
the posted:So if like Bill Gates wanted to put together a team, and he bought all the top EPL players, they'd start at the worst English league and work their way to the Premiere league after like 10 years? That or you buy out a team and relocate them, ala Wimbledon who were a london based club who groundshared with Crystal Palace at Selhurst Park, being bought out and relocated to Milton Keynes. Of course it's much cheaper to do this with a league one or two club, which is 3rd or 4th level, saves you working all the way up from the 9th level without having to fork out hundreds of millions and not getting to move the team at all or rebrand them if you bought a premiership team. Of course if you are Mike Ashley, buy a prem team for hundreds of millions, get them relegated in farcical circumstances, treat the fans and the history of the club like utter poo poo and a toy you no longer want for almost a year so that when you do start rebranding the team in your image the fans will accept it because it wasn't as bad as it was before. Mike Ashley's Newcastle Sports Direct United who play at Nintendo Wii@St James Park.com Clubs who start out again at the 9th level are usually fan based like FC United (formed after Man United got bought out by the Glazers) and AFC Wimbledon. Outrespective fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Dec 31, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 23:27
|
|
|
Vando posted:Oh whoops looks like Ebbsfleet is hosed after all. Ahahahaha what a terrible deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2010 17:04
|
|
|
JingleBells posted:It seems the taxman also wants some cash off United, although it is from The Sun: I'd just like to point out that if HM Customs get Man Utd on this, it'd be a) Brilliant and b) going to gently caress over a lot more clubs harder than it would just Man Utd. If I remember correctly a lot of Newcastle United salaries are by and large made up of these "non-taxable" image rights (I believe joey barton gets 50k a week from said image rights). Can you imagine Newcastle getting another few million in tax claims dumped on their lap right now ?  I imagine this also applies to a lot of other top footballer salaries at clubs like Chelsea and Liverpool. Looking forward to this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2010 16:18
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Spurs are probably the club that is run best in terms of finance, yet it always seems to be Arsenal that is brought up as a shining example. Yes because you see during the George Graham era...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
Noxville posted:Aside from when they had the club's offices raided over some financial irregularities and had several board members under suspicion, sure. David Gold was interviewed as a witness while they kept sticking Karen Brady under arrest. They never did press any charges and they were linked with none of the transfers from the Stevens report. In fact they made a lot of arrests back then without ever pressing charges and I think it's probably dead in the water by now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
Dream Team summed it up best.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
Adnar posted:I wonder if some ways Leeds were saved by the "living the dream" poo poo happening 10 years ago rather than say 3-5. They probably could have gotten themselves in a lot deeper and it seems like they bottomed out (welched) cleared their debt and if they come up in 5 years will probably be better off financially than any of the big clubs. Yes being owned by Ken Bates is being saved.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
Adnar posted:Well it kind of is because he has no shame in ripping off people that was owed money by the clubs. Technically they're a different club altogether (Leeds United 2006 or something) and are clearing 10million profit a season. Yet there is no guarantee he won't run them into the ground like he did Chelsea when he gets them into the premiership.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2010 18:45
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Sorry if this has been posted already. If it has I've missed it. If not, it belongs here. That is loving amazing and the SFA are stupid as hell to block it. I mean I can see why they are blocking it, cause you know I'm pretty sure it would breach the contract of the company sponsoring the leagues as a whole, but in the end I don't think the clubs in the divisions get anywhere near as much in terms of sponsorship as they could negotiate there with naming rights. The problem with naming rights for the SFA means that it prevents them getting a cut too. I hope Stirling Albion challenge them and win this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
Dragon Jones posted:From what I've heard about our financial status under Phil Duffen, yes it is lucky. So Hull can't afford to sack Phil Brown eh?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
Vando posted:Spurs are having their pick of Pompey players because Pompey still owe them money
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:
Does no-one have figures on Villa, or do they just conveniently forget they are a top 6 side, that like to occupy a top 4 slot prior to xmas to falsely build up their supporters hopes. I mean you list 7 sides and not one of them is loving Villa.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
MrBling posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt Fair enough, but keep in mind Villa don't take in money from sponsors on the Shirt.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Its where things start getting risky but villas owner seems to be doing a decent job and not getting carried away trying to get 4th. Villa also still have room to grow the turnover by selling sponsorship of their shirt.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Somehow I doubt a shirt sponsorship will bring in that much for Villa. http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/965582/Football-shirt-sponsorship-deals-continue-climb-value/ Of further note, Aston Villa's previous deal which was made back when Villa were pretty much underperforming compared to where they are now, was worth 2 mil a year. West Ham originally commanded a 2.5 mil a year deal from XL before they went bust and their current deal is 2.5m over 18 months. Northern Rock previously propped up Newcastle to the tune of 5 mil a year. I think it's fair to say that Villa's brand value since Lerner has come in has only increased, especially with it's wealth of England international players who aren't recently sending pics of their cocks to page 3 models, or loving around with players ex gf's. Villa could easily command a 4 mil a year deal now I reckon should they head back to getting sponsorship on the shirts which would constitute a ~6% rise in turnover. Outrespective fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Feb 21, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:So Spurs can get around half of the current Man U and Liverpool deals, and are probably on a similar level to that of Villa...which is what I said gently caress me spurs are getting 8.5 mil a year? Villa could easily command 7-8 at least in that regards, I consider their team more marketable than spurs but then there is always the fact that it's loving Birmingham.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Well, the deal runs out in the summer and considering the general financial climate I wouldn't be surprised if the new sponsorship ended up being smaller. The article I linked showed it's still growing as of nov 2009. It depends where you get the sponsorship from though, obviously with the Euro still being stronger than the pound at the moment a sponsorship from abroad will bring in as much if not more.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 19:11
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:It would take a £25m a year sponsorship to get wage bill below half of turnover. Also figures are from 2007 may 31st, Spurs were involved in the League Cup final that year if that's where all those figures come from, as that is where Villa's figures came from at least. So Villa's turnover might be a bit higher now and Spurs a bit lower cause you aren't exactly going to a cup final this year now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 19:17
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:I'm not sure about that to be honest. I think Tottenham have a bigger "international profile" than Villa. Just look at TRP and how many more Tottenham fans there are than Villa fans. I know it's a small sample group and proves nothing, but I would think Tottenham have a bigger following. Internationally yes, but with regards to the kids, Villa has a good crop of English players young and old. Tottenham not so much these days.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
Jose posted:No they just wank on webcam for strangers. Thats loads better. Yah, lets bring up something from what, 3-4 years ago that already got plenty mileage in the media? Plus James Milner is the darling of the squad right now. Lets keep things more recent eh?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:Yes I'm sure the League Cup run makes up the £40m difference between the two teams' revenue. If we are quoting 2007 may 31st figures for both teams, things have changed wildly since then. Spurs have definitely taken on a LOT more high earners since 2007 may 31st, I'd argue Villa not so much. A league Cup Run is about 3 million each way, so about 6 million total difference, which is still a fair portion. Also in the last 15 months there have been 6 current Aston Villa players called up for England and 6 current Tottenham Hotspur players called up for England. Warnock Downing Milner Ashley Young Emile Heskey Gabby vs King Crouch Defoe Jenas Huddlestone Lennon King is too Injury Prone, Huddlestone has 1 cap and is fighting for a position that is too crowded currently behind Jenas, Lampard and Gerrard. Heskey, Gabby, Defoe & Crouch all can't play at the same time, especially if Rooney is fit and it seems whenever Heskey is half-fit Capello is determined to get him injured. Lennon, Young and Downing will be likely competing for wing positions and it'll be interesting to see who wins through there, Milner is probably the best penalty taker in the England squad but prefers to play in an attacking midfield position in the middle of the field. Warnock is definitely in with a chance of starting depending on how Cole's recovery from injury goes. Dawson might get called up depending on injuries but I think Woodgates career at an international level if finished. Luke Young retired from international football which I think is a great loss as he can play either right or left back but is not better than Glen Johnson or Ashley Cole hence his retirement. Fabian Delph and Nathan Delfuenso are too young at this moment in time but are proven at a youth level and are featuring frequently for Villa. Curtis Davies has been called up under Capello but seems to be taking his time to recover from his long-term shoulder problems and how easily it likes to dislocate. No-one wants to touch David Bentley with a barge-pole recently and I don't blame them he seems like a cancer. Overall, Villa have a younger side with more players that have been called up for England or are potentially looking at stepping up to the full England side. With the exception of Lennon and Huddlestone, Spurs English contingent aren't getting any younger. Villa however with the exception of Heskey and Warnock have a very young English side with lots of players that are establishing themselves already for the future, it'd be nice if Reo-Coker could also get his head screwed on straight and join that group given that he was a standby midfielder for 2006 England Squad before back problems ruled him out. I might have not put it so elegantly earlier, but Aston Villa are definitely in the ascendancy with regards to England internationals while Spurs are very much in a decline, especially when it comes to engaging English Youth. The next generation which is what you want to target as a brand is very much Villa. Edit: I think it's important in the end however to highlight that we are arguing finances dated from 2006-2007 season ultimately and a lot has changed since then, for Spurs and Villa. Spurs have definitely been a lot more aggressive in pursuing a higher position at the table and I'm sure their wages as a percentage of turnover has increased respectively as they had more ground to make up than Villa. Furthermore Villa have enjoyed sustained success in terms of positioning well in the league and as a result might have produced much greater turnover. All the while with the potential to factor in another 7-8 mil a year in sponsorship if they so desire. Outrespective fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Feb 21, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 20:56
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:you all seem to be astonishingly generous towards Redknapp's role in the financial ruin of every club he's ever managed. I'll try and keep this not too TL:DR because you'd all be better off reading the relevant sections of Broken Dreams by Tom Bower (actually read the whole thing, it adds context on how clubs get away with dodgy transfer dealings, how widespread they are and, most crucially to Redknapp's case - superagents and the way they operate). This forever, when Tottenham fans defend him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
Look at Liverpools matchday revenue, they are lagging an easy 40 mil a year behind the rest of the sky 4 cause they can't get a new stadium.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2010 04:10
|
|
|
Noxville posted:100 people dead is pretty low for a conflict over resources, like 4 million have died in Democratic Republic of congo for the coltan in your cellphone. Coltan supplied from the DRC make up about oh, 5% at MOST of world coltan supplies, the majority of coltan comes from Canada and Australia (you could also dispute the figures of aboriginal tribes that were killed in both nations to your blood coltan), however this is totally not relevant to anything we are particularly discussing with regards to English Football Finances. However on the other hand, with regards to the oligarch situation in Russia. Reminder that when they dissolved the soviet union that they gave all the workers shares in all the industries, however people like Roman however had been made well aware of what was going to happen under Yeltsin in advance and had pooled their money waiting to cash in on all these workers who had shares in these companies but no living wages with which to buy anything with. Most were told to sell them to people like Roman or they wouldn't even have a job any longer, the great majority of the russians did not give up their shares willingly, but more out of the threat that they were going to suffer poverty and/or death if they did not, furthermore it's undocumented how many workers were actually killed or sent to the gulags during the period of Russia's volatile history where all the resources ended up in the hands of a rich elite few instead of still in the hands of all the workers where it was suppose to remain. Of course the Western world could have intervened at any point, perhaps make their currency not worthless, provided aid, investment, but no, it's much easier to allow all the wealth concentrate in a few much more easily influenced individuals. In short, gently caress Roman and every Russian Oligarch who capitalized on the end of Soviet Russia by forcing workers to part with their hard-earned shares so they could retain a means to earn a living. So tally up the whole population of russia to that 100 while you are at it as people who have been oppressed and threatened with death or killed by oligarchs. Anyway this is all loving nonsense, we've had arms dealers, porn kings, oligarchs, oil sheikhs, real estate slumlords etc all own premiership clubs at some point and it's all been through the exploitation of millions of people. The Glazers aren't even any loving better if you investigate how much of their wealth has been generated through the exploitation of american tax-payers and blackmailing them with the threat of moving their franchise to another location. They all need to loving die, plain and simple. Outrespective fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Mar 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
I mean at the end of the day, you're footy t-shirts are being made in some thailand sweatshop and those footballs you kicked around as a kid were sewn together by a 7 yo in bangladesh. Football is loving corrupt at every level, let's not just pick on chairmen here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 03:23
|
|
|
In short all of football is indefensible in terms of morality. Even the sunday league poo poo you play with your mates, you're all wearing clobber that makes you as morally bankrupt as stalin, hth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 03:24
|
|
|
However if you wanna dispute chairmen on a consequentialist basis rather than your feeble arguments showing you don't even understand enough about morality and what constitutes morally bankrupt, then by all means Gadymak was probably the worst on a consequetialist basis, followed by Mansour then Roman. In short, Portsmouth had it coming. Edit: Though feel free to switch Mansour and Roman around when Man City surpass Chelsea in terms of global branding and fanbase. Outrespective fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Mar 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 03:28
|
|
|
Akileese posted:Fixed that for you. Its everything, not just football (or even sports in general). Shoe companies have all their sweat shops in the far east and most businesses outsource a lot of their technology to countries like India in order to cut costs for cheap labor. Don't single out football like its this evil monster when really any other enterprise in the world is just as bad. Call me when you find a successful football team that doesn't adhere to the principles of exploiting people all over the world. There are plenty of successful businesses that do fair trade, don't use sweatshops, don't outsource, I mean not bountiful, but there are some and they are successful (and eventually get bought out by bigger corporations). I've yet to find a professional football club that can adhere to those sort of principles though and be successful because at the end of the day, everything is ran by FIFA. Even these fan based teams coming up the lower leagues are still at the end of the day kicking about a football made in a sweatshop.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 07:37
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:Yeah, if you make £30k in London, you're a Brentford fan. Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
DickEmery posted:General consensus seems to be "dunno mate". Didn't cardiff build their new stadium on stupid money borrowed from hedge funds that had a high interest rate that has held them up in court for a while and poo poo like that? I mean gettin gthings done on the cheap is one thing, but you also have to look into how they loaned in the money to get it built and what conditions they agreed too (i.e. who took priority debt wise to be paid first etc).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:If a new stadium was profitable don't you think H&G would have done it already? American sports franchise owners don't pay for stadiums, they make the cities pay for the stadium or threaten to move the franchise out of state. There is no way on earth they would finance a stadium, they bought Liverpool because they thought they could flip it for a quick buck to an Oil Sheik and they utterly hosed it up, there was no more to it than that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Hahahahahaha, amazing It's like they are almost deliberately overplaying the controversy so they can score more merchandise sales knowing fine well that it won't ever impact their bottom line with regards to other revenue streams.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2010 08:01
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Here's an interesting article on the state of La Liga. Yah we've been saying this for a while, yet every "real" fan of la liga refuses to admit it. They prefer to point the finger of blame elsewhere rather than focus on themselves. Oh well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
Ahahahhaha Welp Premier League, it was good while it lasted. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8595779.stm BBC News posted:Ofcom is expected to rule later that Sky will have to introduce a cap on the prices it charges its rivals to show its premium sport and film channels. On one hand, it's good news for the Pub goers and Armchair fans, on the other hand it seems that Peak TV money has been reached. Whether this will lead to the sky 4 trying to negotiate their own tv deals and telling the rest of the league to gently caress off in a style similar to La Liga to maintain their own Status Quo, or whether we'll see a decline in spending by English clubs and lowered interest from investors is another story.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 05:18
|
|
|
Jose posted:Well it was more in response to what Outre said. The premier league might not make as much money from sky but thats not so important now due to Asian TV rights. When all these deals come up for renewal they are not going to be worth anywhere near as much now, and now that Sky can't pass the cost onto the consumer, who do you think the cost will be passed onto. I didn't mean to infer that the decline will be immediate, but there will certainly be a decline.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 17:09
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:Yes, because Murdoch is literally the worst person in the UK and the idea of him having influence on the government should chill you to the bone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhGF8a1HwP8
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
w00bi posted:So basically they will sit on the club until they can make a nice profit for themselves? I'm pretty sure they only bought the club with intentions of flipping it for an extra 100-200 mil to oil money in the middle east and completely hosed that up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2010 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Motherwell are going to try and issue a winding up order against Cardiff over an outstanding debt of 175k they are waiting to be paid for a player after Cardiff signed Craig Bellamy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2010 15:07
|
|