|
The Croc posted:1. David Conn is an awesome bloke who did alot for Mansfield Town when we were exposing Keith Haslam for the money grabbing oval office he was. I really doubt the FA could have done anything about it. United were a Plc, and the Glazer's buy-out was a fairly standard private-equity transaction - all totally routine and above-board, in spite of being pretty despicable. The FA doesn't have the power to change the law or the way the market works - the only stick they'd really have to wield would be to exclude the club from competition which would bankrupt it just as effectively as the buy-out, and would lead to a legal nightmare. Getting financing directly from hedge funds is more than a bit weird though. They must have been totally unable to raise the money any other way to borrow from organisations that would never lend in that way unless they knew they were going to rape you.
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2010 12:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
Bovine Delight posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/07/manchester-city-chelsea-uefa How can Platini come out and say this stuff with a straight face without mentioning Real? And while I don't like sugar-daddies, why is it somehow worse if a club runs up losses with money from a single wealthy backer, as opposed to clubs running up losses using other sources of finance? The wealthy owner is going to be a far more stable and cheap creditor than a consortium of banks. I don't understand what grounds they could find to suspend them, without also having to suspend clubs making sustainable losses that are a normal/accepted part of running a business. "If you're running up losses and we reckon your owner looks a bit dodgy then you can't play"?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2010 11:40
|
|
|
FT Alphaville has been going through the United notes issue prospectus if anyone is interested in the heavy finance: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/01/11/123486/football-finance-man-utd-edition/ http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/01/11/123811/piking-apart-the-man-utd-refinancing/ This is interesting: quote:In other words, it frees up some cash: the Glazer family will be able to take £70m out of the club’s resources of £116.6m and use it to repay some of the £200m PIK notes they personally used to finance the £780m buyout of the Premier League champions. What really interests me is the hedge funds. The Glazers financed the takeover by personally taking out loans directly from hedge funds at punishing interest rates, at a time when debt was plentiful and cheap. Why the hell did they do that? Whilst it was probably just a short-term measure that the credit crunch disrupted their ability to offload, I want someone to find out who the chief investors in those hedge funds are - because it really wouldn't shock me if it was the Glazers themselves using it as an avenue for taking more money out of the club.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:Well here it is - firm details of the anti-Manchester City rules. Discouraging, United will probably not be affected, but this is a big problem for us if we want to play in Europe. These looks like surprisingly decent rules in principle, but I doubt there's any way they can make them water-tight enough to stop lawyers and accountants creating corporate structures that run rings around them if anyone is especially determined (eg. Chelsea or City). Hell, why even bother. "We've created the ultimate top-box executive club experience. A season ticket for this box costs an eminently reasonable £300m per season".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2010 12:44
|
|
|
While it's good that he saved the team, the fact that this guy bought the club and then found out about the state of its books afterwards says a lot about how many clubs have ended up the way they are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Probably not his fault, read an article about newcastle and apparently there was £75m of debt hidden away that no one other than the old owners knew was there. Well yes but the whole reason you do due diligence is to find that out before you hand over the money. Assuming the debt you're referring to wasn't there illegally then "hidden" just means "Mike Ashley didn't bring in expensive enough accountants".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
That adage about how anyone that wants to be President should be automatically disqualified from the job is pretty much true of potential Portsmouth owners at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
That free Sport magazine has a big bit on football finances today, it's pretty interesting if nothing revelatory. I never realised quite how badly Liverpool are hurting for matchday revenue - £42.5m in 08/09 vs £74.5m for Chelsea, £100.1m for Arsenal and £108.8m for United.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 10:10
|
|
|
Can anyone explain to me the mechanism by which RBS will "take control" of Liverpool? They obviously have a charge on the club's assets, but I'm not clear on how they will walk in and actually take over/replace management without having to alter the legal status of the club? How can they walk in and say "this is ours now" without having to go through the courts and put the club in to administration or liquidation?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 10:15
|
|
|
Contrary to whoever it was in this thread was insisting that it was easy, Robert Peston was saying last week that RBS are still investigating whether or not it's possible for them to assume control of the club without sending it into administration
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2010 13:36
|
|
|
The point is that a lot of people don't agree that a football club is a business like any other though. In fact I think it's silly to argue that they are - while they are run as businesses and exist in the same regulatory environment, they have drastically different origins and goals to most businesses. It's wrong to dismiss the idea of preventing future highly leveraged buy-outs in football just because the strategy is legitimate in the wider market. I mean UEFA's new financial rules place restrictions on a business that would be utterly absurd in the wider market, but they are being accepted because people acknowledge that football clubs are not typical businesses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2010 16:35
|
|
|
Your position seems confused to me Fat Turkey. It seems like you're saying that leveraged buy-outs can't be restricted because football clubs exist as businesses like any other, then you're saying that UEFA can effectively restrict clubs financially because clubs need to be part of it's competitions. I don't really see where you're drawing a distinction. I agree you can't close the stable door after the horse has bolted - the league can't do anything about LBOs that have already occurred as they were compliant with the rules at the time. But I don't see any particular issue with them putting the kibosh on any future deals - its their party and they can invite whoever they want - and I also don't see many valid reasons why they shouldn't do just that. Even where the club is a PLC the risk should lie with the equity investors that the club remains compliant with all relevant regulatory authorities in the industry in which it operates (even where that authority is the Premier League). In this situation they're like a footballing UKLA. peanut- fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2010 17:03
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:Stuff I guess we agree then really, except that I think the League should take action against any future LBOs. I don't think most people are asking for legal intervention, they want the Premier League or the FA to step up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2010 17:53
|
|
|
I really don't agree at all. I understand the point about additional legislation being impractical and unlikely, but I don't see how additional scrutiny from the league itself about the financial structure of any takeover is not legitimate. I work in corporate finance advisory to private equity firms, I know LBOs aren't bad. They are, however, risky - their success is often dependent on market conditions and the people undertaking them not being incompetent crooks. Given that the Premier League is itself a business that has a vested interest in its constituent clubs remaining solvent, I think it's totally reasonable for the League to say that any future LBOs represent an unacceptable solvency risk. Whether or not the club is a PLC is irrelevant - any equity investor accepted at the time of purchase the fact that the business they were investing in was subject to independent industry bodies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
I don't understand why the clubs themselves seem so happy to go along with being screwed by agents.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
I doubt it, they board have always been pretty explicit that the money is there if Wenger wants it. Not really any information there either - it might just be an accounting loss rather than an actual decline in the cash position, or it might be a revenue timing issue that depresses half-year profits (depending on when money from the League or CL comes in for example).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 14:00
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:Think so. City did under Thaksin and we spent it, then found out it was a huge financial black hole. If you assume everything your board says is rubbish you are generally nearer the truth. Or you could actually look at the publicly filed accounts and see that Arsenal have a shedload of money sitting in the company and a very strong asset position.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 14:31
|
|
|
The Guardian posted:Manchester United's parent company announces record £104.6m loss Link Things looking nicely poised for that summer spending spree.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 14:51
|
|
|
There isn't a long term idea. All that talk about United being Liverpool on a bigger scale might have died down, but it's still true. Eventually the Glazers will get in over their head (after having extracted millions) and the club will end up being sold to a billionaire willing to cover the debt.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
adumb posted:You people are such morons. Unsure about a shift away from decades of responsible and stable board management to a single owner with no real history with or attachment to the team? Morons.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 10:27
|
|
|
MoPZiG posted:How much can you charge consistently to force someone into changing the club they support? In my mind Arsenal can charge as much as theyd like and its up to fans to reward other clubs who use more practical pricing structures with their patronage. Given that even West Ham happily charge £50 a time for decent games and still fill their stadium, I doubt Arsenal are close to hitting the limit yet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
quote:Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, has insisted the break-up of the established broadcasting deal, worth £3.2bn in total to all Premier League clubs for 2010‑13, is "a debate that has to happen", with the Anfield club in favour of the Spanish model that allows Barcelona and Real Madrid to negotiate individual contracts that dwarf their domestic and European rivals. Football should just be the same two teams with all the money playing each other over and over again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
No reason for City to support it - they have all the money they want anyway, and ending collective bargaining would just serve to make their immediate rivals richer and more able to compete.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
Why would we want anyone to challenge Sky? More competition will just cost fans more because we'll end up having to pay for multiple services to see all of the football. That's exactly the result right now even with only Setanta/ESPN. If ESPN disappeared tomorrow, I doubt Sky would raise their sports price - we'd likely get all of the football for the same money. Sky aren't a utility and football isn't a necessity - Sky's prices are determined by what the best price/number-of-subscribers equilibrium point is rather than anything ESPN do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
The ECJ could rule it illegal regardless of what the Commission thinks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2011 10:53
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong at all with the second one. In fact it seems to be an example of a tax incentive scheme working exactly as intended by the government - using tax breaks as a means of encouraging capital investment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
greazeball posted:This thread has come full circle, I was watching FC Servette draw 5000 people to a 35,000 seat stadium in the Swiss 2nd division last year and now this. Do they have seats now? First football games I ever went to as a kid were sitting on the stone terraces at Servette.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
He is such a bent fuckerquote:“I am not a tax fiddler, I am not any kind of fiddler,” Redknapp had told officers from City of London Police. “Never have been in my life. I don’t need to be. And I wouldn’t be. I don’t fiddle anybody. I pay my tax. I have paid a fortune in income tax. I have been in football all my life. I paid £1million in tax last year. Football managers are incapable of not sounding like football managers at all times.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 10:11
|
|
|
How much do Chelsea get from the CL every season? I'm always surprised how high their revenue is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 10:26
|
|
|
I doubt they're putting up any of the capital. Probably just got some revenue or ownership rights in return for use of the name.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
That may all be true, but Leeds are owned by Ken Bates.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 14:48
|
|
|
The CAS has possibly hosed whatever slim belief anyone might have had that Financial Fair Play could have worked:quote:CAS undermines FFP as it lifts Bursaspor's UEFA ban The CAS haven't released their reasoning yet though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Remember when DHL paid United £40m to sponsor their practice kits? United have bought out the contract because they think they can get more from elsewhere. Football is loving mental.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 15:01
|
|
|
They can't really. The guy that signed it did so without proper approval iirc, and was shown the door quickly as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
oh em gee bee ess posted:Where the hell did you see this? If that was the case wouldn't GM be throwing a huge hissy fit because of the sum of money involved, more than a half a billion US dollars? Sounds like to me you are talking our of your arse. Bit aggressive this tbh. It was a story at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
Wait, so if you have a United league season ticket you are forced to buy European/FA cup tickets too?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 14:04
|
|
|
That's mental. It makes those price comparisons utterly meaningless as far as United are concerned.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
They've announced results but they haven't filed accounts yet. I think they like to do it at the last minute, so we won't get to find out how they've fudged it until some time in February next year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
Is there an official ABU paint supplier?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Clubs get the vast vast majority of their income from non-matchday sources anyway, let alone restricting it to just tickets. This isn't really true is it? I know Manchester United and Arsenal still make 35-40% of their revenue from matchdays, and that's with CL money. I don't know if the proportion gets more or less for teams with smaller stadiums but no CL money though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 10:17
|
|