Teasy Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 They are a pointless statistic though, the 60% thing is an absolute joke. All those clubs over it going to fold are they? How can it be a pointless statistic?.. It tells you how much of the clubs total yearly budget has to be spent before all the costs of running the club/buying players ect. Nobody said 60% would make anyone have to fold, I certainly didn't did I? What I mean is every time they peddle this stuff, they say anything over 60% is unsustainable, which is rubbish. The arrival of the millionaire / billionaire private owners have made it even less relevant, but it was the over 60% bit I was criticising mostly. I agree there is no fixed percentage you have to meet. You have to look at the whole picture, one club may make £30 million a year and have a 50% ratio while another makes £80 million a year and has a 70% ratio. The club with the 70% ratio is still better off. Having said that the figures are still important, especially for those clubs we can see in that list with 80-90% ratios and only £40-50 million turnovers. Those clubs are in a very dangerous position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 The "60% thing" isn't a set-in-stone-incontrovertible-fact-of-the-universe point at which every single club who goes beyond it instantly folds. It's used as a general rule of thumb and an indicator. That's all. Jesus christ. Who in this thread even mentioned any 60% figure in the first place? getcarter did who posted the list of clubs. All I'm saying is its not a very good indicator & 60% is a very low figure for "unsustainable" to be placed at. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 The "60% thing" isn't a set-in-stone-incontrovertible-fact-of-the-universe point at which every single club who goes beyond it instantly folds. It's used as a general rule of thumb and an indicator. That's all. Jesus christ. Who in this thread even mentioned any 60% figure in the first place? getcarter did who posted the list of clubs. All I'm saying is its not a very good indicator & 60% is a very low figure for "unsustainable" to be placed at. Ah right, I thought your initial post was in reply to my post. I agree completely that any fixed figure is complete bollocks, especially 60%. BTW Leeds were completely fucked financially before they got relegated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 NUFC: "Your bill, sir." KK: "Fuck me, that's one hell of a lot of dishes!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 They are a pointless statistic though, the 60% thing is an absolute joke. All those clubs over it going to fold are they? How can it be a pointless statistic?.. It tells you how much of the clubs total yearly budget has to be spent before all the costs of running the club/buying players ect. Nobody said 60% would make anyone have to fold, I certainly didn't did I? What I mean is every time they peddle this stuff, they say anything over 60% is unsustainable, which is rubbish. The arrival of the millionaire / billionaire private owners have made it even less relevant, but it was the over 60% bit I was criticising mostly. I agree there is no fixed percentage you have to meet. You have to look at the whole picture, one club may make £30 million a year and have a 50% ratio while another makes £80 million a year and has a 70% ratio. The club with the 70% ratio is still better off. Having said that the figures are still important, especially for those clubs we can see in that list with 80-90% ratios and only £40-50 million turnovers. Those clubs are in a very dangerous position. I agree with most of that. The £'s provide a far better indicator than the %'s do. It all depends on maintaining the revenue which is what Leeds' problem was of course, that and not having a contignecy plan in place when they did get relegated. Some of the wages they were paying in the Championship were stupid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Leeds based everything (transfers, wages etc) on qualifying for the Champions League. When they didn't, they were fucked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Leeds based everything (transfers, wages etc) on qualifying for the Champions League. When they didn't, they were fucked. Thats it. That & the speed of their relegation once they didn't qualify. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Leeds based everything (transfers, wages etc) on qualifying for the Champions League. When they didn't, they were fucked. Who took 'their' Champions League place? That's right, it was us! I remember watching that daft twat David O'Leary on TV the following season. He mentioned Leeds had finished 4th the previous season when they'd really finished 5th. You'd think he'd remember that (and no one in the TV studio corrected him either). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MagFinnPie Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 i wonder what happened to the wage turnover ratio when we get/got the extra £15m from tv-rights Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now