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.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.
I was replying to a post which suggested there was no way Spurs had tons of money to spend.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.
Masters is an employee of the Premier League, which is owned by the 20 clubs in it.
However, with ManUre, the Dippers, ArseAnal & Spuds having power so heavily weighted in their favour, it's fair to say that Masters is merely the Cartel clubs' puppet.
They tell him to jump, he asks how high. They tell him to bend over, he asks dry or vaseline today. That's his job & if he doesn't like it, there are several arse-licking yes men waiting in the wings who're more than happy to replace him & take their orders from the Red Mafia & Spuds.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's a red shills account. A complete buffoon.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.
Long term debt especially now that interest rates rise seem to be an acceptable form of funding.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.
Grrrr. They are and from memory I think Levy negotiated a fixed rate 25 year deal re the stadium debtYes but the debt is all about the stadium and does not affect ffp. Are operating profits healthy.? Ebitda, that is.
Debt free or soft loans are not a million miles apart save when the owners want out.Long term debt especially now that interest rates rise seem to be an acceptable form of funding.
City seem to avoid this and prefer debt free. Has this preference been justified after income streams worsened during covid years or is it just less of a risk?
FFP rules are like a tracker mortgage, they fluctuate, they change and are not set in stone, hence the complete mess the Premier League finds itself in.
I find it highly amusing how it's turned into a soup sandwich in a heartbeat.
I blame the rags. If only they did things the utd way and didn't balls it up on and off field post taggart FFP would be untouched.