Fantasy house prices

StevieJ

Emy1501 wrote: »

Cant see where I said their net spend was the highest in the league I said they bought the club with debt and they then bought a lot of players using more debt

came alond bought the clubs an loaded with debt and then spents lots on players

Spent lots on players I was merely pointing out that the 'lots' was less than teams like Stoke City.

United have only spent 22 million in five years easily financed out of current profits.

BritRael

Emy1501 wrote: »

Bnaks did not like it because they realised that the model was not sustainable unless you finshed in the top 4 every year I assume. Once they started falling down the league and the money from CL etc dried up then the model became unsustainable.....

Although again I agree in principle with your analogy, the above summary is chronologically wrong; we 'started falling down the league' because the banks pulled the plug, not the other way around. As I said before, it could happen to anybody when a cash flow problem is inflicted upon them. Much the same as our banks themselves (albeit that was self-inflicted); if the government had not bailed them out with our money where would they be?

Also, no top football clubs' model is sustainable unless they finish high enough in the league.

Emy1501

BritRael wrote: »

Although again I agree in principle with your analogy, the above summary is chronologically wrong; we 'started falling down the league' because the banks pulled the plug, not the other way around. As I said before, it could happen to anybody when a cash flow problem is inflicted upon them. Much the same as our banks themselves (albeit that was self-inflicted); if the government had not bailed them out with our money where would they be?

Also, no top football clubs' model is sustainable unless they finish high enough in the league.

I'm not going to doubt you as a supporter. I was basing the opinion on what I read.

As for no top football clubs model is sustainable unless they finish high enough in the league, Arsenal's model is based on they are sustainable as long as they do not go down. Of course many will say the are under achieving as they will not spend the money on player. Wenger will say too many premiership clubs are spending money they have not got. Wenger been talking like a bear on here for a while now even before the credt crunch.

It will will be interesting to see whether United's more risky approach or the Arsenals more prudent approach works in years to come. A bit like all those bears who have saved hard and watched all the bull taking on loads of debt and saying my time will come soon.

julieq

Chelsea are far more interesting. They borrowed money massively from their owner, constructed a winning team, got costs under control, and are now debt free.

No doubt while this was going on initially there were mutterings of "unsustainable" and "what happens when Roman stops pouring money into the club" and "they'd have crashed had it not been for all that artificial spending", but it seems to have worked nicely as a stimulus, no?

Cleaver

macaque wrote: »

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages-and-homes/house-prices/article.html?in_article_id=497308

Average incomes in the UK are around £25k and falling (due to rising unemployment and pay cuts in the private sector). The average income of a 'would be' first time buyer is probably only 60% of this, i.e. £15k.

Sorry if this has already been said as I haven't read through the thread, but if I were earning around £7 an hour (like the 'first time buyer' in your example) I wouldn't be worried about buying a house.

I'd be looking at putting some of my earnings towards qualifications, career development and many other methods to better my job and earn a higher wage. After doing this for three or four years, and hopefully earning more money, I would then look towards a house if that was still an aim of mine.

I'm sorry to sound like a pompous and elitist moron, but should anyone earning just a quid over the minimum wage be thinking about purchasing property? I don't mean morally or ethically (which is a different debate), I mean in the real world. I certainly wouldn't be: as above, I'd have different priorities in life and they wouldn't be centred around buying a house.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm sorry to sound like a pompous and elitist moron, but should anyone earning just a quid over the minimum wage be thinking about purchasing property? I don't mean morally or ethically (which is a different debate), I mean in the real world. I certainly wouldn't be: as above, I'd have different priorities in life and they wouldn't be centred around buying a house.

Depends where they live.

You can buy a small flat for 50K within 45 minutes of where I live, or a 3 bed place for under 90K. The mortgage would be cheaper than rent.

Well within reach of someone on 15K a year. Or a couple on 30K combined for the bigger place.

Of course, there are other places where the supply and demand imbalance is more severe where such prices are impossibly low. But someone on £7 an hour could no doubt find a similarly paid job somewhere prices are cheaper.

Affordable housing is available in the UK. Just not in the areas where supply does not keep up with demand.

Mr.Brown_4

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well within reach of someone on 15K a year. Or a couple on 30K combined for the bigger place.

For once I agree with you Hamish. Perhaps there is too much whinging from the lower classes on this occasion. I have spent this afternoon running some numbers through my calculator and have realised for a typical family I have been a bit too pessimistic.

Take Mr. Brown on £7 per hour.
And Mrs. brown - part time - also £7 per hour.
There's Grandpa Brown with his paper round and odd jobs - say £3 per hour for c. 10 hours a week.
Son Brown on apprenticeship, but also getting paid £5 per hour.
Daughter Brown - hairdressing £6 hour plus occasional tips.

They could easily afford a one bed flat in a poorer part of the country, and as you say, they could move jobs simply from one area to another.

Too much moaning and not enough get up off your @ss these days.

phil_b_2

Emy1501 wrote: »

I also know people who just went in and were asked how much do you want it does not matter how much you earn.

I dont think it was ever THAT easy.

chucky

phil_b wrote: »

I dont think it was ever THAT easy.

it is if you only read this posts on this forum though :eek:

Cleaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Depends where they live.

You can buy a small flat for 50K within 45 minutes of where I live, or a 3 bed place for under 90K. The mortgage would be cheaper than rent.

Well within reach of someone on 15K a year.

This may be true on paper, but not in the real world. When I've got a bit more time and energy I will demonstrate my point with a well thought out and reasoned piece that will take your breath away. You may have to wait until Thursday though, as I have a bit of a busy week. However, in the style of Brit, let me present to you a picture of a poor person who can't afford a house. Hopefully this will do in place of an argument for now.