Man U £100M operating profit, Overall Loss £80M

liam8282

lemonjelly wrote: »

I think that there are some clubs that are being soundly run, and then there are examples like portsmouth, leeds and so on...

To add to the Leeds story....

I know you are talking about the Peter Ridsdale era, but....

Correct me if I am wrong, but Leeds have been running at a profit for the last two accounting periods.

Also I think they should make it a third with the next accounts, because the last accounts did not include the revenue from the cup run and some players sales.

But then us Leeds fans do have to pay premiership prices to watch L1, and now Championship football.

liam8282

StevieJ wrote: »

That is why a wage % of turnover cap would be great, although I guess Chelsea and especially City would not like it.

I have heard about this, but clubs such as Chelsea would be able to make an "exclusive" membership club, with massive membership fees that would boost the turnover.

So basically the membership club would have one member, the owner, and they could charge whatever amount they wanted to put into their club as a membership fee.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

The holding company thing is just a fig leaf though, it doesn't make a club solvent and everyone including the EPL know it. They have made an exception for Liverpool as they don't want a 'big club' in trouble as it will damage the league as a whole (eg increase funding costs for all clubs).

Imagine a situation where I have a holding company which owns 100% of shares in a football club and has a load of debt secured against those shares and the income generated by them. If the holding company can't pay the debts then the bank will repossess the shares (keeping it simple) and put the club it now owns into administration.

Liverpool's structure is basically the same as Portsmouth's was - Portsmouth was owned by a holding company based in the British Virgin Islands, Liverpool is owned by Kop Football Holdings based in Britain.

West Ham?

I disagree liverpool is the same as portsmouth, it is profitable and hitting its debt payments. Portsmouth were making losses and not making payments.
It is the owners that are not hitting (H&G for Kop Holding) payments not the club.

It is very rare any company goes in to administration when it is not in a liquidity crisis. Also putting liverpool into administration makes no sense to RBS.

But this is by th by, RBS have written agreement that says H&G cant replace the board as part of the last finance round.

Cant see any court ruling against the current board TBH, you would have expected RBS to have expected this and made it water tight.

Really2

smk77 wrote: »

That was we've been led to believe based on the West Ham scenario. The article that I linked to was released 16 hours ago so up to date.

I'm not counting my chickens until Hicks is out of LFC forever and Henry is sitting watching the derby..

Me to , but it only says it is a possibility.;)

the EPL whan H&G out, it is bad for the EPL brand, they will doing all they can to get rid of the muppets also.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

By contrast Tottenham, who perhaps could be called the 5th biggest club in England spent £40,000,000 a year a couple of years back.

I bet Harry has turned that round for Tottenham also, he has a habit of doing so. Your squad is huge and will be coming under increased wage demands by the type of players you now have.

How many players have tottenham got now that the historical top 4 and top europe clubs would not like to poach.
That part will be a hurdle for them I think as it will mean sell and recruit or just pay more to compete.

smk77

Really2 wrote: »

Me to , but it only says it is a possibility.;)

the EPL whan H&G out, it is bad for the EPL brand, they will doing all they can to get rid of the muppets also.

It's now on the BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9074311.stm

I'd hope that the premier league saw some sense in this situation. The club has been sold. It's got the 2nd lowest debt in the premiership and is one of the most profitable. It's not exactly a Portsmouth or Leeds situation...

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

That is why a wage % of turnover cap would be great, although I guess Chelsea and especially City would not like it.

I was listening to the radio the other day with all this boson red socks stuff going on.

In baseball they have a wage cap, then handicap it the next season based on success.
Sounds a good way of keeping a league competative.

Really2

smk77 wrote: »

It's now on the BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9074311.stm

I'd hope that the premier league saw some sense in this situation. The club has been sold. It's got the 2nd lowest debt in the premiership and is one of the most profitable. It's not exactly a Portsmouth or Leeds situation...

RBS will have the choice to waive their demand for repayment until the legal dispute is finalised, or call in the debt and place the parent company into administration.

I think I know what RBS will do there, they could end up selling it less than the debt should they get the penalty.

If they lose the case it looks like it might be possibe?

Can't really see what H&G can get out of this though. Come the 15th they either sell or lose even more?

Generali

Really2 wrote: »

I bet Harry has turned that round for Tottenham also, he has a habit of doing so. Your squad is huge and will be coming under increased wage demands by the type of players you now have.

How many players have tottenham got now that the historical top 4 and top europe clubs would not like to poach.
That part will be a hurdle for them I think as it will mean sell and recruit or just pay more to compete.

Is the squad huge? I count 32 players according to Wikipedia, including 2 that are out on loan, one which has been brought in on loan and 2 which are unregistered. Didn't Ars**al name 76 players?

I wouldn't imagine that 'Arry has had much of a chance to increase the wage bill. He's not been a prolific signer of new players and I can't see why he'd control wage negotiations for existing players.

Obviously his reputation proceeds him but it appears that the board have a close eye on spending and I think that the club are assuming that 4th was a one off, not something that is likely to be a regular occurrence.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

Is the squad huge? I count 32 players according to Wikipedia, including 2 that are out on loan, one which has been brought in on loan and 2 which are unregistered. Didn't Ars**al name 76 players?

I wouldn't imagine that 'Arry has had much of a chance to increase the wage bill. He's not been a prolific signer of new players and I can't see why he'd control wage negotiations for existing players.

Obviously his reputation proceeds him but it appears that the board have a close eye on spending and I think that the club are assuming that 4th was a one off, not something that is likely to be a regular occurrence.

I just think you have some really good players at the moment (so a big squad off good plays would be more appropriate than huge I suppose), and are proving their selves.
Wage pressure tends to come internally for top clubs (old players wanting more) not from new player signings.

I would say you have a few players that may want more in the future if they can see they can get more else where.
Look what we pay Stevie G.