Couch posted:

Surely they aren't that hard up? Don't you basically have to be in administration to not get the license?

delicious beef posted:

Did Arsenal really predict constantly rising matchday income? Because at some point you can't really charge more money, inflation apart.

MattWPBS posted:

Little bit of paper saying "we tried to give you a scarf, but you were out".

delicious beef posted:

Season ticket prices will never come down in nominal terms unless the team totallly collapses, and they're unlikely to ever drop in real terms, especially with wages rising so strongly.

In terms of the Glazers taking money out, I think we'll have to see what happens because of the IPO, I don't think it's clear yet what the money will be used for or if we'll be paying dividends regularly on those shares. Remember we're paying £50m or so in interest and debt repayment each year, that coulf easily go to the Glazers, though I suspect they'll be cautious, try and build a larger cash pile to solve any on-pitch issues quickly. The other question is if they'll hang on to the club when the debt is cleared, we'll be in a very strong position, especially if their money spinning efforts keep paying dividends, so they could do very well in a sale.

Also for all the financial and on-pitch health, we've had over £450m come out of the club to cover the debt, and that doesn't count paying ofd the PIKs, which is still a mystery. That's enough money to buy the players that would have allowed us to compete with Barca and make it a contest.

TyChan posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/sep/19/everton-broadcast-income-mortgage

This is an interesting move by Everton. I don't know how closely they'll be skirting relegation either this season or the next, but it's always a risk to bet on getting broadcast income that far ahead of time. Didn't Leeds United do this under Risdale?

Lyric Proof Vest posted:

i dunno i guess if they can prove he refused to play they can sack him for gross misconduct and i hope they do because they don't need him anymore and if anyone is going to fire a shot across the bows of players misbehaving it's city since united caved in to rooney

greazeball posted:

Usually saying sorry and admitting you were wrong doesn't result in you getting the thing you are supposedly sorry about and are now saying is wrong.

Mickolution posted:

Do you really believe he reckoned United lacked ambition though? It was about money.

8raz posted:

And as we all know, the current top four are always the most profitable.

8raz posted:

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Cuban Chowder Factory posted:

United posted pre-tax losses of like £80m in 09-10. City followed suit with £130m in losses over the same period. Granted, the latter was not in the top four, but that trend isn't likely to change. Maybe you're thinking of revenue?

Oh Em Gee posted:

Who the gently caress thinks its a great idea to build a team on loans? Surely they will just flounder in the bottom half of the table while their revolving door of mercenary cunts struggle to play with any sense of unity.

Jollzwhin posted:

He was Barton and Ireland's agent amongst others and our new owners pretty much banned him from the club.

8raz posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/18/manchester-city-biggest-ever-loss

Lyric Proof Vest posted:

cheshire?

TheGoatFeeder posted:

Already posted this in the Premier League thread, but maybe it should go here too, a new kit deal should go someway to getting City closer to FFP if it's true.

Its worth £26million a year, the same figure that Umbro pay the FA to make the national team shirts. A ridiculous jump from the £6million a year we currently get.

Still its in the Star on Sunday, so almost certainly bollocks.

Pissflaps posted:

I hate to break it to you, but the multi-multi-multi billionaire Arabs who own Manchester City don't give a gently caress.

Pissflaps posted:

Reminder that FLJ is a Manchester United fan. The same Manchester United that enjoyed several years of unopposed financial dominance as a result of a league structure heavily weighed in their favour, who is now complaining because Manchester City are spending at a level that his heavily indebted club cannot hope to match.

Irony, delicious etc.

Pissflaps posted:

The massive influx of Sky money that ensured that the top stayed there until a Russian gangster, a chicken farmer or an oil sheikh buys their place from them?

Also I don't think that's evil tbh.

I don't see any difference between prize and tv money, and money invested by a new owner.

Pissflaps posted:

Prove it.

Pissflaps posted:

Thought not.

Spangly A posted:

thank god that the process of being a football club includes being handed wads of money by sky execs, that's totally different from being handed wads of money by arabs

Pissflaps posted:

There is no difference between what Manchester United have done for the last 20 years, and what Manchester City are doing now.

Pissflaps posted:

It's absolutely not. You're blinkered.

Spangly A posted:

Your ninja edits are always funny but lol are you saying I should be grateful for the fact that my club is paid a pitiful sum by sky to attempt to stave off the insolvency problem that is a direct result of their interference in football because this is a new level of stupid

Pissflaps posted:

What point are you trying to make? Try making it in one sentence.

Crazy Ted posted:

Let's travel off to Spain to see how La Liga clubs are finding ways to raise money in a tough economic environment...

The Saurus posted:

My bad, I meant if they can't pay their players and aren't allowed to sell their players until the end of the season, it massively fucks them over because they have to let a bunch of people go for a free instead of getting money for them because of the dumb as hell transfer window rules.

Butterfly Valley posted:

The Saurus posted:

The transfer window might be fine but there should be special dispensation built in for clubs that are in financial trouble

Fat Guy Sexting posted:

Clubs with injury problems are allowed dispensation though.

Lot 49 posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/17/manchester-united-debt-glazers

United's 3rd quarter results are out.

Summary: Over the last nine months the Glazers have taken £250,000 per day out of United (for interest payments and bond buy backs) but that wasn't enough to stop the total debt increasing by £26m.

Pissflaps posted:

I think it's as simple as that tbh.

GutBomb posted:

don't have capacity for adding more HD (pretty much all of the terrestrial cable providers like Comcast or Verizon)

TheGoatFeeder posted:

So, United have listed themselves on the New York stock exchange, I have no idea what that REALLY means for the club. I'm assuming it is a way for them to raise funds to service their debts, which seems perfectly reasonable.

However, the United fans I know are freaking out massively and talking like its the end of the world, what am I missing? I get that there is something in there about them acknowledging that they could find it difficult to compete for top players, and top managers, am I right in assuming that is the more worrying part as opposed to the actual stock market listing?