|
Stim posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/13/glazers-manchester-united-training-ground So basically the Glazers are going to squeeze United's money tit even harder?
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2010 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
If you're bored... http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/assets/docstore/2009_annual_report.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
c0burn posted:Literally no one is ever this bored Honestly as someone who designs and produces these documents for a living I couldn't agree more. For a casual glance all the information you need to know is in the key performance indicators on the 2nd page. The new training ground does look spiffy though and the artists impression of the new stadium looks a LOT like the Emirates.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
Scikar posted:I was going to say that it must at least be comforting to see the club aiming to keep hold of their star players now they have some spare income, instead of the past years' habit of letting go of important figures because of wage demands. Thinking about it though, the way footballers' minds and agents work all it means is that spare income will be sucked into player wages now, and in 3 years' time the club will have to find another revenue stream to fund further increases to try and keep hold of them. You mean like becoming a successful (ie title winning) side?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
As someone who works in the financial industry its a neat little idea in theory but turns out to be a massive ball ache in the future to administer. The club will make about £20k out of the scheme but really its just a bit of lip service to the fanbase. With regards to the Liverpool situation the likely hood of there being any "serious" bids before October 6th are incredibly low. Prospective buyers are going to play the waiting game and see if RBS actually have the balls to call in the debt. If they do you'll see things heating up very quickly and RBS will make a nice little profit out of the asset. The thing you have to remember is that why buy something for £600m when you can wait 6 weeks and get it for ~£300m?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 13:52
|
|
|
It depends which way RBS go about it. One is the way you described which is obviously an unattractive scenario for everyone involved and fairly unlikely. The other (and more likely option) is that RBS will make a final demand that H&G come up with the money, which they wont be able to, then RBS would seize control of the club through the courts as a unique circumstance and run it as a going concern until a buyer is found. H&G would be declared bankrupt, Liverpool would effectively be "repossessed" but not have to go into administration. It would require the approval of the enitre BoG of RBS but it definitely could be done. From then on RBS's priorities wouldn't be in making a profit, so basically the first party to stump up the cash to pay off the debt will get the club. Alternatively RBS could auction off the club to the highest bidder. If no bidders are found (unlikely if reports are to be believed) then yes, you would see Liverpool start to be disassembled as you describe but we are talking 12-24 months down the line, not January 2011.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 16:19
|
|
|
There isn't really any precedence that I can refer to under UK law that I can refer to because this is really the first leveraged buy out that has gone tits up in the EPL. The club itself isn't bankrupt and if RBS wanted to protect the value of the asset putting them into admin is the last thing they want to do. There would also be a massive conflict of interest with them being the largest creditor and also the controlling party. The nearest sports scenario I can link it to is the one in the NHL with the Pheonix Coyotes. The team went bankrupt, but instead of it being wiped off the face of the map the NHL stepped in and took control of the team and are in the process of finding a suitable buyer. The nearest "our world" scenario I can think of is assuming that RBS are the only people that Liverpool owes substantial money to. In that case its very similar to if you bought a house and defaulted on the mortgage. The bank would just take the property back, give you 28 days to pay the debt or assume full ownership of the property. Its through this means that RBS will effectively act if they decide enough is enough. Zip! fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Aug 18, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 16:51
|
|
|
Jose posted:http://football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_6785730,00.html Purely the result of having bought Chamakh, Kos & Squil during the summer and having not sold any players for much value. Gate receipts from the next few home games will have put us back into profit for the year on the whole and then we have (hopefully) FA cup, League Cup, Champions League and EPL finishing money to look forward to. We'll post a profit again this year, but I doubt it will be as high as recent years.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 14:20
|
|
|
Except Arsenal is a PLC so the board has to publish their accounts at the end of the fiscal year and you can see what funds they have available. E: Also further credence to my previous statement. Arsenal's financial half year falls at the end of November so their figures definitely wouldn't reflect any European/Domestic cup revenue. The loss is purely in having spent about £18m on players during the summer without a Toure or Adebayor going the other way. The fact that considering the above that we were 1 home game away from breaking even 4 months into the season is absolutely outstanding. Zip! fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Feb 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 14:28
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:Massaging a balance sheet is clearly impossible. When you massage a balance sheet the cracks show up elsewhere in the financial statements. Typically you find a variance of about £5-20m in a company with assets similar to the size of a football club. This is all well and good except it isn't happening to the point where the balance sheet states that Arsenal have liquid assets of about £140m across the group. I'm not saying that there isn't a bit of creative accounting going on at Arsenal because it happens at every publicly traded organisation in the world. But I am saying it isn't happening to the point where there is the magical private company financial blackhole that are/were City, Liverpool, United, Notts County etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 14:54
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Timing kind of makes sense though. We are a year or two away from renewing major sponsorship deals that should bring in much more money then our current ones that had to be front loaded because of the stadium. The stadium is being paid off way ahead of schedule and another phase of flats has just been started. He's probably looked around and thinks the sport is going to grow world wide and with all his franchises he should be able to boost the image of the club fairly easily so if he gets in now he should be ahead of any price rises from all that extra income. Pretty much this. Arsenal are about to go through their next stages of economic growth and so it makes a lot of sense to buy the club now before its value (hopefully) increases through the new deals. I'm not sure what kind of effect any of this will have on the pitch. I don't think he is the type to meddle like an Abromovich, or the kind to pull the trigger on the manager if he doesn't get immediate results like the Sheik.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 12:44
|
|
|
I wouldn't go that far. Wenger still isn't going to splash the cash.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/chelsea-raise-stamford-bridge-ticket-price-to-16387-2267923.html Bloody hell!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 11:57
|
|