Finances 09/10 - 'Our vision for the club is to finish 10th or above every year'

[leffe186]

Interesting facts.

 

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/05/18/sportscribddoc.pdf

 

Our gate receipts are pretty impressive considering we are in Championship. Turnover for the coming year could be close to 90m excluding Carroll's money.

 

And seems like Liverpool would be in deep deep trouble for the coming year's figures. 121m wages are terrible for a club with only Europa places this year and no Euro competitions next year. They may have to sell before buy.

 

Liverpool still have a pretty solid turnover though, even considering the loss in income due to missing out on Europe. The key for them will be Fenway, who are surely in for the long haul. They've already ploughed in some serious money.

 

I did think our wage bill would be higher, keeping it at 56% was a surprise. We need to offload a handful of high earners this year, as "extra" players' wages (Gallas, VDV) will have been offset by the CL revenue and other clubs picking up at least some of the tab on people like Keane and Bentley. Pleasantly surprised by the figures shown.

 

I thought that that 156M for property development for Arsenal was included the last time Conn did this?

 

I just do not get Man City or Chelsea. Honestly. They must know something we don't about the new financial constraints. Man City's commercial activities magically increasing to 53M? More than Arsenal's, and not far off Liverpool's? If the fair play regulations mean even a tiny fraction of what they're supposed to mean then they'll get laughed out of Europe.

[HawK]

Interesting facts.

 

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/05/18/sportscribddoc.pdf

 

Our gate receipts are pretty impressive considering we are in Championship. Turnover for the coming year could be close to 90m excluding Carroll's money.

 

And seems like Liverpool would be in deep deep trouble for the coming year's figures. 121m wages are terrible for a club with only Europa places this year and no Euro competitions next year. They may have to sell before buy.

 

Liverpool still have a pretty solid turnover though, even considering the loss in income due to missing out on Europe. The key for them will be Fenway, who are surely in for the long haul. They've already ploughed in some serious money.

 

I did think our wage bill would be higher, keeping it at 56% was a surprise. We need to offload a handful of high earners this year, as "extra" players' wages (Gallas, VDV) will have been offset by the CL revenue and other clubs picking up at least some of the tab on people like Keane and Bentley. Pleasantly surprised by the figures shown.

 

I thought that that 156M for property development for Arsenal was included the last time Conn did this?

 

I just do not get Man City or Chelsea. Honestly. They must know something we don't about the new financial constraints. Man City's commercial activities magically increasing to 53M? More than Arsenal's, and not far off Liverpool's? If the fair play regulations mean even a tiny fraction of what they're supposed to mean then they'll get laughed out of Europe.

 

What's to stop a 'supporter' buying 1,000,000 shirts at €40 each at an online shop in the Cayman Islands (or somewhere else, you get the idea), which are never actually delivered..? ^_^

[Ryan_Taylor]

Interesting facts.

 

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/05/18/sportscribddoc.pdf

 

Our gate receipts are pretty impressive considering we are in Championship. Turnover for the coming year could be close to 90m excluding Carroll's money.

 

And seems like Liverpool would be in deep deep trouble for the coming year's figures. 121m wages are terrible for a club with only Europa places this year and no Euro competitions next year. They may have to sell before buy.

 

Nice bit of cliché in 'But this is Newcastle and Ashley. Anything could happen'...

[Zero]

Spurs' figures are unbelievable, btw. The best in Premiership I would say.

 

Yes they are very well run. People on here have used them as an example of a club pursuing their ambition by throwing money about. That's a myth - they invest what they can afford. 

 

The key reason is the wages structure. Look at their squad and you will find their wages unbelievably low.

[Zero]

Interesting facts.

 

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/05/18/sportscribddoc.pdf

 

Our gate receipts are pretty impressive considering we are in Championship. Turnover for the coming year could be close to 90m excluding Carroll's money.

 

And seems like Liverpool would be in deep deep trouble for the coming year's figures. 121m wages are terrible for a club with only Europa places this year and no Euro competitions next year. They may have to sell before buy.

 

Liverpool still have a pretty solid turnover though, even considering the loss in income due to missing out on Europe. The key for them will be Fenway, who are surely in for the long haul. They've already ploughed in some serious money.

 

I did think our wage bill would be higher, keeping it at 56% was a surprise. We need to offload a handful of high earners this year, as "extra" players' wages (Gallas, VDV) will have been offset by the CL revenue and other clubs picking up at least some of the tab on people like Keane and Bentley. Pleasantly surprised by the figures shown.

 

I thought that that 156M for property development for Arsenal was included the last time Conn did this?

 

I just do not get Man City or Chelsea. Honestly. They must know something we don't about the new financial constraints. Man City's commercial activities magically increasing to 53M? More than Arsenal's, and not far off Liverpool's? If the fair play regulations mean even a tiny fraction of what they're supposed to mean then they'll get laughed out of Europe.

 

I do not believe in their owner.  All Americans are just "investing for money". So in the end Liverpool has to balance their books. But I don't see any chance that their wages could go down and so very likely they would have a loss of at least 40m for the coming year.  That's devastating. That's why I always said the transfer of Carroll could nail the coffin if Liverpool could not get back to Euro competition this year. Do you notice that recently some people are saying "Liverpool does not need overhaul"? That's PR when means they do not have any money to spend. If Dalglish cannot continue to do his job superbly, I could see Liverpool doing a Leeds, really.

 

That's why Smith must be sold this summer. With Carroll's money we are capable to bring in 2 established stars and challenge top 6 next year. Smith must go.

 

Unless UEFA specifically states that "related party transactions" will be excluded in calculating the financial fairplay rule, they would not have any trouble. Say, Man City invited to play a match in Dubai for 500m. Done.

[Matt]

Spurs' figures are unbelievable, btw. The best in Premiership I would say.

 

Yes they are very well run. People on here have used them as an example of a club pursuing their ambition by throwing money about. That's a myth - they invest what they can afford. 

 

The key reason is the wages structure. Look at their squad and you will find their wages unbelievably low.

 

I wonder what this year's figures will look like? Something has to give at some point and clearly they've fallen short of their target this year.

 

Plus they have "currency speculator" Joe Lewis on hand to regularly put in £10-£20m, which has happened a few times over recent years.

[Cronky]

Interesting facts.

 

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/05/18/sportscribddoc.pdf

 

Our gate receipts are pretty impressive considering we are in Championship. Turnover for the coming year could be close to 90m excluding Carroll's money.

 

And seems like Liverpool would be in deep deep trouble for the coming year's figures. 121m wages are terrible for a club with only Europa places this year and no Euro competitions next year. They may have to sell before buy.

 

Liverpool still have a pretty solid turnover though, even considering the loss in income due to missing out on Europe. The key for them will be Fenway, who are surely in for the long haul. They've already ploughed in some serious money.

 

I did think our wage bill would be higher, keeping it at 56% was a surprise. We need to offload a handful of high earners this year, as "extra" players' wages (Gallas, VDV) will have been offset by the CL revenue and other clubs picking up at least some of the tab on people like Keane and Bentley. Pleasantly surprised by the figures shown.

 

I thought that that 156M for property development for Arsenal was included the last time Conn did this?

 

I just do not get Man City or Chelsea. Honestly. They must know something we don't about the new financial constraints. Man City's commercial activities magically increasing to 53M? More than Arsenal's, and not far off Liverpool's? If the fair play regulations mean even a tiny fraction of what they're supposed to mean then they'll get laughed out of Europe.

 

 

Unless UEFA specifically states that "related party transactions" will be excluded in calculating the financial fairplay rule, they would not have any trouble. Say, Man City invited to play a match in Dubai for 500m. Done.

 

Neither club seems to be preparing themselves for the new rules, and that's a worry. It's like they're not taking it seriously, or thinking that the rules are so open to interpretation that they won't stand up to a legal challenge. Or they're used to money meaning power, pure and simple.

 

From what I understand, UEFA are well aware of the possibility of clubs earning spurious amounts of money from sponsorship or whatever, where there's some connection between the club and the other party. Clubs' accounts will be monitored on a regular basis, with advice given at various stages about which transactions are acceptable and which aren't.

 

As I said, it may well all depend on how robust the rules are from the legal point of view, and what appetite UEFA will have to defend themselves.

[Dave]

What a load of bollocks. These 'rules' won't make the slightest bit of difference. And even if they threaten to, the clubs will throw a paddy and break away to form their own Euro league. Why would UEFA want to piss the top clubs off?

[Cronky]

What a load of bollocks. These 'rules' won't make the slightest bit of difference. And even if they threaten to, the clubs will throw a paddy and break away to form their own Euro league. Why would UEFA want to piss the top clubs off?

 

I don't think it'll work like that, because of the top clubs, only Man City and Chelsea look like failing to meet the rules. It'll be in the interests of Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool etc - who don't have wealthy benefactors - to see that the rules are enforced. They won't break ranks and form a Euro League where they'll be at a disadvantage.

 

As I said, more likely is that City and Chelsea will try to cheat unilaterally.

 

[Stottie]

A win at the weekend should secure a top 10 place Lets hope Ashley doesnt think that means we already have a top ten side. We've done well this year, but we've nee strikers leek.

 

Aye, we've had a good season on the whole, but Carroll's gone and we can't be relying on Nolan to score at with Lampard regularity.

 

With the continuing bad financial news from clubs, its a bit disappointing that there are still big big money transfers like Carroll and Bent. Or it would be disappointing if we weren't a beneficiary (!) I thought things would be starting to get a bit more sensible by now.

[leffe186]

Spurs' figures are unbelievable, btw. The best in Premiership I would say.

 

Yes they are very well run. People on here have used them as an example of a club pursuing their ambition by throwing money about. That's a myth - they invest what they can afford. 

 

The key reason is the wages structure. Look at their squad and you will find their wages unbelievably low.

 

I wonder what this year's figures will look like? Something has to give at some point and clearly they've fallen short of their target this year.

 

Plus they have "currency speculator" Joe Lewis on hand to regularly put in £10-£20m, which has happened a few times over recent years.

 

No it hasn't, that's specifically why Conn includes the stat on what the owners have put in. Abramovich has put in 739M because Chelsea have been making a consistent loss. Lerner has put in 200M plus. As the article says, there has been a 15M share issue at Spurs (which I think was for player investment plus the training ground.

 

Or maybe Conn's wrong. Which times are you referring to?

[Matt]

Apologies, having checked the RNS it was only once that they issued new shares, I was convinced they had done this twice since ENIC took over.

 

It will be very interesting to see where Spurs are in a couple of years- CL qualification is like a heroin-laced canape, as we found out to our cost.

[madras]

Apologies, having checked the RNS it was only once that they issued new shares, I was convinced they had done this twice since ENIC took over.

 

It will be very interesting to see where Spurs are in a couple of years- CL qualification is like a heroin-laced canape, as we found out to our cost.

weren't the spurs board making noises to the effect that they'd have to trim a few things if they failed to reach the champs league ?

[Village Idiot]

Both Real Madrid and Barcelona are in favor of the rules too. Can't see a breakaway happening.

[Dave]

Both Real Madrid and Barcelona are in favor of the rules too. Can't see a breakaway happening.

 

The rules obviously don't restrict their present finances in any way then.

[Teasy]

Liverpool still have a pretty solid turnover though, even considering the loss in income due to missing out on Europe. The key for them will be Fenway, who are surely in for the long haul. They've already ploughed in some serious money.

 

Their turnover should still be quite high (£140-£150m at a guess), but with a £121m+ wage bill the owners will definitely need to subsidise them significantly this season to keep them afloat, which they will do obviously.  However I'm not sure they'll then dip into their pockets again for transfers.

[Village Idiot]

Both Real Madrid and Barcelona are in favor of the rules too. Can't see a breakaway happening.

 

The rules obviously don't restrict their present finances in any way then.

 

They don't. Both clubs (bar Barça this season) have been posting "profits" every season and would cruise through the regulations. The debt has been growing in both cases.

[Village Idiot]

Also big clubs are naturally in favor of the rules since they should prevent another ManCity/Chelsea situation happening and catching up on them.

[Cronky]

Apologies, having checked the RNS it was only once that they issued new shares, I was convinced they had done this twice since ENIC took over.

 

It will be very interesting to see where Spurs are in a couple of years- CL qualification is like a heroin-laced canape, as we found out to our cost.

weren't the spurs board making noises to the effect that they'd have to trim a few things if they failed to reach the champs league ?

 

It's extremely difficult for clubs to reach financial stability when there are such huge financial consequences either for missing out on a CL place, or for getting relegated from the Premiership.

 

Looking at us, our turnover slumped suddenly from 101m to 52m. No self-supporting business can survive that without subsidies, especially when chance and ill luck plays such a part in competitive sport.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

 

It's extremely difficult for clubs to reach financial stability when there are such huge financial consequences either for missing out on a CL place, or for getting relegated from the Premiership.

 

Looking at us, our turnover slumped suddenly from 101m to 52m. No self-supporting business can survive that without subsidies, especially when chance and ill luck plays such a part in competitive sport.

 

Very good point, although I think the parachute payment is a bit unfair on the teams in the Championship, I can see why it's needed.

 

The different in income between the two divisions, and then again for Champions League, seems crazy. Very difficult to run a business stably when a penalty, missed offside decision or a couple of unlucky injuries could reduce you income by over half.

[leffe186]

Apologies, having checked the RNS it was only once that they issued new shares, I was convinced they had done this twice since ENIC took over.

 

It will be very interesting to see where Spurs are in a couple of years- CL qualification is like a heroin-laced canape, as we found out to our cost.

weren't the spurs board making noises to the effect that they'd have to trim a few things if they failed to reach the champs league ?

 

Yeah, I think they have. Our feeling is that Gallas' wages, for one, were only coverable due to CL money. The nice thing is that there are plenty of ways to trim without affecting the first team (Keane, Dos Santos, Bentley etc). The bad thing is that we might have to take a hit on their value to offload them.

[Cronky]

 

It's extremely difficult for clubs to reach financial stability when there are such huge financial consequences either for missing out on a CL place, or for getting relegated from the Premiership.

 

Looking at us, our turnover slumped suddenly from 101m to 52m. No self-supporting business can survive that without subsidies, especially when chance and ill luck plays such a part in competitive sport.

 

Very good point, although I think the parachute payment is a bit unfair on the teams in the Championship, I can see why it's needed.

 

The different in income between the two divisions, and then again for Champions League, seems crazy. Very difficult to run a business stably when a penalty, missed offside decision or a couple of unlucky injuries could reduce you income by over half.

 

Clubs get criticised for taking risks, but the way things are set up, there's enormous pressure to take a risk.

 

Owners are often their own worst enemies. If they're in the CL or the Premiership, they want to maintain those financial rewards, but it's like they're acting in some parallel universe where nothing goes wrong and they're never going to drop out of the top four or get relegated. When that happens, they're in trouble.

 

I can't see it changing unfortunately, because clubs tend to act out of their own, short-term interests, but a more equitable distribution of TV money (as I think happens in American sports) would make life a lot easier all round.

[Colocho]

Loving this thread.

[ToonTastic]

If a club wants to stay financially stable the simple answer is contract clauses. Clauses for going up, down, top half table, bottom half and Europe. Club then knows it's costs regardless of where it is in the league. Clubs have made excuses of player wages for too long.

[midds]

Both Real Madrid and Barcelona are in favor of the rules too. Can't see a breakaway happening.

 

The rules obviously don't restrict their present finances in any way then.

 

They don't. Both clubs (bar Barça this season) have been posting "profits" every season and would cruise through the regulations. The debt has been growing in both cases.

 

What's their trick then?

 

Remember getting a load of shit on here for suggesting that there may be a loophole which the bigger clubs would exploit to get around the rules a few months back...