|
Since Fordstam own Chelsea (and nothing else it seems), they could/would sell or dismantle the club or remove money from it in whatever way to pay Roman back. There's no mention of a clause that says Roman couldn't do it in a way that would make Chelsea insolvent, which I think is the case in the Liverpool example?
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
I think it'll cover debt repayments as well - we would have made a loss last season if not for the Ronaldo sale because of the horrific repayments. They'll likely be a dodge though - too many big clubs with debts right now.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 00:05
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:Lets say Nike offers United a 100m a month sponsorship deal. Is UEFA literally going to step in and say, "you're getting paid too much, give it back?" I don't see UEFA being able to do that but if they have that kind of power then the rules could actually be enforced pretty rigorously. As has already been pointed out, there's already a mechanism in which deals like this can be investigated. If Nike could show that they expect to make £100m a month then the deal would go through, if not then it wouldn't. This isn't a suddenly new idea, it exists in the non-football world as a defence against fraud/money laundering/organised crime in general. Scikar posted:Really? You pay £800m for a football club, someone offers you £1.5bn for it 4 years later when you've saddled it with debt and the fans all hate you, and you turn it down because you think you'll make loads of money off people watching games on their phones? Do the Glazers really think football on your phone is going to be worth £700m? There's no arrangements over collective bargaining for digital rights in general - the glazers are banking on being able to sell these rights internationally, both for phones and generally on the internet. The EPL international rights are less than the domestic rights, and that's the total for everywhere other than the UK, so clearly they're being undersold right now - when mobile video becomes more standard then there's a potential gold mine waiting. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 01:11 on May 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
I think we're in for quite a few seasons of spending circa £30 million on three or four young players who probably aren't worth that but we'll overpay because we're United. We can't afford to spend 'serious' money on players but we need to keep refreshing the squad because players from the youth team don't keep you in the top 4. If one of Smalling, Hernandez and BeBe becomes a regular first-teamer then that's worthwhile.
delicious beef fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Aug 13, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
This stuff about Arsenal's massive wages, is it actually based on a reputable source or is it just bullshit and guesswork? And if they are officially published in some way, is there an equivalent source for how ludicrous Chelsea's wage bill is, considering their massively different ownership structures and reporting requirements. Also Rhgr, your arguments look kinda ridiculous when your immediate response to examples of Chelsea spending huge terms of money is saying "Well we won the league", as if that has anything to do with how ludicrous it is to spend £20m on a reserve left-back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2010 03:42
|
|
|
Spending 20m on a player who isn't first team is obviously spending big. The number of teams spending that much on any player is tiny.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2010 04:21
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:
Apparently you haven't heard of Darren Fletcher or Wes Brown? Not to mention the numerous United youth players who despite not making it long term at the club, were sold on profitably and still play high level professional football.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
w00bi posted:It's probably more than 200 p/w, I'd put it closer to 300. So for all of them, it could be as high as ~20mil off the year. Is this figure actually based on anything except delusional guessing?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2010 21:19
|
|
|
w00bi posted:Kakuta has gotten two sub chances so far, and he'll surely get another go against Newcastle this week. He's not been shunted. The point is that despite getting rid of a player who plays a broadly similar role to Kakuta, you've just gone and brought in another one who is ahead of him in the pecking order, reducing his chances to play.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
w00bi posted:No I know, and I've already thought how Yossi's transfer is going to hurt Kakuta. But I'm sure Ancelotti knows of the similar roles they play and will keep that in mind. Ancelotti subbed on three academy players this week during the CL game, when he could have subbed Kalou or Ramires. I take that as a good sign. I think the problem, and it's by no means limited to Chelsea, is tha Ancelotti's job isn't to bring players like Kakuta through, it's to win trophies now, and maybe next season and the season after. There isn't really the inclination to develop youth players when your job is on the lie at such a tight margin, and lots of clubs can't afford to take the risks bringing in young players because of how important Champions League money is and how hard it is to get back into those slots. So you get a cycle of champions league clubs using that money to pay huge transfer fees and wages, and smaller clubs being forced to sell because of money and player demands.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:
Hart isn't really a City youth teamer, he was Shrewsbury's first choice when they bought him, albeit not yet Premiership level. The general point is pretty spot on though, their youth system was excellent, it'll be interesting to see if it does produce players of that quality again when the spending slows or stops.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2010 22:01
|
|
|
You were the person who first mentioned how United's youth teams weren't much better recently than Chelsea's, we were just showing how wrong your comparison was.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
Outrespective posted:Yah looking at strictly football related turnover not including transfers or property sales, they only made 50 mil from matchday revenue and merchandise and catering, and their wage bill is over 100 mil. Except that those broadcast rights and sponsorship deals are probably in place for longer than most player contracts are? Every team in the league is hosed if the broadcasting contracts disappeared.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
Nothing really new, but a great article by David Conn on United pissing money away on interest. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/oct/08/manchester-united-liverpool-ownership-decline £583 million loving pounds 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
DickEmery posted:I don't know what all the fuss is about. This would a funnier joke if the Glazers had 'spent' any of their money, rather than spending the clubs money to pay the interest fees on their purchase of the club. The fact that this is allowed still boils my blood.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2010 11:28
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:
Football clubs aren't just like a business though, not really. Businesses don't tend to have stakeholders for non-financial reasons, whereas football clubs do, through supporters. It's like saying that a band is a business (I know this a less than perfect comparison). The government protects other aspects of our culture and heritage from the aggression and brutality of market capitalism, I don't see why football needs to be different. Also, if the Premier League, or UEFA, or whoever decided that they would ban clubs like this from competing who were taken over in this way, then it would obviously prevent this type of takeovers. The Glazers wouldn't have bought United if their funding model had meant that the club wouldn't have a functioning team anymore. SiDeath, I disagree with your comment about the Glazers, they don't own United for the prestige, it's been hugely profitable for them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
Sorry, I'm not being very precise. I meant that it has been financially beneficial to them, as they've paid themselves not just dividends but also loans and fees, all of which have been funded by the club alongside the interest charges. I'm not entirely sure how much capital the Glazers put up originally, but they've paid themselves huge amounts of money for turning a profitable club into one which loses money paying off debts used to purchase it. This isn't what I imagine a prestige investment to be, that's seems to be more the Citys and Chelseas of the world. LBOs seem hugely unsuited to football clubs simply ecause of the volatility of revenue streams. Nevermind pulling a Leeds, even pulling a Liverpool can be enough to damage a club's finances hugely. In the NFL a lot of revenue is, AFAIK, guaranteed year on year, which Isnt like as true in football. I'm uncertain about the wisdom of clubs being public companies to be honest, though I don't really understand the situation well enough. Football clubs aren't just businesses, they shouldn't be treated as such. The club has to be more than the bottom line and who's getting paid. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Oct 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2010 01:55
|
|
|
That's a brilliant breakdown, and now I'm going to kill myself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
Do you know how well ESPN are doing with their mobile highlights package Jollzwhin? I know they paid a ludicrously low amount for the rights., but it's not been very well marketed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2010 02:45
|
|
|
What's happening with Pompey at the moment? Financially, I mean. It seems as soon as they were relegated, it all went quiet, or have I forgotten something?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:How much you like Baseball is irrelevant, because it's very popular in the US and other areas, which are it's target markets. Whatever way you look at it, over 2000 games a season for $99 is great value. It's a totally different ball game (ha! Ha!) to football in Europe though (especially in Britain), both because of the internal structures of the game and the competition with other sports.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2010 02:10
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:You're not supposed to, of course, but the fact is that you can watch any game live online. If they offered this for the Premier League, it would mean that people weren't restricted to whatever is being shown on TV in their area. That's another difference, except for news, the UK tv market isn't broken down into areas (apart from Scotland). Blacking out, unless I'm missing something, is designed to protect the revenues of the big local team, in England the 3pm blackout is more about protecting non-premier league teams, it would be quite hard to convince the football league to lift it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2010 10:52
|
|
|
Do you know anything about ESPN's mobile highlights app, how much they paid for the rights and if they're making any money. Seems like a few companies had had the rights for a while without actually doing anything with it, which is probably indicative of the lack of potential for profit, though I suppose it could be something to do with smartphone uptake. Also what's you job, Jollz, just curious.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
Really I was wondering if there is or will be any money in this, do you think?Jollzwhin posted:I work in the digital department for a major broadcaster. As in working on the iPlayer (or equivalent), that kind of thing?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2010 20:28
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:The BBC don't have VoD rights for online highlights (they can show MOTD2 online however). Can you explain why this is exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2010 03:24
|
|
|
So have Blackburn been bought then? Are they going to be the new City or the new Pompey?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
Sounds like it's basically pension tax relief?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
Flayer posted:Pretty hard to care about tax issues for someone on £221,000 every week. These are exactly the people you should care about the tax issues of
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
TyChan posted:I found the bolded part especially hilarious. That genuinely is hilarious. International law is stupidly complicated - does this mean that they are allowed to sue in the UK, but not in the US?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Should it though? I'm not saying it's fair and I'm not saying I like it, but at the end of the day, UEFA will charge what they can for tickets. Remember, these aren't the tickets going to fans of either club that get to the final. Those will be £80 (probably with the same booking fee), which is still a lot of money, but again, people will pay it so why should they charge less? What would be nice is if those tickets were just given to the clubs for them to charge what they wanted. The cheapest will be £80, then it's the same prices as neutrals for similar quality seats. They've not said how many tickets will be at the bottom level (hint: it won't be very many). I have less of an issue with neutrals being gouged but there should be a lot less neutrals and supporters tickets should be significantly cheaper. Wemberly holds 90,000, teams get 50,000 between them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
I assume it'll be around 10,000 seats at that price. Wemberly has some dreadful seats but not a huge amount.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
Arsenal have about £100m in cash, iirc. They also bring in as much revenue as that loss every home game I believe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 16:10
|
|
|
lol if you genuinely believed United would spend serious money this transfer window. I don't really understand what the long term idea is with regards to the debt though, it seems like it's going to keep growing and growing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
The difference is that United aren't in danger of having their loans called in and the club entering administration.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
c0burn posted:I see United are suing their own fans now. Brilliant. I wish they wouldn't but any company would do the same if their client list was posted online.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
c0burn posted:You're as bad as the deluded bellends on RefCafe. What did I say that was objectionable? I wish they wouldn't do it but every major club would do the same thing to protect their corporate clients, you're delusional if you think Liverpool wouldn't have done the same thing in the same position. It's hardly the Redskins suing a 72-year old: http://www.rmmag.com/Magazine/PrintTemplate.cfm?AID=4012 delicious beef fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Mar 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Are Arsenal really underutilized in terms of branding? I thought the club's marketing department was doing pretty well. quote:By way of example, in the 2009/2010 season whilst Arsenal had total revenues of £224.4m and Tottenham £119.8m, Manchester United had total revenues of £286.4m. Manchester United exceeded the revenues of Arsenal and Tottenham on all three key components: matchday (stadium revenues), broadcasting, and most notably commercial revenue where it generated £81.4m (Deloitte, 2011, page 11) to Arsenal's £44m (Deloitte, 2011, page 13) and Tottenham's £31.5m (Deloitte, 2011, page 20). I'm going to go with 'yes', based on those commercial revenue figures. I don't think Arsenal should be making the same as United, based on recent success for one, but they should be closer to us than they are to Spurs. If I recall correctly the order of teams by commercial revenue is United, Liverpool, Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Spurs. I'm pretty sure United have the highest premier league revenues in all 3 categories: the Glazers are utter scum but from a money-making perspective they know what they're doing. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Mar 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
Remember this is just commercial activity, doesn't include matchday or broadcasting, it's basically sponsorship/partnership deals. quote:Commercial revenue more than doubled to £46.7m (€57.0m) and was the principal driver of the club’s overall revenue growth. 2009/10 was the first year of improved shirt sponsorship and kit supply deals with Etihad Airways and Umbro respectively. The new Umbro deal facilitated merchandising revenue growth of 60% to £7.9m (€9.6m). The club has focussed on expanding its commercial partnership portfolio, revenue from which grew five fold in 2009/10, including deals with the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority, Etisalat, and Aabar all of which are based in the Middle East. Further growth in this area is anticipated in 2010/11 as a result of additional deals, including those with Heineken and Jaguar. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:We can't. Remember we have one of the largest stadiums and it's generally 95% or more filled so we get significantly more matchday revenue than Everton or even Liverpool. Pretty sure Everton make about £22m in matchday, City about £25m and Liverpool around £40m. Edit: sorry midnight-, awful app didn't load your post.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Gonna post this here because it's a very very good summary of the big issues in football governance and finance at the moment in England:quote:On Tuesday, in the most significant session of the inquiry into football's governance by the House of Commons culture media and sport select committee, the Premier League chairman, Sir Dave Richards, and the chief executive, Richard Scudamore, will give evidence. David Conn owns. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2011/apr/04/premier-league-parliament-20-questions
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 20:24
|
|