|
Oh Em Gee posted:Holy gently caress Walmart? No. Just run away Arsenal they'll loving nickle and dime you to death. On the bright side, tickets and merchandise would be cheaper as everything Arsenal-related would be produced by Asian children.
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2011 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
MoPZiG posted:ESPN just put up an interesting chart stating who is the highest paid athlete country by country. John O'Shea makes $6,800,000 a year. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
Homura posted:loving hell, income per capita in norway is about 80,000 dollars? can euroboy confirm this That's nothing. You think the $978,800 Liechtenstein's Martin Stocklasa makes is a lot until you compare it to the $134,392 per capita income and realize he'll probably actually have less total earnings over his lifetime than the average person there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Here's a bit of a cross-post from the EPL thread. Liverpool apparently just struck the largest kit deal in UK football history. Looks to me like this is a sign of NESV coming good financially. Admittedly that's literally only because it's a Boston-based company that has previously not been involved in football, but to me it looks like a good sign.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
Chuggo posted:i thought abramovich was about 15bn? He lost a lot in the financial crisis.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2011 15:14
|
|
|
I wonder if UEFA will step in to decide whether or not it's market value.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
BBC have this for those curious on the legalities of the Tevez situation:bbc posted:FrontRow Legal specialist sports lawyer Richard Cramer speaking to BBC Sport: "Mancini has come out and said he will never pay for this club again. That in itself could be regarded as breach of contract on the part of Manchester City.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:Looks like it isn't going to be Manchester City that officially killed football! I've never really understood why the smaller clubs are willing to put up with this sort of thing (especially in Spain). Surely they could all band together and refuse to allow their games to be shown without a deal that they approve of? It's all well and good for Liverpool or United or Madrid or Barcelona to have their own TV deal, but don't they still need the other clubs' consent in order to show games involving them? Maybe someone who's more knowledgeable than me on this could enlighten me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
It will be very interesting to see what FFP has to say about this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
It seems unlikely that they'll expand one country's rule over the whole EU rather than apply the blanket EU rules to that one country.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
Monaco have been taken over by a Russian oligarch. He's apparently 93rd on the Forbes list of billionaires, with $9.5bn (£6.1bn) net worth. Of course, Monaco are currently bottom of Ligue 2 after being relegated from Ligue 1 last season, so he may have to invest immediately. But in a season or two we could have someone challenging PSG for the dubious honour of 'richest club in France.'
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Remember that Rooney got a big raise when he threatened to leave last season.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
In case you want to know who is killing football the most, Deloitte released the 2010/11 Money League, based on revenue in that season. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16951878 The top ten: 1. Real Madrid: 479.5m euros 2. Barcelona: 450.7m euros 3. Man Utd: 367m euros 4. Bayern Munich: 321.4m euros 5. Arsenal: 251.1m euros 6. Chelsea: 249.8m euros 7. AC Milan: 235.1.m euros 8. Internationale: 211.4m euros 9. Liverpool: 203.3m euros 10. Schalke: 202.4m euros Real are top for the seventh year in a row, and the top seven clubs are all in unchanged positions from last year. If Madrid is top again next year they will match Man U's record of being top eight years in a row. Also, Deloitte predict that next year Man City will jump into the top 10, probably replacing Schalke (who themselves just edged in, after jumping six places from last year). All the clubs involved are from the 'big 5' leagues, with 6 from England, 5 from Italy, 4 from Germany, 3 from Spain and 2 from France. The top 20 combined earned 4.4bn euros in revenue, up 3% from last year.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
I believe you can be granted special dispensation to sell players outside transfer windows for financial reasons. It seems very rare though, or I imagine it would be the first refuge of clubs when they get in trouble like this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Surely they would be granted special dispensation to sell outside the window if they asked for it? It seems like players are one of the only assets the club has left, to prevent them from selling those to balance the books seems really counterproductive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:If a club can't pay a player's wages, the player will have to find an alternative source of income, or wait until the transfer window opens. I don't think free agents - for whatever reason - can be signed outside of the transfer window. They can be. For example, Mahamadou Diarra just signed for Fulham on a free transfer despite the transfer window being closed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Guess what's the richest club in the world. And it's not Manchester City. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17769654 It's Manchester United.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
euroboy posted:Liverpool with a staggering £50m loss last year That's what happens when you spend 100M on new players in that time period (the January signings plus most of the summer ones were done relatively early) with only ~60M of transfer income, plus buying out a manager's contract, giving his successor way too much money, and all the stadium stuff they mentioned.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
TyChan posted:http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2012/05/liverpool-keep-car-running.html Very interesting, thanks. It does seem like we're battling through a lot of one-time costs right now and that hopefully it'll improve next season and in the following ones as the rebuilding continues, but he makes a very interesting point about the 'missed money' which is kind of painful to read. Even just things like missing the Champions League each season costs us enough to buy a quality player and pay their wages. And our wages are out of control. I know the theory is that getting rid of players like Konchesky, Poulsen, Cole and Aquilani will lower the wage bill, but one has to ask how much players like Downing and Carroll are on, and whether or not we've really made any overall progress in getting rid of overpaid, undertalented players.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
It's worth remembering too that the reason FSG got the club for so cheap was because we were so in debt. Essentially, the club was defaulting on loan repayments which meant ownership reverted to RBS, and FSG came in at the last moment, bought and paid off the club's debt, which meant ownership reverted to them instead. This is why Hicks and Gillette got nothing out of it, and why they fought it so bitterly, because FSG basically went behind their back and bought the club from RBS instead. It's no more than they deserved, considering they didn't even spend their own money on the club to begin with, and I would have been disgusted if someone had actually paid them money and meant their football speculation scheme paid off. Leveraged buyouts are horrible.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
the sex ghost posted:I don't know who this person is. I hope when he comes to inspect the ground we keep him away from the windows and not make the same mistakes as the last time someone wanted to invest He's the chairmen of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, which is a company that owns and operates most of the large sports teams in Toronto, the Raptors (basketball), Leafs (hockey) and Toronto FC (football). All three of these teams are awful, and MLSE's ownership must be part of that. Toronto is a big city that loves sports and supports its sports teams unconditionally, win or lose, forever. MLSE has therefore realized that they don't have to deliver on-field success in order to make a profit off the teams, because they will continue to sell out season tickets and most home games anyway. As a result, Toronto FC is the worst team in the MLS. Most teams have a bad year or two when they first come into being, and then get over it and move forward. TFC never moved forward, and this season set a new record for the worst start of a season in MLS history. They just recently won their first league game, after suffering nine consecutive defeats. This obviously leaves them bottom of the table with just three points after ten games. If there was relegation in North America, they would not be in the top division anymore. MLSE's ownership has not been good during this time period. They put Mo loving Johnston in charge of the club for four years. They built the stadium with artificial turf instead of grass because it would be cheaper (you have to account for the Canadian winter here), and then most good players we signed turned to poo poo whenever they played in Toronto because artificial turf is terrible (as an example, we signed the player who is currently the all-time leading MLS goalscorer, and he scored 6 goals in 36 games for us. Then he left and scored 34 goals in 69 games for his next team). We only finally got grass when there was a huge fan uproar about it, because Real Madrid came to Toronto to play a friendly and we installed grass for that one game, then removed it again afterwards, and everyone got legitimately upset that they were willing to provide a good playing surface for Real Madrid but not for the actual team that plays there 20 times a year. The Maple Leafs, Toronto's most famous team and one of hockey's biggest, have also been consistently pretty bad for years now, and yet their ticket prices are (I believe) the highest in the league, just because people know Canadians love hockey and will pay to go see it even if the team itself is awful. As a result, most normal people laugh at the idea of being able to afford Leafs tickets (the average price of a single game ticket is over $100, which is insane), and most of their games are filled with rich people or businesspeople. Now there may be other reasons for TFC's terribleness, and the terribleness of every other team MLSE owns, but simply put MLSE are not great owners and seem to have very little incentive or motivation to improve their teams' performances. I would be very wary about having Larry Tenenbaum take over my club if I were you. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 14:54 on May 27, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
I edited a bit in about the Maple Leafs, which are Toronto's hockey team. Basically they have the highest ticket prices in the entire league despite being a terrible team that never wins, because MLSE know they'll still sell out every game regardless. As a result no poor people can afford to go. So that's what Leeds fans have to look forward to. I look forward to rousing rounds of "Canucks out".
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
the sex ghost posted:Have the Toronto Maple Leafs ever missed out on a multi-million pound investment because the investor looked out of a window? No idea, I don't follow hockey. I wouldn't be surprised though. They do have a very Scouse-like boom and bust cycle though. My brother is a big Leafs fan and nearly every summer I hear him talking about how they have such a good young team now and next season (or the season after that) they're going to be really good. Then inevitably they're poo poo and I laugh at him about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
Last I heard on the Guardian at least ten players have said they won't transfer to the newco and only thirteen people showed up to the first day of training, with three of them not even having contracts (expired at the end of last season) and some youth players thrown in there too to make up the thirteen. Edu and Bocanegra are still on national team duty, so no one knows if they'll show up or not yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
Scott Bakula posted:Some players were recommended not to report to training as it could make the contract situation a mess Well yeah, if you want to be a free agent and sign for another club then showing up to training doesn't make any sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
Nottingham Forest have been bought by the al-Hawasi family from Kuwait. I wonder how rich they are.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Is there any way they could pull a Leeds and get a loan using the money they're going to get from the CL as collateral? It's a very dangerous road to head down, but maybe better than forced relegation, gives them time to sell off players, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
Also, everyone in the financial markets is really wary of big IPOs right now because Facebook fell so flat and its share price has declined so much since IPO Day (~25% so far iirc), so any other big IPO right now is likely to fall flat as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Cuban Chowder Factory posted:Which is pretty stupid, because I would hope most of the smart people in the financial markets had the presence of mind to recognize that Facebook was way overvalued to begin with. Yeah, but your hope is premised on the assumption that the people running the financial markets are smart (and tbf if they weren't they would have actually bought Facebook stock and the IPO wouldn't have failed). Also, obligatory dig at bankers and investors aside, the media play a huge role in this kind of thing by creating an echo chamber regardless of the actual facts (like, Facebook doesn't have enough revenue to justify a valuation as high as it had), and that affects how everyone sees these kinds of things, even to people who are supposed to know better like professional investment bankers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
I'm sure United's finances are way more transparent than Facebook's, and they're probably much more consistent and reliable as well. I imagine other factors also played a part, such as the really strict conditions on the shares being offered and the club's inordinately large amounts of debt. All things considered, it's the wrong offer at the wrong time and no one fell for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
cheese posted:Facebook IPO only hurt uninformed small investors. I doubt any big fund managers lost a lot on it because they all avoided it (there was a long string of reports in the weeks prior to it about facebook failing to monetize mobile and not being as profitable in the future as predicted). Yeah, I know. The point is not that it caused people to lose money, but that its failure has affected the state of the market and made other companies more wary of having their own IPOs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Brought over from the PL August thread:vyelkin posted:United have had enormous revenue growth under the Glazers, though. Swiss Ramble covers it here in depth, but there's a few graphs in there that tell most of the story for it: GOM posted:I suppose this should be moved to the finances thread, but I'd love for you to identify what, specifically, the Glazer's contributed to revenue growth. I honestly have no idea personally what specifically the Glazers have done to cause this dramatic expansion in revenue, but it has happened under their ownership so I imagine that at least some of the credit belongs to them. If I go back to that Swiss Ramble article, they have a section on it: Swiss Ramble posted:The prospectus builds on this approach and notes five key elements to their growth strategy: (a) expand our portfolio of global and regional sponsors; (b) further develop our retail, merchandising, apparel and product licensing business; (c) exploit new media and mobile opportunities; (d) enhance the reach and distribution of our broadcasting rights; (e) diversify revenue and improve margins. Basically, one thing the Glazers have been very good at is commercializing and expanding the United 'brand', milking their overseas fans for enormous sums of money, and forming corporate partnerships that pay them tons of money. If you want to know more, that article goes into pretty elaborate depth, discussing United's finances for the IPO.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Monday Bandele posted:Adrián of Atletico Madrid put up 25k apparently What if the club ended up being majority owned by a bunch of players who play for other teams (like Adrian)? Would there be some conflict of interest going on?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:rip QPR you paid 7 million to agents and got relegated I would love to see what this figure is after 'Arry gets a go during January.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
I would be shocked if Arsenal is paying less than 50% of the wages of any of the players they have out on loan. In all likelihood they're paying a good deal more than 100k/week on players who aren't even playing for them, and more than that again on players who are simply frozen out for not being good enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
 That 50M we spent in January two seasons ago is really dragging up the Liverpool totals.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
jre posted:Increased their turnover quite a lot, might be accounting bullshit like dodgy sponsorship to hide Romanov putting money in. Winning the Champions League will have also brought in a shitload of money, while some highly paid players like Bosingwa and Kalou have now left (and been replaced by even higher paid players like Hazard). I expect the CL money plus the added money from plastic support because they won the CL plus probably some dodgy accounting/sponsorship from Roman's team of Russian lawyers probably covers it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Allyn posted:Portsmouth are officially out of administration, hooray! And it only took three relegations in four years to pull it off!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
blue footed boobie posted:No, that's not what I'm confused about, Ninpo. Say you pay 100M in taxes one year, and then calculation the next year shows you really only should have paid 40M, because you have the worst accountants in the world. The next year you go to pay your 40M in taxes, only to discover you have a 60M credit, which wipes out your current 40M tax bill and gives you 20M back. I don't know if this is what happened to United, but maybe they overpaid so much that 28M is the tax credit left over after their current year taxes were paid.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
Shitshow posted:I take your point, but PSG has only spent approximately 7M more euros this window than Man City (and that doesn't include Negredo and/or Jovetic). Monaco, on the other hand, is going bonkers. Monaco have just gotten promoted so aren't in Europe at all right now though, so they've got another season or so to do some creative accounting/sign a ridiculously huge 'sponsorship' deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2013 02:30
|
|