malg
Well-Known Member
..if no one turned up to any of their games.
Not seen this on here before. So, were superfluous!
Not seen this on here before. So, were superfluous!
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.
10 PL clubs would have made a profit last year....
- Thread starter malg
- Start date
FantasyIreland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 64,708
Is there an article to be linked?
malg
Well-Known Member
Just been on the BBC World Service. Surprisingly I've just heard their fuller report and it appears we may not be one of them, or the Rags!Is there an article to be linked?
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 16,515
City were NOT one of them. The article goes on to cite City as one of the teams that would have been UNPROFITABLE without gate receipts, so you were NOT superfluous...or at least your ticket revenue wasn’t!!!
From the BBC:
Another interesting graphic was the fact that United had £581M in turnover, which was compared to 23 Championship teams at £692M (Barnsley did not report).
Just goes to show the gulf between the two leagues and why promotion (and relegation to a slightly lesser extent due to parachute payments) is so vital to teams attempting to grow and fund their future.
From the BBC:
None of the Premier League's top five money makers - Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea - would have made a profit without matchday incomes being included.
"Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool have each expanded their ground capacity in recent years, and because they do not have benevolent owners in the same vein as Chelsea and Manchester City, matchday income is essential as a means of providing funding for investment in the playing squad in terms of both wages and transfer fees," Maguire said.
Another interesting graphic was the fact that United had £581M in turnover, which was compared to 23 Championship teams at £692M (Barnsley did not report).
Just goes to show the gulf between the two leagues and why promotion (and relegation to a slightly lesser extent due to parachute payments) is so vital to teams attempting to grow and fund their future.
Last edited:
The Stockport Iniesta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,845
I'd imagine every PL club could make a profit without match day income if they wanted to.
denislawsbackheel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 25,291
- Team supported
- We went to Rotherham…
I'd imagine every PL club could make a profit without match day income if they wanted to.
You ought to put the BBC in their place then.
Read the report here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44850888
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,232
Only because City had 13 months expenditure included and therefore only recorded a very small profit.City were NOT one of them. The article goes on to cite City as one of the teams that would have been UNPROFITABLE without gate receipts, so you were NOT superfluous...or at least your ticket revenue wasn’t!!!
From the BBC:
Another interesting graphic was the fact that United had £581M in turnover, which was compared to 23 Championship teams at £692M (Barnsley did not report).
Just goes to show the gulf between the two leagues and why promotion (and relegation to a slightly lesser extent due to parachute payments) is so vital to teams attempting to grow and fund their future.
quiet_riot
Well-Known Member
So that extra few quid they squeezed out of us made little difference? Huh, who knew?
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 16,515
£1M IIRC, but I didn’t provide any analysis, just what the BBC provided from the report.Only because City had 13 months expenditure included and therefore only recorded a very small profit.