Taylor Swift

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eyOiiQJtIIs/VOnBXJwUVfI/AAAAAAAAIDA/3OGPzkbY8j4/s1600/4%2BPL%2BDistribution%2Bgrowth.jpg We're going to be swimming in cash very, very soon.

Operating profit affects our ability to buy without selling. If we are making operating profits of £20m a year, we can spend that much per year without selling a single player. So it's important for us to make operating profits because they are predictable and you can plan your transfers around that. We will be making comfortable large amounts of operating profit in the next couple of years. Everyone just hopes that we actually spend what we can easily afford to spend, but it's doubtful that it'll happen. The reason looking at total profits isn't a good way of planning is that transfers are unpredictable. You can't plan to sell £20m worth of players because then it puts you in a situation where you don't have leverage. If you're operating the club well and it's sustainable on its own without needing cashflow from transfers, you can be tougher when negotiating and pick the time that you sell your players. Of course, we're nothing like that.

We haven't reported a profit before player trading yet. Operating profit for the last 7 years has been... -29.0m -24.7m -37.7m -33.5m -3.9m -5.1m -0.6m I'd expect us to spend in Summer. That's a very misleading set of numbers IYAM. Those numbers are £(turnover - op ex - player amortisation), but ignoring transfers. You're including the downside of player trading (amortisation) but not the upside (sale profit/loss). The important thing to point out if you use that as a base is that when you include transfers it's pretty much all profit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but players brought in for however much don't affect the profit at all in that year except for any amortisation which you have included (they are assets at the value of the transfer fee). However players sold will add £(sale price - book value) to the final profit margin. For example Cabaye - Bought for £4.3m on a 5 year contract. Sold half way through contract so book value=£2.15m. Sale price=£19m. Profit=£16.8m to be added onto whatever that value is for 13-14 When transfers are included, the final profit/loss numbers are: 07-08: -£20.3m 08-09: -£15.2m 09-10: -£17.1m 10-11: £32.6m 11-12: £1.4m 12-13: £9.9m In that context it seems a very strange conclusion to draw that the amount we have available to spend on player purchases is related to profit before trading. Would you not be better just looking at the cashflow? That's not right. Players being brought in affect the profits of that year because they are an expenditure. Let's say we spent £12m on Cabella. It's an expenditure in this year. Our profits will decrease by £12m. At the same time, he also becomes an 'asset' valued at £12m. This asset depreciates according to the number of years on his contract. You're wrong in saying that when you buy a player, it doesn't affect the accounts in that year because it's an acquisition of an asset. It has a cost and it also depreciates. The best way of looking at clubs is to look at whether they can make an operating profit or not because those are the underlying financial data that will predictable from year to year. Your fixed costs of wages and salary to non-playing staff and employees are included in this, as is sponsorship income. So operating profit/loss is a good way of saying whether the model of the club is sustainable or not, or whether it depends on sales. Players trading (buying or selling) is extremely unpredictable, that's why looking at operating profit (loss) is better.

If he sells the club, that would include repaying / cancelling the shareholder loans. No-one would be mental enough to buy a club then allow Ashley to control it by proxy- as he does at Rangers. The terms of shareholder loans are largely irrelevant- they can be amended as and when Ashley sees fit to be repayable on certain dates, or for interest to be paid, increased or waived. So it could have been in the 2011 accounts or Monday's accounts- he still could have completely altered them yesterday. Ignore them- they are not debt, but equity. What about if he sold a stake in the club, like he's always said he wants to? It would be equity. If he sold the club for £500m, he would get the full amount in cash and the 'loan' would be wiped off the books. Of course, it's almost a certainty that the new owners would have loans of their own that financed the deal, much like the Glazers did when they bought Man Utd. It's like moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket. If someone bought your jeans, they would pay you for the money in both pockets too. No owner would buy the club from him and allow the loan to be in place and able to be recalled at any time. That would be financial suicide.

Even a club like Everton, who have spent money on transfers and don't have huge revenues from tickets, is going to be able to post consistent profits for the next few years and still sustain spending during transfer windows. Competition will push up wages for players being signed into the league, but it won't be like before where clubs were competing with other clubs in Europe for players too. The competition will only be between 10-15 clubs for vast majority of players. The other 5 clubs in the league will be flirting with relegation and I assume won't be willing to pay the highest wages. Even a yo-yo club run right could make consistent profits. The elite players will have 7-8 clubs that compete for them, so their wages will continue to rise, but the tier 2 and tier 3 players will all be coming over to England in the next few years. Italian clubs can't compete, the French clubs, same with the Spanish and German clubs. It's going to be the elite few - the teams left in the CL - and every team in the Premier League that will be able to pay the highest wages. Bet West Ham could pay some tit higher wages than Milan can in 2 years.

The aggregate operating losses over the past 7 years is going to be wiped out by the profits from last year and this year, IMO. We're going to come very close to breaking even in operating income over the past 7 years, which is crazy considering that includes a relegation. It just shows how flushed the Premier League is at the moment. This of course doesn't include player trading, which now produces a yearly surplus for us. Ashley is minting it, IMO. He won't be gone for a long time. He'd be stupid to take £300m. Anything less than £500m for the club is daft considering how much a club could make by finishing 10th every year (around £40m by a back of the envelope calculations using our revenue and expenditures).

Yup. Shareholder loans are the same as equity. Don't pay any attention to it, especially since he's not collecting interest. Our focus should be on commercial income. It would be good if someone could put a valuation on the SD branding in the stadium on a yearly basis.

Messi is so pumped for this. He's owning the pitch.

Real up 4 points. Barca really fucked up this weekend. They're lucky that the title will still be in their hands if Real lose or draw once but if they don't win the Clasico then this one is done.

Those 3 up front could quite easily get isolated if they can't control the ball when they play Bayern. Then again, their counter-attack looks so good this year that they may be able to exploit Pep in the only way that he's been exploited over his managerial career. There are other clubs that I see them having trouble with, Chelsea being one since Chelsea look like a very complete team.

For the really good players, yes, intelligence comes naturally. But for many others, including players like Ronaldo and Zidane, their intelligence and control didn't come until much later. Even in other sports, guys like Federer didn't become intelligent, mature and in control until 24, 25. The young ones are the exception. Most guys peak physically around 24, but mentally they reach their peak 2-3 years later.

What's wrong with Falcao? He's basically making a ton of money and not doing much. His knee is fucked and he can't run as fast anymore. The agent did what was in the client's best interests. If he's not going to recover fully then he may as well earn as much as possible. And if he is going to recover, he'd do it at a club with the facilities like Man Utd. Basically the option was to earn a lot of money while recovering or to not earn a lot of money. The scummy agents are the ones that don't look after their client's best interests, the one that doesn't develop the kids, offer them guidance and make sure they know that they have to work hard. The agents who move their players around to earn more money are the best agents around.

Why is it unhealthy for footballers to seek out jobs that pay them more? Do you judge your coworkers when they leave your workplace for another company that pays more? Footballers are somehow supposed to be saints who care about the fans more than they care about themselves. To these guys, it's just another job. It's a ridiculously high paying job, but it's just a job. They will work for the highest and most comfortable payer. Same as everyone else in the economy. And yet people will judge them for doing this. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. I'm sure trophies and all are great, but for the majority of footballers who aren't that good, they won't ever win a trophy anyway. They play to sustain a good lifestyle. They play to earn so that their kids and grandkids have a comfortable life. Or so they can make sure their parents have a comfortable life. It's unbelievable that people judge footballers that want to move to a club that would pay them more. As if they wouldn't do it in a second in their normal jobs. There are many considerations to a job. Pay is one. Comfort is another. Working conditions is another. For footballers, the latter two are pretty much the same everywhere, right? It's just the pay that's difference. Fair play to the players that look out for themselves because if they didn't, the owners sure as hell wouldn't. You think Ashley would pay a single pound more than he actually has to?

Already explained this; mad shagging. Happened to you few times then? BOOM! :lol:

Agents also exist in every other sport and fans almost always don't like that but they're still the best thing for the players. Some agents even go so far as to handle mortgages and credit cards for players, that's the kind of thorough service they offer.

They earn their money. Of course, sometimes their advice doesn't pay off, but most of the time the players are still well rewarded financially. Players aren't like fans, most of them don't have a dog in this fight. They look after themselves and fair play to them. I imagine the average worker doesn't really care about their company. They care about it doing well when they're there, but if they leave? It's just another company, like the millions out there. The players feel the same way, IMO. Agents also handle stuff like contracts and negotiations which most players don't have a clue how to do. They also have contacts in the game that family members of players don't. Look at someone like Mendes who will move players to clubs where he's close to the owners. This is obviously to the benefit of the players because Mendes' influence allows him to get players higher wages. I don't understand the hate for agents. They're the best thing going for players. I don't see agents that act against their client's best interests regularly and without them, more of the profit in football would go to owners. I don't see why the system should be like that that. Anyway, the craziest thing about this deal is that it's a domestic deal. I don't understand why people in England pay so much to watch football on TV and why no other country is willing to pay the same? The difference is becoming an order of magnitude. Why do Dutch people don't want to pay to watch Ajax on TV? Why are they willing to pay so little? We're not even talking about foreign money. We're simply talking domestic, which is crazy.

Them, the players and some club owners. Everybody else loses out. People should just end their Sky subscriptions and turn to illegal streams in their droves in disgust. What's wrong with people being rewarded for entertaining others? players fine, some owners less good agents fuck those parasites and everything they stand for Agents are the only ones making sure players get their fair share. Without agents, do you think owners would pay as much as they do today? It's why most players love their agents.

Them, the players and some club owners. Everybody else loses out. People should just end their Sky subscriptions and turn to illegal streams in their droves in disgust. What's wrong with people being rewarded for entertaining others?

Santon at CB Jesus Christ. The guy was only decent because he was fast enough and because he's a good dribbler. He has no positional sense and his marking is poor. Those are basically the two main attributes needed at CB.

Are we at least getting good money for him? Not that it matters much but if we're operating on a sell to buy system then getting good money for him would be nice.

Amazing by Ozil.

We'll win 2-0. That's a good lineup.

:lol: Oh shit Kaka got fucked

Has he loaned it personally, or has MASH Holdings Ltd? If the latter, then he'll pay less tax. If MASH owned us, they wouldn't get any tax benefits. In fact, the only way Ashley himself comes out ahead is if NUFC paid interest on the loans and decreased our tax bill. Since we have losses on the books already, that's not needed. If the time comes and we started paying interest, MASH would have to pay the profit from the interest collected from NUFC. Either way, at present, there is no tax benefit for Ashley to 'loan' us the money since he's not collecting interest.

Other than those 3 years 2006-2008 adjusted for inflation? Nope. Then our commercial revenues would look even more pitiful, even if inflation rates are at historic lows.