meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,253
Exactly and Scudamore was no different. It’s always been down to the clubs. The difference potentially now is owners that actually want to invest may soon be the majority.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Exactly and Scudamore was no different. It’s always been down to the clubs. The difference potentially now is owners that actually want to invest may soon be the majority.
Tbf the cunts making the rules never actually envisaged relegation.I’m not sure they are exploiting a loophole.
If those are the rules that’s fine.
If the bent bastards who make the rules can’t get their act together it’s their fault- it’s not a loophole.
Still around mate. Here and twitter. I tend to read more than I write :)Try https://bluecitybrain.substack.com/p/manchester-citys-202223-finances for 10 years of figures (but not a commerical partner breakdown) from @BlueBrain (i think - not posted since sept 2023)
I did do a breakdown of 2023 commercial income here @LeonardoDaVnci :
But its very hard to know how much commercial income each sponsor gives. Including Etihad. Its not public knowledge nor is the club required to release it anywhere. A lot of it is my estimates and what I deem to be good sources.
PB, iirc, did an analysis a couple of years ago showing that Spurs spent less of their available funds on players than any other premier club.I was replying to a post which suggested there was no way Spurs had tons of money to spend.
They don't win anything, because they don't spend it.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
How much of that spend possibility goes Glazer style?That does not surprise me at all.
Despite a lack of success, they do generate lots of money, and their new stadium has pushed up their income even more. They were not far off Liverpool in their last accounts.
The difference is that they have always been very careful spenders, so it would not shock me if their wages + player amortisation is much lower than any other club that size.
Rightly or wrongly I have thought that City were almost alone in continual reinvestment into football.
feedmpenzaandhewillscore
Well-Known Member
PB, iirc, did an analysis a couple of years ago showing that Spurs spent less of their available funds on players than any other premier club.
They are over £800 million in debt, they made a £50 million loss in 2022, they made a £61 million loss in 2023. Probably why they took the money for Kane last summer to avoid failing psr. The interest rates going up will have hurt them however they do very well on match day income.
It isn’t.Not sure this is possible to do without knowing the contract length of players, salaries and which players were sold to make up the net spend given that transfer fees are not all equal for ffp purposes.
Time after time people focus just on the statutory accounts which of course tell a picture but they don’t give enough detail to enable anyone without sight on the FFp or PSR submissions to make anything other than back of the fag packet type of calculations.
For instance in Chelsea 21/22 accounts a sum of £70+ million of the overall losses of £120 ish million was player impairment. The question then is which players was that in respect of and then was it a claimed loss either in full or part due to COVID? Or maybe even the forced nature of the sale as an exception just like in those accounts there was some £20 million provision to settle an historic legal matter ( pre dated RAs tenure).
You then have to question how the loss of income from suspended sponsorship deals or the lack of match day and or commercial
I am not for one second saying that in that 21/22 year will be granted concessions but what the Everton written reasons show us is that the PL didnt dismiss the notion of concessions following the Ukraine invasion in Everton case there simply wasn’t any clear evidence that contracts were in place.
As I say statutory accounts are one thing but none of us have a clue what the submissions to the football authorities are. After all who would think that Everton’s £320 million losses over the 18/19, 19/20+ 20/21 average and 21/22 would ever be reduced for PSR purposes down to £124 million
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I thought it was about having a double sided bar and a Go Kart track?Yes but they don’t win anything. Is that not what top level sport is about? If you can generate that level of income, you need to be judged on silverware. Zip so it don’t matter how much they make.
;)
All those clubs that don’t have ” soft loans ” will be massively impacted with the huge rise in borrowing costs.They are over £800 million in debt, they made a £50 million loss in 2022, they made a £61 million loss in 2023. Probably why they took the money for Kane last summer to avoid failing psr. The interest rates going up will have hurt them however they do very well on match day income.
One Australia bank charges about 4-5% above base and for the likes of Everton that owe that entity alone £150 million ( there are other loans they have on their books) it is estimated that to service t loans not obtained for infrastructure alone is costing them £25 -£30 million pa . Bearing in mind that their turnover is circa £180 million that is going to hurt.
I believe significant number of clubs have used lenders to advance cash flow Everton as I say, Bournemouth and Leicester to name just two more
Yes but the debt is all about the stadium and does not affect ffp. Are operating profits healthy.? Ebitda, that is.They are over £800 million in debt, they made a £50 million loss in 2022, they made a £61 million loss in 2023. Probably why they took the money for Kane last summer to avoid failing psr. The interest rates going up will have hurt them however they do very well on match day income.