|
I am far far too aware of the precise state of Ebbsfleet's finances, and it is Not Good. Though it does make me wonder quite how all the other BSP sides are still going because gently caress me our playing budget is tiny.
|
# ¿ Dec 31, 2009 01:30 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 29, 2024 10:08 |
|
Teddy Picker posted:The owners of Derby County at the moment are being very clever, in that they're not spending outside of their means at all, and have reduced the club debt to not much more than the mortgage on the stadium. A lot of fans are getting irate about mediocre players etc, but I think at this rate everyone seems set to go bankrupt and we'll end up in the Premier League regardless. Cardiff are in the news today about rumours they're getting wound up, planning to be the last club standing doesn't seem overly silly now. This is kind of the Ebbsfleet approach, being fan-owned everyone is massively paranoid of debt-induced oblivion so Job One on taking over was to wipe the debts and start over. Of course now there is piss-all money because hey, it's a BSP club and that's hardly the most lucrative position in the world, but if relegation can be avoided in the next couple of seasons the club should come out of it pretty strong.
|
# ¿ Jan 4, 2010 16:43 |
|
Orange Carebear posted:Calling it now: Man City and Liverpool are tied for fourth going into the last game of the season, Portsmouth is about to enter administration and give Liverpool fourth by discounting the 2 goal differential in our loss to them, so Man City buys Portsmouth, covers their debts and City get the CL spot. hahaha god drat that would be worth City making the CL in that case
|
# ¿ Jan 5, 2010 00:37 |
|
Oh whoops looks like Ebbsfleet is hosed after all. Turns out part of the initial purchase agreement included a commitment to pay the owners of the training ground a lump sum per year for 13 years, only 20% of which is for actual use of the facilities, the remainder being essentially a repayment on the covering of the purchase cost of the club. It's not a loan, honest, apparently. But if the payments stop the full amount becomes due. Hmm. Bonus: EUFC ownership is split 75% the society and 25% old shareholders. Some of the 25% are also shareholders of the company that owns the training facilities. The 25% also have power of veto on burdening the club with any debt, so the society cannot loan the club money, they can only inject cash. As society policy is not to spend membership fees until they become current (ie. not spending prepaid memberships before the actual membership period) there is no way of securing future membership fees so that they can be used up front, because the society is unable to provide loans to the club. Oh, and the training facilities aren't even used by the club, because they're so poo poo the manager would rather train at the ground instead.
|
# ¿ Jan 5, 2010 16:21 |
|
Outrespective posted:Ahahahaha what a terrible deal. The best bit is that it seems absolutely noone from the society knew about this until trying to get out of the contract as it's bankrupting the club.
|
# ¿ Jan 5, 2010 17:10 |
|
Dudley posted:Doesn't matter what's in the contract if it turns out to be an illegal term though. Although if it's got into a contract like this it probably isn't. All it takes is the TV deal saying 'payments can be withheld to service football debts' and it's legit.
|
# ¿ Jan 5, 2010 17:37 |
|
Jollzwhin posted:Randy Lerner is doing ok. A huge understatement. Guy is probably the best owner a club could wish for, if you're including the long view.
|
# ¿ Jan 6, 2010 12:35 |
|
DickEmery posted:I'm waiting for football 5.0 whereby Arsenal and Spurs are awarded trophies by convincing FACup Ltd they have the best business case. Duncan Bannatyne ensures no trophies are won by anyone for five years straight.
|
# ¿ Jan 19, 2010 15:37 |
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Football 5.0 is actually a pitch on Dragon's Den as to why they should buy your club. The club with the biggest investor wins. Yes that is the joke we just made thank you for that clarification.
|
# ¿ Jan 19, 2010 17:31 |
|
Grez posted:Going bust, getting relegated 4 divisions and coming back slowly as a supporters trust/membership owned club would be infinitely preferable to any of those cunts. Is it bad that if this is what it takes to get ownership of the club by the fans, I would take it immediately?
|
# ¿ Jan 20, 2010 18:24 |
|
Dudley posted:If I were a Manchester United fan I wouldn't support FC United because, get this, they're NOT Manchester United. And I don't get the 'it isn't going to happen' part, it works nicely enough for Barca.
|
# ¿ Jan 22, 2010 09:32 |
|
Jollzwhin posted:I'm not sure that supporting United's debt structure really means that it's a good set of rules. I mean they are fine with the current rules as they are turning a profit despite their crippling debt. No, it's a rule targetted at ALL the clubs running at a loss and spending money they don't have. City are not the first, it's been going on for ages. As the article states, this hits 14 of 20 EPL clubs from 2008. Oh and it will hit United soon enough. Can't sell a Ronaldo every season, you know.
|
# ¿ Jan 22, 2010 12:55 |
|
City fans now working on persecution complex to rival that of Arsenal fans.
|
# ¿ Jan 22, 2010 17:14 |
|
ibroxmassive posted:You're just jealous 'cos Man U fans have to work on their pity-me faces. *holds out cap*
|
# ¿ Jan 22, 2010 17:18 |
|
duggimon posted:if tom hanks was going to run liverpool I'd want him to be more like he was in big or forrest gump than in saving private ryan or the green mile Apollo 13 is probably the best fit. Starring Liverpool's finances as liquid oxygen tank #2
|
# ¿ Jan 26, 2010 10:40 |
|
quote != edit
|
# ¿ Jan 26, 2010 10:41 |
|
Spurs are having their pick of Pompey players because Pompey still owe them money
|
# ¿ Jan 28, 2010 17:43 |
|
Byolante posted:I still don't get how you can sell spurs all your good players and still owe them money. By buying all of their bad players for more money than you sold them your good players for.
|
# ¿ Jan 29, 2010 09:41 |
|
brapbrapbrap posted:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/8488910.stm This isn't what you were saying at all e: also gonna stick my neck waayyyyy out and say this is never going to loving happen because like hell are they going to raise ~£800m for a takeover
|
# ¿ Jan 30, 2010 16:11 |
|
Chuggo posted:Before the economic climate changed for the worse, the American duo turned down an offer from Dubai worth almost £500 million — a deal that would have allowed each of the owners to walk away with a clear profit in the region of £125 million. trust me, you DO NOT want your football club to be owned by anything to do with Dubai
|
# ¿ Feb 9, 2010 10:59 |
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Yeah Dubai's wealth is based on banking and banking aint doing too well at the moment It's not even based on banking, it's based on spending it all and then hoping the prestige generated in doing so attracts investment.
|
# ¿ Feb 9, 2010 11:33 |
|
Transatlantic Gulp posted:and then being repeatedly bailed out by the royal family of Abu Dhabi Dubai is basically the Manchester City of countries.
|
# ¿ Feb 9, 2010 17:18 |
|
MoPZiG posted:Maybe the solution isnt a cap but infact a revenue sharing enterprise so when a sugar daddy comes in and boosts kit sales/tour revenue etc. like Abramovich has at Chelsea, the whole league benefits nominally. Id argue the best thing going for the premier league right now is its egalitarian TV deal, so just extend that into more areas off the pitch. The problem with this is that it hobbles our best teams when it comes to competing in Europe, which arguably devalues the league as a whole. What really needs to be done is for FIFA/UEFA to require domestic leagues work on a revenue sharing basis, so no league is punished for trying to level the playing field.
|
# ¿ Feb 10, 2010 14:26 |
|
TwoDogs1Cup posted:18k a week for a league two club, wow.. That there is 3x Ebbsfleet's monthly wage bill, and there's only one level difference.
|
# ¿ Feb 18, 2010 17:10 |
|
peanut- posted:While it's good that he saved the team, the fact that this guy bought the club and then found out about the state of its books afterwards says a lot about how many clubs have ended up the way they are. This is also what happened to Ebbsfleet, though not to this extent.
|
# ¿ Feb 18, 2010 20:50 |
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:Is there even a good argument as for why the windows exist anyway? Because um wait hang on I know this
|
# ¿ Feb 19, 2010 15:33 |
|
It's some vague 'EU rules' thing, I think.
|
# ¿ Feb 19, 2010 16:16 |
|
I wonder how bad Leeds' owners are that they want to remain anonymous so badly.
|
# ¿ Mar 5, 2010 10:21 |
|
Rhgr posted:My point is, FLJ is full of poo poo. Chelsea's ticket prices are only ever so slightly higher than that of the other clubs, which is more than reasonable since we have the lowest capacity, and have to operate out of the more expensive London instead of Manchester or Liverpool. Just because everyone else is getting cuntier does not mean you are getting less cunty hth
|
# ¿ Mar 5, 2010 12:54 |
|
Flayer posted:People in London are richer than northerners so it makes sense that tickets cost a bit extra. The average yearly income in London is around 30k while if you are from Wigan or something you'll be lucky to earn enough to pay tax. Yes but please note that that average income is inflated like gently caress by cunts in the City. Who also buy up all the living space so THAT becomes super expensive, so companies have to pay more than elsewhere in salary so that their employees can actually live locally. Said employee then still only has the same disposable income as any other fucker, so why does he have to pay more for his ticket to see his football team?
|
# ¿ Mar 5, 2010 18:51 |
|
willkill4food posted:Does he though? Doesn't he have to spend more to eat out, drink out or do anything? I have only been to London but saying that someone in one of the most expensive cities in the world has the same disposable income as someone elsewhere seems counter-intuitive. London does not have to be expensive. Sure there are lots of expensive places to go out, but remember the aforementioned City dudes with scads of cash can support jacked up prices. It's still not relevant regarding Chelsea ticket prices though. Unless your argument is going to be they're catering to the richer demographic in which case wait hang on yes they are cunts.
|
# ¿ Mar 5, 2010 20:55 |
|
Jollzwhin posted:Everyone should be rejoicing in the hit to a Murdoch brand. This was me on hearing the news:
|
# ¿ Mar 31, 2010 11:05 |
|
Akileese posted:Hull possibly hosed too? Haha gently caress me no relegation wage cut clauses? Insanity.
|
# ¿ Apr 25, 2010 12:52 |
|
This argument is pretty loving stupid, if you hadn't noticed.
|
# ¿ Apr 26, 2010 16:20 |
|
So given that Al-Fayed has sold Harrods for £1.5bn, do you reckon this signals a potential greater investment in Fulham in his retirement? Because they're kind of sitting in a good position for moving to the next level via strong investment, really.
|
# ¿ May 8, 2010 13:06 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 29, 2024 10:08 |
|
Noxville posted:I was reading today that apparently between July 2008 and July 2009 Hicksgillett had injected £86m into Liverpool via their Cayman Islands based holding company - with an interest rate of 10%. This plus other funds that had been put into the club earlier has amassed £8.1m worth of interest that the club owes to them. Nice way to make money if you can afford it. Shame they'd only ever get like 20% of it back when the club goes tits up.
|
# ¿ May 12, 2010 15:36 |