|
Mickolution posted:It's not like Everton weren't allowed into the tournament as they wouldn't be now, they hosed up the qualification. I wouldn't say they hosed it up exactly, they got probably the hardest possible draw and then only went out due to an absolutely abysmal refereeing display
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
duggimon posted:Don't think so, pretty sure they changed it that year so no country would get more than their allotment so if it came up again it would be the top 3 plus the defending champion Yes
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
TyChan posted:I was talking about the idea that buying any club in West Ham's situation is not necessarily a good business move, but it's a move you do out of love for a club and the desire to keep it alive. This is a good thing, not a depressing thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2010 19:49
|
|
|
Bhyo posted:Someone explain this to me because I do not understand the money world at all. Lets say you owe £5000 to the bank and £100 to a guy who will come round and break your legs off if you don't pay it in a week But the bank has a contract with you that you have to pay your debt to them first That's where the £500m is going, to push that debt down to the bottom of the pile so they can deal with the more destructive debt first (which they wouldn't otherwise be able to due contractually)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
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. Yeah Dubai's wealth is based on banking and banking aint doing too well at the moment
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2010 11:09
|
|
|
quote:(1) The figures are the result of research carried out in more than 30 publications worldwide that specialize in football. Of which, the major newspapers and magazines of the top leagues in the world. Well if they're quoting major newspapers it must be accurate
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
Cuban Chowder Factory posted:are you suggesting that successful teams get more sponsorship revenue???????? He's more saying how much more they get Which is relevant given the discussion of how much more they get Funny how these things are related
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
One thing to bear in mind is that there may be some legal complications with being a shareholder if Pompey are liquidised and he's so convinced that this is going to happen that he's loving up the Supporters' Trust in a seemingly altruistic move to save himself problems in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:I think if you go into administration after a certain point you get the deduction the next season. I think it's if you go into administration while expecting relegation
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 11:17
|
|
|
duggimon posted:well no, you should really be comparing debts to profits as that's the only way you can pay them back, income isn't nearly as relevant Debt to turnover is relevant
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
Been telling you people to read Broken Dreams for a while now
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2010 17:52
|
|
|
Stim posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/07/alex-ferguson-manchester-united-buyout "but would be prepared, if successful, to back it" So if they succeed in taking over the club, he'll announce it's what he wanted all along? That doesn't seem very meaningful
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:also an american group is looking like it's going to pay £110m for 40% of liverpool meaning the americans would be down to 20% each Replacing two admittedly rubbish Americans with an American private equity firm is a huge step back for everyone concerned
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 12:18
|
|
|
Xabi posted:very likely, as most of us fell for that shite when H&G took over. This seems more likely
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 14:22
|
|
|
For simple efficacy amongst the supporters the protests are largely gearing hate towards H&G; it's a very simple thing to get behind (Liverpool = doing bad and lots of debt, yanks = bad) which is good in a popular movement. I haven't seen anything which demonstrates a grass roots movement based on the economic and sporting factors involved that is much beyond that level of complexity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 14:24
|
|
|
Xabi posted:Does this mean that you aren't aware of Spirit of Shankly and talks about supporter ownership - even though the latter seems pretty unlikely now? I am aware of them, yes. I'm not sure how what they (were/are) doing invalidates what I said? Yeah there'll be people with a better understanding of economics at the top (or somewhere near it), but they're not going to be making reasonably subtle economics arguments because that's not the way you get your message out well, especially when you could use much simpler arguments and have them mean almost exactly the same thing in most cases. Looking at their various online things certainly suggests that they're not going into that much detail - but then again why should they? It's the same reason why conservatism, especially the religious forms, has such a hold on a lot of the populace for whom it is not in their interest. MrL_JaKiri fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Mar 15, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 19:28
|
|
|
cheese posted:non-away That's more usually called "home"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
cheese posted:I prefer to talk in the negative, as in non-home (away) and non-away (home). Its more exciting. Don't you mean non-boring?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
Gr31lly posted:(Carrick, Berbatov, Hargreaves etc) have all been near enough recovered now by player sales alone. Those three combined come to less than Ronaldo, and you can get most of Nani too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2010 14:40
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:Because there's no other football in the North East + 50,000 seater stadium Riiight
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2010 12:06
|
|
|
Adnar posted:Newcastle won something Well, they won relegation. (This is based on 08/09, idiots. Newcastle are still that high up because of Premiership income, both in gates and in TV money)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:Speaking of people being bought, it would later transpire that one of Tiny's companies had produced the docu which said Libya weren't responsible for Lockerbie. Which is a shame because he had sold a % of his interests to Libya and everyone knew it was a Libyan. Given that Libya weren't responsible for Lockerbie I don't see why that matters
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
Jose posted:The fact he somehow passed the fit and proper persons test is a joke and shows how useless it is/was. It's just an investigation to see if they're legally allowed to own the club, it's not a morality test or anything like that.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2010 10:29
|
|
|
MoPZiG posted:Won't the new spending rules just entrench the superclubs further? Yes. This is why they are bad.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
w00bi posted:UEFA only counts football-related businesses and income on the surrounding property, I think. Need a source on that
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2010 01:06
|
|
|
Why do people think the frenzied pace of transfers and transfer rumours would be the same all year round, rather than just being a consequence of the smaller time in which transfers can happen?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2010 13:46
|
|
|
euroboy posted:I still stand by my other arguments I wrote earlier, there shouldn't be any possibilities for transfers after january. Why didn't we see those things happen in the old system?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2010 14:01
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:Yes you might have a couple more big clubs signing players from the smaller clubs during the season, but how many clubs actually have room in their squad right now? Don't forget that big squads like this with multiple, top class, backups to cover injury are a consequence of the transfer windows, not an inevitable part of football. euroboy posted:My theory (as I've written several times already) in short is that the financial climate is vastly different and more cynical than it was before. Do you have any evidence for this? The amount of money in the game is higher now than it was 10 years ago, but not that much higher and most of that is due to the European competitions becoming bigger money-spinners for the teams at the top. I will also point out that the growth in wages, year on year, slowed dramatically after the transfer window came in. Football has not "become more cynical" recently. It has always been cynical. You've always had idealists and sugar daddies and businessmen and the like in charge. You've always had clubs short of money because they've spent beyond their means. Frankly, the main reason that football finances look worse at the moment is because of a couple of high profile examples (Liverpool and Manchester United). We're seeing a lot more winding up orders at the moment, but that's just because HMRC are no longer a preferential debtor in the same way as other football clubs are so they're fighting for their owed tax bill.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:I don't think they are up for sale, are they? Only because Ashley couldn't find anyone to buy them
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2010 13:29
|
|
|
Xabi posted:You base this on what? The BBC is completely hosed due to government pressure/John Birt
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
50% top end marginal is historically incredibly low, and our income tax (like America's) is only this low thanks to Thatcher/Reagan in the 80's. Bring back the 80/90% plus!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
Byolante posted:If you really want to scare away everybody who can possibly afford to leave then go for it I guess? All that will happen is even more tax burden will be forced onto those unable to afford the ways of avoiding the taxes. This is such a monumentally retarded (albeit common) argument that I am stunned, STUNNED I SAY People who have the means of avoiding the taxes already avoid them, and us bending over backwards (but not quite fully over, as we have a more than 0% tax rate) just widens the divide between rich and poor. Your argument is understandable though. The situation right now is obviously working very well to get large corporations like, say, Vodafone, paying their taxes properly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 08:37
|
|
|
Byolante posted:No, the higher the taxes go for the people who currently aren't totally avoiding them, the more likely they are to behave the same way the very rich currently do. if you could save 2000 quid a year by paying and accountant instead of HMRC then you would, because 2 grand is a lot of money to throw away. The super rich were a lost cause a long time ago, trying to drop the brackets to pick up lower strata or increasing the current levels is just going to screw over the middle classes. This is an argument for closing tax loopholes, not for lower taxes. Byolante posted:It probably sounds great to a maybe 20k a year earning student to go have a class war and redistribute mummy and daddy's superanuation to some students at your college but as soon as you want to actually have a nice bank account of your own you will feel differently. I'm really selfish, but to make myself feel better I'll just call everyone who thinks differently a naive baby Yeah, I'm a genius Byolante posted:Taxation is a system to ensure there is good education, healthcare, roads ect for people who can't afford to provide their own. Taxing the gently caress out of people to offset government mismanagement so that the levels are met is idiotic. Now see the difference here is that I don't want poor people to die in a ditch just to stick it to these nebulously mismanaged quangoes I mean it's cool and all that you value the ability to go on holiday somewhere a bit more expensive over the ability of people in poverty to do things like "eat" or "not die of easily preventable disease" or "go to primary school/secondary school/university" or "not be homeless" or the like but if I was forced to point at a difference between us it'd be that I'm not evil. hrolf posted:That's true. Generally you find people who are in favour of increasing taxation, haven't really had to deal with the real world as much. It's like buses!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 08:57
|
|
|
Lot 49 posted:Those things could all be provided universally without the need for 90% tax rates though surely? Everyone should earn approximately the same amount, that is to within an order of magnitude. I do not see why the lady who cleans the floors should earn one thousandth of what the CEO gets. Or why the programmer, engineer or other skilled person should make one five hundredth. Do their jobs take one thousandth the work? This is doubly so if more of the basic requirements of life are supported by the state to a standard almost everyone should find satisfactory. No-one needs millions a year to live on, especially not if housing is more affordable as that represents an undue strain on many household finances due to the current housing bubble. We're due for a collapse soon if this follows the usual way bubbles go. Also I'm not a Blue, just first spare on bowside (until I got glandular fever) Also I had a 100% scholarship to go to my secondary school (more than 100%, actually, because at the time scholarships and the like were additive. Now, because of me, they're multiplicative.) But my family on my father's side is definitely upper middle class (my grandfather was mayor of gloucester and one of my uncles holds the rank of air marshal)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 14:26
|
|
|
Suqit posted:I should start playing football professionally and earn the same as Cristiano Ronaldo. Sure why not, if you can get a team to keep you on the books Bread and circuses are necessary (and I don't mean that as a put down to the entertainment industry) but if I'm talking about wealth redistribution my first thought is not "What about all those super-rich footballers, however will they cope  " or "Isn't it silly that someone much less talented could be paid the same amount!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:It isn't surprising that people don't want to work when they can work themselves to the bone and earn 1/100th or less of the owner's salary. Salary caps should be implemented in football and in the rest of the UK. Reminder that boardroom pay went up on average by 55% this year, the minimum we can do is tax the bastards to the hilt. Also don't forget that historically a lot of people who are out of work were employed by heavy industry, something that just doesn't exist in the same scale in the UK any more. They have no experience or qualifications for anything else and so many of them are essentially unemployable due to the existence of younger, cheaper people who are in the same position.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
Tax rates (and indeed wages) affect football significantly. I am not basing my argument upon what footballers want because it's completely immaterial.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 19:50
|
|
|
Carrier posted:You do not see why but it happens due to simply supply and demand of labour. Wages are not set by supply and demand of labour anywhere near as much as supporters of laissez faire economics would have us believe. Compare, for example, the number of people who apply for jobs in the city vs the number of people who apply for a research position in, say, superconducting physics. Far, far, far more people apply for the first job. Almost all of them will be capable, because many high paying jobs in the city do not require much skill (some of course require a huge amount of skill, but they are not unique in being high paying) but because so many people apply they set the barriers for entry extremely high just because they can. And I am yet to be convinced that many CEOs have any economic skill whatsoever, the decisions a lot of them take are obviously wrong (both from an ideological and a purely results-based standpoint) yet they keep on being CEOs because they've had the job before and so must know what they're doing. It's like football management, how many managers get jobs just because they have been a high profile manager elsewhere? Supply and demand still is a factor, but in many cases the idea of how much supply or demand there is appears to be decades old. MrL_JaKiri fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Nov 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2010 13:10
|
|
|
Pretty much all (if not all) the socialists in the D&D thread are on day trips from the LF UK thread.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
Season tickets, though. How are they counted in match day income?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2011 12:41
|
|