Finances 2012

[Dokko]

Sorry to start a new thread (been a while) but i'm wondering with all these transfer expectations, where is the money coming from?

 

Last we heard (forgive me if I'm wrong) is the board said we were self sufficient and Ashley won't be putting any more money in to the club, is that still true? If so, where are we, what we got? Can we afford a Douglas and a Debuchy, can we afford a Carroll on top of that? Is Ashley counting on Euro money (prize and gates for at least the group stages) as its not really that much, was Cisse out of last years budget or this years? I really don't think were budgeting for a sale of a top player, but on the other hand are we budgeting to bring in any significant player this summer? IIRC there hasn't been much call from Pardew to say we need this or that, again i may have missed an article. Smithless were in a much better position, but is that enough to justify a first team player since we went so long without him?

 

I'm certainly not panicking or trying to stir that kind of thought, just trying to get it clear in my head where we should be.

 

 

PS: If we've got no money and this is posturing, glad we got Bigi, Amalfitano, Sammy, Vuckic & Tav, maybe that has changed our thought a bit, we've seen a lot of them this pre-season, more than we thought would happen.

[Disco]

I would imagine this has something to do with it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/13/premier-league-tv-rights-3-billion-sky-bt

[Dokko]

I would imagine this has something to do with it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/13/premier-league-tv-rights-3-billion-sky-bt

 

If i were a club owner i'd be committing money to players on low wages, potential, possibilities, therefore when next season comes around and everyone has money we can sell on players who cost us less. Everyone will have money, the market will rise for players, it really shouldn't calm our habits.

[Disco]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ovdX3eWmlZU/T2g9Xwt5xRI/AAAAAAAAFZg/7yhcd0ftCKM/s400/7%2BNewcastle%2BProfit.jpg

 

We were near breaking even last time out anyway, we've lost a few high fixed costs wages and spent fuck all thus far, add the new sponsorship deal which is a lot higher and a result would surely be we'll have some money available I'd imagine. Plus, as I alluded too with little threat of relegation there is a big TV to bank against plus as you've said potentially a few extra home games where we turn over a canny amount.

[Dave]

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/newcastle-united-life-in-northern-town.html

 

Have a read.

[gbandit]

Do we know how many other PL clubs are so close to operating either in profit or not making a loss? Only -3.9 mill for 2011 is awesome when you look at the previous years and you can only imagine it will improve for 2012.

[Dave]

But generally as I said the other week, I'm still expecting at least one high value, unpopular sale.

[Disco]

Do we know how many other PL clubs are so close to operating either in profit or not making a loss? Only -3.9 mill for 2011 is awesome when you look at the previous years and you can only imagine it will improve for 2012.

 

Off the top of my head, last time out it was Arsenal, WBA and Wolves.

[gbandit]

Do we know how many other PL clubs are so close to operating either in profit or not making a loss? Only -3.9 mill for 2011 is awesome when you look at the previous years and you can only imagine it will improve for 2012.

 

Off the top of my head, last time out it was Arsenal, WBA and Wolves.

Cheers, not at all surprised about Arsenal

[Disco]

Do we know how many other PL clubs are so close to operating either in profit or not making a loss? Only -3.9 mill for 2011 is awesome when you look at the previous years and you can only imagine it will improve for 2012.

 

Off the top of my head, last time out it was Arsenal, WBA and Wolves.

Cheers, not at all surprised about Arsenal

 

Bit of an overview here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/23/premier-league-accounts-profit-debt and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/9255617/Revealed-the-financial-health-of-the-Premier-League-laid-bare.html

[Dokko]

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/newcastle-united-life-in-northern-town.html

 

Have a read.

 

I read half. 

 

May go back tomorrow but really was around where i was from last season, not adding any forecasts for this season. Still a good read, cheers.

[gbandit]

Sunderland are in awful shape based on those telegraph stats, Chelsea typically disgusting and Tottenham impressive as well. I think while Levy is around, Tottenham are going to be a top 6 team pretty much every year

[Pilko]

COULD A SLOWER TRANSFER MARKET LEAD TO FEWER MANAGERS BEING GIVEN THE BOOT?

 

Progress for most teams in the transfer market this summer has been slower than Emile Heskey carrying his food shopping up a hill. So far, aside from Champions League winners Chelsea, no side in the Premier League has made a plethora of big signings this summer. The lower amount of signings made means that less money has been spent, on average, by each club (whether or not you disregard the exception of Chelsea), and many teams have a squad that closely resembles the one they finished last season with. There’s just no value out there at the moment – the buzzword is not ‘bargain’, but ‘brinkmanship’. Everyone is waiting for the final few days of the window, for the selling teams to lower their asking prices, and for the buying teams to blink and increase their offers. But, as each manager seems to have spent relative peanuts so far this summer, could this mean we see less knee-jerk sackings? What if the unthinkable were to happen: what if we got to January 1 with the same twenty Premier League managers in post? Or, what if we even get there with all 92 Football League managers still on their respective payrolls?

 

The reality is, we probably won’t get out of August before some poor sap is shunted out of his office.

 

With the Financial Fair Play rules looming, it seems most chairmen are ensuring that their finances are in order and that their club can ‘wipe it’s own face’ before committing any significant outlay on new players. In a sense, the market has stagnated because the buyers need to be extra-careful to not spend too much, and the sellers need to be certain they have received a good amount for their assets. The transfer window at present resembles the opening few rounds of a boxing match – neither contender (in a prospective deal) wanting to commit too much or give too much away, preferring to suss each other out and become more assertive later on.

 

Any manager under pressure in the opening months of the season can now point to the inability to strengthen their squad as a reason why results might be suffering. You can bet your bottom dollar than in May, pretty much every manager in the country drew up a list of potential transfer targets for the chief scout and negotiating team to work on over the summer. When very few (or none) of the players on this list are acquired, the manager can say that he knew the team would need strengthening to reach the goals set out by the chairman, and shift some of the blame off his own shoulders.

 

The flip-side of this, however, is that due to the massive amounts of money available for succeeding in the modern game, chairmen are under much more pressure for their team to deliver. The difference in prize money between each Premier League place is over £1m; the costs of relegation absolutely staggering (even with parachute payments). Even at the other end of the table, the financial rewards of competing in the Champions League are absolutely massive. After even a few bad results and performances, you can see why a lot of chairmen start to worry, and make knee-jerk firings that are all too common these days. The modern game of football is an incredibly fickle and short-term affair, which definitely stems from the large amounts of money that are banded about by cash-rich clubs. FFP will probably make absolutely no difference to the likes of Manchester City and Chelsea’s spending power, as they will undoubtedly find loopholes around the regulations that will come into force, meaning they can continue to skew the gap between the top of the table and ‘the rest’.

 

The verdict is that sadly, a slow transfer market will probably not make one iota of difference to a twitchy trigger finger on a concerned chairman, and in all honesty will most likely be used as a stick to verbally beat the chairman with when the unhappy gaffer is sent packing. That’s modern football for you – it’s a blame game above all else.

 

http://ennyoueffsee.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/could-a-slower-transfer-market-lead-to-fewer-managers-being-given-the-boot/

[Dave]

fewer

[James]

COULD A SLOWER TRANSFER MARKET LEAD TO LESS MANAGERS BEING GIVEN THE BOOT?

 

Progress for most teams in the transfer market this summer has been slower than Emile Heskey carrying his food shopping up a hill. So far, aside from Champions League winners Chelsea, no side in the Premier League has made a plethora of big signings this summer. Less signings made means that less money has been spent, on average, by each club (whether or not you disregard the exception of Chelsea), and many teams have a squad that closely resembles the one they finished last season with. There’s just no value out there at the moment – the buzzword is not ‘bargain’, but ‘brinkmanship’. Everyone is waiting for the final few days of the window, for the selling teams to lower their asking prices, and for the buying teams to blink and increase their offers. But, as each manager seems to have spent relative peanuts so far this summer, could this mean we see less knee-jerk sackings? What if the unthinkable were to happen: what if we got to January 1 with the same twenty Premier League managers in post? Or, what if we even get there with all 92 Football League managers still on their respective payrolls?

 

The reality is, we probably won’t get out of August before some poor sap is shunted out of his office.

 

With the Financial Fair Play rules looming, it seems most chairmen are ensuring that their finances are in order and that their club can ‘wipe it’s own face’ before committing any significant outlay on new players. In a sense, the market has stagnated because the buyers need to be extra-careful to not spend too much, and the sellers need to be certain they have received a good amount for their assets. The transfer window at present resembles the opening few rounds of a boxing match – neither contender (in a prospective deal) wanting to commit too much or give too much away, preferring to suss each other out and become more assertive later on.

 

Any manager under pressure in the opening months of the season can now point to the inability to strengthen their squad as a reason why results might be suffering. You can bet your bottom dollar than in May, pretty much every manager in the country drew up a list of potential transfer targets for the chief scout and negotiating team to work on over the summer. When very few (or none) of the players on this list are acquired, the manager can say that he knew the team would need strengthening to reach the goals set out by the chairman, and shift some of the blame off his own shoulders.

 

The flip-side of this, however, is that due to the massive amounts of money available for succeeding in the modern game, chairmen are under much more pressure for their team to deliver. The difference in prize money between each Premier League place is over £1m; the costs of relegation absolutely staggering (even with parachute payments). Even at the other end of the table, the financial rewards of competing in the Champions League are absolutely massive. After even a few bad results and performances, you can see why a lot of chairmen start to worry, and make knee-jerk firings that are all too common these days. The modern game of football is an incredibly fickle and short-term affair, which definitely stems from the large amounts of money that are banded about by cash-rich clubs. FFP will probably make absolutely no difference to the likes of Manchester City and Chelsea’s spending power, as they will undoubtedly find loopholes around the regulations that will come into force, meaning they can continue to skew the gap between the top of the table and ‘the rest’.

 

The verdict is that sadly, a slow transfer market will probably not make one iota of difference to a twitchy trigger finger on a concerned chairman, and in all honesty will most likely be used as a stick to verbally beat the chairman with when the unhappy gaffer is sent packing. That’s modern football for you – it’s a blame game above all else.

 

http://ennyoueffsee.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/could-a-slower-transfer-market-lead-to-less-managers-being-given-the-boot/

 

Interesting.

 

With clubs penny pinching this year, and more money expected to be available next year, this year could actually offer good value if we were to spendnow against next season's income - avoiding next summer's increased prices/wages.

[loki679]

fewer

 

Was just about to post the same.  It's one of those little things that really bugs me.

 

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/less-or-fewer

[Pilko]

Amended. Quite bad of me seeing as I'm about to commence my second year of degree level English.

[leffe186]

So, Chelsea in "profit" then:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20270934

 

I presumed this was thanks to "commercial" deals like that Gazprom one, but

 

According to their statement, Chelsea made significant profits (£28.8M)...in the transfer market

 

Yet the article states that in the given time period they bought Hazard, Mata and Cahill, among others, "without any major sales." Am I missing something here?

[ChrisMcQuillan]

So, Chelsea in "profit" then:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20270934

 

I presumed this was thanks to "commercial" deals like that Gazprom one, but

 

According to their statement, Chelsea made significant profits (£28.8M)...in the transfer market

 

Yet the article states that in the given time period they bought Hazard, Mata and Cahill, among others, "without any major sales." Am I missing something here?

 

Could be some account fiddling.  Adding the value of the incoming transfer to the value of the squad overall, therefore negating the transfer fee and absorbing it into the "equity" of the club, so to speak.

[Si]

So, Chelsea in "profit" then:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20270934

 

I presumed this was thanks to "commercial" deals like that Gazprom one, but

 

According to their statement, Chelsea made significant profits (£28.8M)...in the transfer market

 

Yet the article states that in the given time period they bought Hazard, Mata and Cahill, among others, "without any major sales." Am I missing something here?

 

Could be some account fiddling.  Adding the value of the incoming transfer to the value of the squad overall, therefore negating the transfer fee and absorbing it into the "equity" of the club, so to speak.

 

John Terry won't like the fact that they are in the black this year.

[OzzieMandias]

So, Chelsea in "profit" then:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20270934

 

I presumed this was thanks to "commercial" deals like that Gazprom one, but

 

According to their statement, Chelsea made significant profits (£28.8M)...in the transfer market

 

Yet the article states that in the given time period they bought Hazard, Mata and Cahill, among others, "without any major sales." Am I missing something here?

 

I think the income (swollen via Champions League victory) has been banked and the outgoings deferred.

 

It is the first time in Roman Abramovich's nine-year tenure that the club has declared a profit; it has been able to do so thanks to winning a first Champions League title, the prize the Russian billionaire coveted since he set foot in Stamford Bridge in 2003, and the fact that much of this summer's spending spree falls into next year's results. The club has also shed high-earners such as Didier Drogba and Nicolas Anelka from its wage bill.

 

Were Chelsea to make an early exit from the Champions League and with the cost of recruiting such players as Eden Hazard and Oscar – even though the fees will be spread over the length of their contracts – and then paying them, the club will face a sizeable task to repeat their slim profit next year.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/chelsea-edge-into-profit--but-risk-big-loss-in-2013-8301468.html

[TherealnorthernTOON]

Wouldn't mind selling one of our assets for some big money tbf. The staff has shown that they can work wonders with any funds comming in. Just as long as it ain't HBA, he is pretty much the player that differs us from the clog of the average teams.

[Ikon]

We wont use much of the money anyway so no thanks.

[Mole_Toonfan]

We wont use much of the money anyway so no thanks.

 

We used the Carroll money so i don't see why not

[Guest palnese]

We wont use much of the money anyway so no thanks.

 

We used the Carroll money so i don't see why not

 

We did? On who? Cisse and Anita?