|
Also holy poo poo 54 insolvencies from teams occupying 72 places since 1992 
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Yeah, the tickets at United (for an example). aren't utterly ridiculous for an adult imho, but the cost of taking a couple of kids makes it totally unaffordable for families.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Also the Football League just signed a rights contract for 1/4 less than the last one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/apr/04/football-league-clubs-less-tv-money
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:Parachute payments that would have been paid to relegated clubs who have "bounced back" are distributed through the rest of the Football League. It's still very little tbqh
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2011 16:20
|
|
|
I think this is a UK-only deal. Basically the BBC bid for games last time, which drove up the price, and they've spent their budget other places so now Sky's the only game in town and the price is a lot lower.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:In terms of running the clubs, maybe, but I fail to see what right the NFL has to tell you how to run your other businesses. Remember you're not buying a business, you're buying a franchise, and the franchiser can set whatever conditions that they think will be best for their business.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
To be honest any ownership change should be treated sceptically unless it's the shadows being lifted from something as bad as Hicks and Gillet. I'm not saying Kroenke should be jumped on or the deal should be criticised to hell but until a year or so has passed and its obvious that the change is to the benefit of the club it's still useful to be wary.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
Reminder that premier league football is an entirely different regulatory and financial environment to any American sport and that past results are not a good predictor of future performance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 12:22
|
|
|
Still not close to Arsenal.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 13:48
|
|
|
Did Arsenal really predict constantly rising matchday income? Because at some point you can't really charge more money, inflation apart.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2011 10:41
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:Hey man people will pay crazy money to see that fancy dan tippy tappy football. £100 is crazy money, but at some point you price out even the middle class plastics. Commercial and broadcasting revenue are the growth areas these days, you get a boost in matchday when you move grounds but you can't raise prices forever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
United's deal with Nike is worth about £25m this year, but it's hard to say for sure because it was signed 10 years ago and goes up year by year. The new France deal is supposed to be £35m iirc, which is definitely the gold standard. I wonder if club deals tend to be more or less valuable than national teams.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
Masonity posted:As an Englishman who's seen both play a few times (live. Dozens of times on TV) I'd rate Brad Freidel above Tim Howard any day of the week. Brad in his prime was a world class goalkeeper, and it's a crime that he never went to a top 4 club. Tim is a premiership standard keeper, but nothing special. Who is Kezman/Blackburn never won the Premiership.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 11:18
|
|
|
Masonity posted:1) Blackburn did, in fact, win the Premiership. One of only four teams to have done so. It was just before Brad's time. I don't think you got my post, I was referring to two pieces of TRP lore that your 'Friedel wasn't at a top 4 club' is similar to. Also Yorke was a better striker than Alan Shearer in 1999.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 11:37
|
|
|
For those of you who didn't believe me about United's massive cash pile, there's a nice article on andersred: http://andersred.blogspot.com/2011/06/facts-about-manchester-uniteds-cash.html
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
I never said it would be spent on players, just that we have the cash pile. Same as Arsenal. Obviously the debt is still a massive worry, but that doesn't mean the business doesn't have cash to spend if need be. The real question with United is how the gently caress the PIK loans got paid off. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
That net debt figure just means that more information might be requested if net debt is more than turnover, it's not something used to pass or fail teams. The relevant bit for United isquote:Finance costs include interest and other costs incurred by an entity in respect This means the regular interest payments on the bonds are counted, which is around £45m a year. The one off charge from this year which led to the massive loss won't be counted, and according to andersred's calculations, United would qualify for FFP of the most recent figures, along with Arsenal and Spurs. The BBC backs this up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9450671.stm Like I was saying, United have a positive break-even, even if they have a negative PBT. This might change if the Glazer's started taking out their dividends. Chelsea don't have a positive break-even
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
Staff costs are going to have to fall for every big team in Europe, it's the real threat to team's survival, especially with growth being several times faster than turnover growth. Wages have utterly exploded in the past few years, and City and Chelsea really haven't helped that (even if they're not paying players £200k a week, they are forcing up wages not just for superstars but also average players on big teams). Revenues will also go up, ticket prices will be squeezed as high as they can be and corporate entertainment will become very very important, but it's wages falling that is vital vital vital.w00bi posted:By the holding company, right? I guess Part D and E is what deals with this owner/company finances and how it relates to the club. Red Football Ltd makes those payments and loses money, that's the ultimate holding company iirc. Having reread the document I think those payments will be counted, but it might be different if Red Football Ltd also did other things, it would certainly make things more complicated. I wouldn't be surprised if UEFA mandated a corporate structure that makes it very clear what income and costs are associated with the club. The £121m is what it cost to change over the debt from the old loans to the new bond issue. It was a one-off, 'exceptional', and isn't connected to day-to-day and year-to-year flows of money in and out of the business. The bonds are going to cost around £45m a year in interest and there might be other exceptionals to come if things get rearranged again but United's losses will drop because the PIKs are paid off (nobody knows how). The PIKS were probably paid off this year so as to avoid FFP difficulties. UEFA are interested in clubs not losing money in their business activities, costs of restructuring aren't really important in that regard. It's like if you were looking at investing in a company and they had bought a smaller company the year before - the cost of that acquisition would make it look like their PBT had dropped, but in reality it wouldn't have changed their ability to make money year on year. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jun 21, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
It's just not relevant because it doesn't impact on the business's ability to make profits doing it's everyday activities.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
Players coming in won't be on small wages either - what's Torres rumoured to be on? Wages just have to go down in general across the industry.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
The problem is that you can't just cut wages inside Chelsea because all your good players will move to City or Madrid where they can get paid more.w00bi posted:If Chelsea buys young players on low(er) wages now they won't have to keep spending in two-three years. Neymar will need massive wages, he's getting paid a fortune at Santos because a bunch of the endorsements are tied to his connection to the club.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
United made an operating profit of £110.9m between June '10 and June '11. It was expected that it would be about £100m or so, so that's a lot of money. This is United as a club, rather than Red Football Limited, so it doesn't include the interest payments, bonds etc over that time period.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2011 12:06
|
|
|
Officially the interest and bond repayments that Red Holdings pay counts as a cost, but any one off payments don't count. United pay about £45m a year in bond interest, so it should be fine. Also we still have about £130m in cash, after the summer signings and before this profit comes in. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Sep 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
Scikar posted:Got to be honest, I thought the Glazers were setting the club up for a death spiral but they've got plenty of evidence to show that their business plan is working. Revenue is going up and the debt is going down as they planned, which is a good setup for the long term once the debt is all cleared. The main outstanding issues are: 1) are the season ticket prices going to come back down once the debt is cleared and 2) are they going to start taking big slices of the pie for themselves as the net profit rises? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 09:28
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:Have United ever gone on any kind of crazy spending spree to topple a rival though? When Juventus were arguably one of the best teams in Europe, if memory serves me there was only two marquee signings the year we won the treble in Yorke and Stam? I don't mean go on a crazy spending spree, but I do think that we would have a better midfield than we do now, it's been a pretty clear problem area for a long time and the fact that we were negotiating with Inter/Sneijder this summer shows that Fergie is aware of that. £50m a year is a lot of money, that's enough each season to buy a £25m player and pay them 120k a week for 4 years. Edit: This is from andersred and is a good way of summarising what the debt has done: quote:The club thus remains a prodigious cash machine attached to a lot of debt. The £51.7m spent on interest takes the total spent on interest and fees since 2005 to £373m. Another £105m has been spent repaying debts taken on by the Glazers. The total of £478m is equivalent to 67% of the money spent on wages since the takeover or more than 7.5x the net transfer spend of the club. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Sep 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2011 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
The issue wasn't that Rooney wanted more money, it's that he said he wasn't going to sign the new contract. If that was a tactic used to get a bigger increase then it worked, but he was offered a raise and said he wanted to leave because of a lack of investment which makes sense given that we'd just sold Ronaldo, let Tevez go and basically bought a decent winger in Valencia and an unproven Mexican striker in Hernandez during the 3 windows since, neither of which had addressed the pretty obvious problems in the centre of the pitch. What exactly his intentions are nobody knows but he said he wasn't going to sign a contract and he ended up signing a contract, apologising and returning to be an incredible player. I fail to see how selling him or letting his contract run out were preferable alternatives here. You can argue that we shouldn't have allowed the team to get into such a state that Rooney had such power but that's an entirely different discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2011 15:09
|
|