Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Semper aggressus said:
I’d rather the club called them out publicly with questions like ‘Why do you continually write negative articles about City yet when Utd or Liverpool have a big game coming up it’s always positive?’

I wish we were more confrontational.
Click to expand...

They just say they write a lot of positive articles about Man city too..
 
jrb said:
Exactly.

Holt, you tw@t, did the Piss Can ever do the English Domestic Quadruple in 1 season? Imagine Fergie not doing that.

View attachment 74684
Click to expand...

And that kunt Bacon said it was impossible not one article quoted that when we won it! And the first question to pep after winning the domestic quad was are you on the take getting back handers!? Apparently after the press conference he got a pat on the back from a lot of them in there! Now that tells you everything about the media who can’t bring impartiality in to football when they follow another club, it’s full on bitter jealousy!
 
threadkiller said:
You are incorrect. Net spend does not in any way reflect the true cost of buying or owning a player: For one thing, clubs accounts show amortisation of player transfer fee, which is not sufficiently reflected in a simple net spend metric; For another, the fees quoted on transfermarkt are simply the average figures published across various media sources, and can be wildly inaccurate; and finally, the transfer fee is only a portion of the cost of owning a player - wages can be 40-60% of that cost.

Using net spend is a bit like monitoring how much everyone had for breakfast by counting how many eggs they had!
Click to expand...
I dont maintain it reflects the true cost of owning a player, but that does not render it u.s. In the real world as opposed to the world of analysis, player sales bring important income and, unless this has been changed that figure is included in the calculation of the spend ratio allowed under the new rules.
You are mixing analysis up with real world decisions.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Net spend has no impact whatsoever on the bottom line. All transfer activity goes through the balance sheet, bar any profit or loss which does go into the P&L account.

The new rules increase allowable losses to a maximum of €60m over three years and limit player costs, calculated as wage costs of relevant employees + amortisation/impairment + agent fees - profit on sale of players (or + loss on sale), to 90% this season, 80% next season and ultimately 70% from 2024/25.
Click to expand...
Confused, not for the first time. I agree net spend has no direct bottom line effect but, as you say, any profit or loss does go to P&L so player sales income is important. Similarly, player costs calculation include any profit or loss. 70% ratio will be quite challenging for some.
While net spend as a figure is of limited use and accuracy for analysis purposes, I am loath to just ignore an important factor in the real world. Unless we are prepared to examine each club’s accounts, net spend is the only clue we have to their transfer behaviour. I’ll leave that deep work to you and Swiss Ramble and nod to net spend on the way past.
 
KS55 said:
I dont maintain it reflects the true cost of owning a player, but that does not render it u.s. In the real world as opposed to the world of analysis, player sales bring important income and, unless this has been changed that figure is included in the calculation of the spend ratio allowed under the new rules.
You are mixing analysis up with real world decisions.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I'm not! Amortisation is how companies, including football clubs, record spending on assets. If we sign a player for £50 mil, on a 5 Yr contract, and then sell that player 2 years later for £40 mil, how is that recorded? For financial accounting/reporting, including ffp this would go down as a £10m profit. Net spend sees it as a £10m loss!
 
The BBC (Balanced Broadcasting Company) has two articles on tonight’s match.
One asks can Cancelo haunt his parent club.
Another is about Guardiola’s nemesis Tuchel. The article then mentions they have met 10 times with Pep winning six and Turtle 3.
There is a third and better article on Tuchel though
 
Onholiday(somemightsay) said:
Why is football journalisms general line of questioning so limited and poor?

Very very rarely do we come across anything of interest or substance - pathetic waste of oxygen is Paradise................
Click to expand...
City goals against this season 27, German rags 29

Dont suppose the idiot asking the questions did any homework. Probably got high fives from the other gammons in the press room post interview.
 
Onholiday(somemightsay) said:
Why is football journalisms general line of questioning so limited and poor?

Very very rarely do we come across anything of interest or substance - pathetic waste of oxygen is Paradise................
Click to expand...

I see absolutely no point in them whatsoever. All that matters is the ninety minutes on the grass. Nothing of any importance is going to be revealed it's just paying lip service, a load of what it's, how will you cope with this and that, blah blah blah.
Post match yes, although it doesn't alter anything that's just happened.
 
TALKSPORT running a competition to win £5k, advert says ‘if you want to win a slice of Erling Haalands astronomical wage bla bla bla’ …

It’s truly pathetic.

Why didn’t they do that with Ronaldo when he was on like 3-4 times as much at Madrid or Juve. Let’s not forget when he signed for Utd and all we heard was how his shirt sales made the deal worth it. Shirt sales this, shirt sales that, which is a complete load of bollocks because Addidas take the majority of it.

Haaland is currently playing at the level, of the best ever PL striker, at 22 years old! He’s an absolute superstar that will double the clubs global fanbase and shirt sales. AND some people in the media have the balls to question how much he’s paid.
 
Benzino said:
TALKSPORT running a competition to win £5k, advert says ‘if you want to win a slice of Erling Haalands astronomical wage bla bla bla’ …

It’s truly pathetic.

Why didn’t they do that with Ronaldo when he was on like 3-4 times as much at Madrid or Juve. Let’s not forget when he signed for Utd and all we heard was how his shirt sales made the deal worth it. Shirt sales this, shirt sales that, which is a complete load of bollocks because Addidas take the majority of it.

Haaland is currently playing at the level, of the best ever PL striker, at 22 years old! He’s an absolute superstar that will double the clubs global fanbase and shirt sales. AND some people in the media have the balls to question how much he’s paid.
Click to expand...
I heard it last week on that square jawed tarquin bints show. Truly pathetic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top