Wriggly
Banned
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
City make more commercially than Barca or Real ? fudge off.
City make more commercially than Barca or Real ? fudge off.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Financial Fair Play
- Thread starter NewmarketYid
- Start date
Oh yeah, any fan that acts like that should be slapped. On the pitch, we were okay. Our academy was in a good place, and we were pushing for Europa League each season. But to say we'd be champions by now is delusional. Personally, I don't know any City fan. We still constantly expect the worst, and everyone who sits around me in the ground are the same doom-and-gloom pessimists as under Shinawatra.
Last season was a perfect storm for us, commercially. We won the league, and we were the first team to bring in massive sponsorship deals. After this season, where we probably won't win the league and other teams' deals are considered, we'll slide down the table again. Come on, keep up.
Spursalot
Jimmy McCormick
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Assuming commercial deals are offered on a year by year basis?
Teams don't get big commercial deals based on a single year of performing well. Unless of course the investor is linked to the owner of the club.
Assuming commercial deals are offered on a year by year basis?
Teams don't get big commercial deals based on a single year of performing well. Unless of course the investor is linked to the owner of the club.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
HI Wriggly, well 4-4-2 are presumably only quoting Deloitte. But the way I read it that's not true anyway. According to my tired old eyes the graphics showCity make less commercially than Real, Barca, oh and Man U for local interest
HI Wriggly, well 4-4-2 are presumably only quoting Deloitte. But the way I read it that's not true anyway. According to my tired old eyes the graphics showCity make less commercially than Real, Barca, oh and Man U for local interest
Last edited:
mudshark
Chris Armstrong
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Probably doesn't require a new thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21238173
Government threatens legislation unless promised reforms are carried out within 12 months.
Probably doesn't require a new thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21238173
Government threatens legislation unless promised reforms are carried out within 12 months.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
If Man Utd were allowed to negotiate their own TV deal - as Real and Barca do, I believe - then they would be up there with the Spanish duo.
If Man Utd were allowed to negotiate their own TV deal - as Real and Barca do, I believe - then they would be up there with the Spanish duo.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
English Premier League football club Manchester United are the world's first professional sports team to be valued at more than $3 billion, according to Forbes magazine.
A recent surge in the club's shares after a poor start when they were offered on the New York Stock Exchange last year has boosted Manchester United's value to $3.3 billion, a report on Forbes' website said on Monday.
The increase has United, English champions a record 19 times, comfortably ahead of the world's second-most valuable sports team, the National Football League's Dallas Cowboys, worth $2.1 billion.
Forbes put the surge in United shares down to brighter earnings prospects from new sponsorship deals and said the demand could continue given the team's potential for lucrative payouts in the EPL and Champions League.
United, who claim to have 659 million followers worldwide, are owned by the American Glazer family who retained a tight grip on the club after the flotation on the New York Stock Exchange.
United shares closed 41 cents lower at $16.48 in New York on Monday.
http://fourfourtwo.com/news/england/118608/default.aspx
English Premier League football club Manchester United are the world's first professional sports team to be valued at more than $3 billion, according to Forbes magazine.
A recent surge in the club's shares after a poor start when they were offered on the New York Stock Exchange last year has boosted Manchester United's value to $3.3 billion, a report on Forbes' website said on Monday.
The increase has United, English champions a record 19 times, comfortably ahead of the world's second-most valuable sports team, the National Football League's Dallas Cowboys, worth $2.1 billion.
Forbes put the surge in United shares down to brighter earnings prospects from new sponsorship deals and said the demand could continue given the team's potential for lucrative payouts in the EPL and Champions League.
United, who claim to have 659 million followers worldwide, are owned by the American Glazer family who retained a tight grip on the club after the flotation on the New York Stock Exchange.
United shares closed 41 cents lower at $16.48 in New York on Monday.
http://fourfourtwo.com/news/england/118608/default.aspx
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Both!
£23m profit on normal trading.
£1.6m loss after player trading.
£4.3m loss after interest and tax.
Both!
£23m profit on normal trading.
£1.6m loss after player trading.
£4.3m loss after interest and tax.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Premier League Fulham are now clear of debt after owner Mohamed Al Fayed converted loans totalling more than 200 million pounds into shares in the club.
Al Fayed, the former owner of the Harrods department store, bought Fulham in 1997 and has seen them establish themselves in the Premier League.
"Following the previous season's announcement of record profits, the most significant development is the Club ending the financial year with no debt, having repaid any external indebtedness and Chairman Mohamed Al Fayed converting his previous loans to the Club into equity," the club said on their website.
Fulham made an operating profit of 1.2 million pounds in the 2011/12 season, down from more than five million pounds the previous year.
fourfourtwo.com/news/england/118651/default.aspx
Premier League Fulham are now clear of debt after owner Mohamed Al Fayed converted loans totalling more than 200 million pounds into shares in the club.
Al Fayed, the former owner of the Harrods department store, bought Fulham in 1997 and has seen them establish themselves in the Premier League.
"Following the previous season's announcement of record profits, the most significant development is the Club ending the financial year with no debt, having repaid any external indebtedness and Chairman Mohamed Al Fayed converting his previous loans to the Club into equity," the club said on their website.
Fulham made an operating profit of 1.2 million pounds in the 2011/12 season, down from more than five million pounds the previous year.
fourfourtwo.com/news/england/118651/default.aspx
Bullet
Luka Modric
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
So, Fulham are just given a £200m injection, just like that? What a joke.
Two hundred million pounds.
Imagine how many good players that should buy.
In other news, from the Leeds thread in case you missed it - going out of the FA Cup could help us financially IF it enables us to get into the CL
Tottenham Hotspur’s FA Cup exit on Sunday brought renewed suggestions that Andre Villas-Boas doesn’t ‘get’ English football. Perhaps not. But he might just get Champions League football instead, especially now that his team have been spared between one and four weekends of domestic cup action. Losing to Leeds could be the best thing that’s happened to Spurs all season.
Chelsea are drifting towards the end of the season like a broken down canal boat on a family holiday gone horribly wrong. No-one can be sure if Arsenal are a good team who occasionally play badly, or a bad team who occasionally play well.
The Manchester clubs might be out of reach, but third place is wide open. Never mind Harry Redknapp’s fourth place finishes, Villas-Boas will never get a better chance to finish third and move directly to the Champions League group stages. That, I’m heartbroken to say, is far more important than a day out at Wembley.
I don’t want football to be like this, obviously. I want football to be about glory and magical moments and the steps up to Wembley and a big day out. But it isn’t about that anymore. It’s about money.
Don’t believe me? Then why did John W Henry insist that he would have sacked Kenny Dalglish whether he’d won the FA Cup last year or not? Why did Chelsea disentangle themselves from Jose Mourinho in 2007, just a few months after he’d won the FA Cup and the League Cup?
Why is it, that for all the glorious giant-killing of the last weekend, we can’t avoid noticing that all of the leading clubs fielded weakened sides? Because the FA Cup doesn’t really matter, that’s why. It’s quite possible that Villas-Boas ‘gets’ English football rather more than his critics.
If it was down to me, I’d have automatic Champions League places for the Premier League champions, the FA Cup winners and the League Cup winners. I’d toss a play-off place to the league runners-up and everyone else could scrap it out in the Europa League.
That’s what you do if you want a game where glory means more than balance sheets. Sadly, they don’t let people like me make these decisions. There’d be too much whining about the possible damage to our co-efficients, as if that should ever be a consideration when it comes to rewarding actual, tangible success.
Arsene Wenger has said numerous times that finishing third is essentially like winning a trophy. It hasn’t made up for the lack of real trophies, but it doesn’t stop him being right.
Roberto di Matteo said that the best thing about Chelsea winning the Champions League was that it enabled Chelsea to qualify for the Champions League. You may remember that, it was the day you glanced over at cricket and wondered if it might be more a rewarding use of your time.
It’s horrible, it’s rancid, it’s vomit-in-your-mouth-and-swallow-it-back-down-again-while-trying-not-to-cry awful, but it’s the truth. It’s modern football.
Tottenham earned £25.3m in TV and prize money from their last Champions League campaign. They’d pick up approximately £3.5m in prize money if they won the FA Cup.
With a Champions League run, you can buy better players, you can pay your good players better wages, you can convince your stars to stick around and you can lure new ones in. By pouring money all over it, UEFA have turned the Champions League from a competition into a way of life. Inside the velvet rope, clubs can grow fat and happy. Outside, they can only dream of what might be.
Now…tell me again that Villas-Boas doesn’t ‘get’ English football.
So, Fulham are just given a £200m injection, just like that? What a joke.
Two hundred million pounds.
Imagine how many good players that should buy.
In other news, from the Leeds thread in case you missed it - going out of the FA Cup could help us financially IF it enables us to get into the CL
Tottenham Hotspur’s FA Cup exit on Sunday brought renewed suggestions that Andre Villas-Boas doesn’t ‘get’ English football. Perhaps not. But he might just get Champions League football instead, especially now that his team have been spared between one and four weekends of domestic cup action. Losing to Leeds could be the best thing that’s happened to Spurs all season.
Chelsea are drifting towards the end of the season like a broken down canal boat on a family holiday gone horribly wrong. No-one can be sure if Arsenal are a good team who occasionally play badly, or a bad team who occasionally play well.
The Manchester clubs might be out of reach, but third place is wide open. Never mind Harry Redknapp’s fourth place finishes, Villas-Boas will never get a better chance to finish third and move directly to the Champions League group stages. That, I’m heartbroken to say, is far more important than a day out at Wembley.
I don’t want football to be like this, obviously. I want football to be about glory and magical moments and the steps up to Wembley and a big day out. But it isn’t about that anymore. It’s about money.
Don’t believe me? Then why did John W Henry insist that he would have sacked Kenny Dalglish whether he’d won the FA Cup last year or not? Why did Chelsea disentangle themselves from Jose Mourinho in 2007, just a few months after he’d won the FA Cup and the League Cup?
Why is it, that for all the glorious giant-killing of the last weekend, we can’t avoid noticing that all of the leading clubs fielded weakened sides? Because the FA Cup doesn’t really matter, that’s why. It’s quite possible that Villas-Boas ‘gets’ English football rather more than his critics.
If it was down to me, I’d have automatic Champions League places for the Premier League champions, the FA Cup winners and the League Cup winners. I’d toss a play-off place to the league runners-up and everyone else could scrap it out in the Europa League.
That’s what you do if you want a game where glory means more than balance sheets. Sadly, they don’t let people like me make these decisions. There’d be too much whining about the possible damage to our co-efficients, as if that should ever be a consideration when it comes to rewarding actual, tangible success.
Arsene Wenger has said numerous times that finishing third is essentially like winning a trophy. It hasn’t made up for the lack of real trophies, but it doesn’t stop him being right.
Roberto di Matteo said that the best thing about Chelsea winning the Champions League was that it enabled Chelsea to qualify for the Champions League. You may remember that, it was the day you glanced over at cricket and wondered if it might be more a rewarding use of your time.
It’s horrible, it’s rancid, it’s vomit-in-your-mouth-and-swallow-it-back-down-again-while-trying-not-to-cry awful, but it’s the truth. It’s modern football.
Tottenham earned £25.3m in TV and prize money from their last Champions League campaign. They’d pick up approximately £3.5m in prize money if they won the FA Cup.
With a Champions League run, you can buy better players, you can pay your good players better wages, you can convince your stars to stick around and you can lure new ones in. By pouring money all over it, UEFA have turned the Champions League from a competition into a way of life. Inside the velvet rope, clubs can grow fat and happy. Outside, they can only dream of what might be.
Now…tell me again that Villas-Boas doesn’t ‘get’ English football.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Now?
He's been bankrolling Fulham for longer than the combined years that Abramovich and Mansour have been at Chelsea and City.
Just not to quite the same eye catching extent.
The fact that he has only recently converted his loans into equity is a mere technicality. He was never going to call in those loans.
Now?
He's been bankrolling Fulham for longer than the combined years that Abramovich and Mansour have been at Chelsea and City.
Just not to quite the same eye catching extent.
The fact that he has only recently converted his loans into equity is a mere technicality. He was never going to call in those loans.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
It didn't change anything NOW, but it has done over the years. This is just to comply with FFP. Fulham happen to be one of only a few clubs to oppose bringing that to the PL.
It didn't change anything NOW, but it has done over the years. This is just to comply with FFP. Fulham happen to be one of only a few clubs to oppose bringing that to the PL.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
I'm not sure it makes much difference for FFP. The FFP rules do nothing to stop a club from keeping large debts or to stop a Glazer or H&G type takeover. Ironically it allows speculators to load debt on the club for no reason other than enriching themselves, but blocks an owner injecting money for players and other football related purposes.
In Fulham's case Al Fayed would be limited in what he could inject each year, but he could have kept the debt.
I'm not sure it makes much difference for FFP. The FFP rules do nothing to stop a club from keeping large debts or to stop a Glazer or H&G type takeover. Ironically it allows speculators to load debt on the club for no reason other than enriching themselves, but blocks an owner injecting money for players and other football related purposes.
In Fulham's case Al Fayed would be limited in what he could inject each year, but he could have kept the debt.