Rupert Murdoch must be very worried that someone far wealthier and potentially more powerful and influential than him has turned up. God forbid that City should break away from the Sky premiership contract and own their own broadcasting rights...that would certainly weaken his hand. I hope the shiek has somebody working on City's media profile because it's taking a battering from the minions of that horrible git at the moment.
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.
SSN and The Times
- Thread starter Citizen Green
- Start date
I'm sick of the Media and all the associated Bullshit... They guess and throw a figure around. Only the board of Directors know for sure what we have spent. We need to start suing these sensationilists for what they are saying. Where we used to be everyone's second favourite club , they now want to knock us down. How dare the Shiek and his Team have ambition. How dare City try and break the Monopoly of the so called "Sky 4"..... Jealousy Fook the lot of em!
projectriver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,376
alera said:It sounds alot because it is. But if you look at other clubs looking for investment in comparison its quite interesting. Lets look at Liverpool from an investment point of view. The yanks want £650 million to buy the club. Going on £400 million of debt.
£350 - £400 million MINIMUM to build the new stadium in stanley park - which they needed badly 3 years ago.
Thats 1.5 billion before you spend a penny on players and its clear they are going to need a major squad rebuild if they want to challenge for the title and to get back into the champions league again. You could spend £2 billion on Liverpool to get them where Utd and Arsenal are now in terms of infreastructure and you could argue squad and youth setup.
Even then you would still have a stadium hemmed in on every side - no scope for extra development and revenue potential Vs hundred of acres for pennies or free from th council within 10 minutes of the country second city + a mandate to do whatever our owners want. Vs Militant bordering communist Liverpool city council worst run in the country that are obstructive to virtually everything proposed in that city.
Plus Liverpool has exceptionaly poor demograhics as a city as a whole when you consider Liverpool vs Manchester. Liverpools population has been in decline for 40 years 600,000 people in a city built for over a million. Vs Manchester which has one of the fastest growing populations conurbation wise outside the south east.
Liverpool is also one of the poorest regions in the country per capita, yet they are deprived parts of Manchester some of the poorest in the country but large areas of Greater Manchester the south in particular and close surrounding areas are very affluent in comparison to Merseyside.
Our owners are not idiots, after the rags, Arsenal, Chelsea (due to land values) city were by far the best investment opportunity LONG TERM still available. Which is why we got this takeover and Liverpool didnt.
Although I agree with what you say about Liverpool as a place/council, your numbers are nonsense.
Liverpool will never be sold right now for £650m - more like £250m on a debt/cash free basis. The £650m "pie in the sky" valuation, often quoted is the number inc. debt. The new stadium could be built for half the £400m you are suggesting.
Whichever way you look at the deal with Sheik Mansour it was not about long term "investment" potential or financial return. With the spending already made it would take 20 years of sustained success at the highest levels to be able to get to zero. The club will generate revenues of around £90m this year (at best) and has a wage bill alone of over £130m. Add on the cost of goods sold, running costs and all the other costs and you have a business that this year will lose £80-100m. IF we win something and qualify for the Champions League we could reduce these losses next season by £30-40m. It will take billions of "investment" followed by writing off/conversion to equity of all that money before the club can generate profits on a standalone, if ever.
The story is not made up bull. Its pretty accurate relative to most of the crap the Times has been writing recently. But who cares, its not our money. As a standalone business the club has been effectively broke and reliant on 3rd party funding for a long, long time. Fortunately we have the best third party funder anyone could want.
Rammyblues
Well-Known Member
Don't know why everyone is so upset about the amount of investment our owner has pumped into the club whether it be half a billion three quaters of a billion or even a billion, I suspect by next year when the developement of the ground and surrounding area hopefully starts that figure will be chicken feed in comparison. Our owner and his associate companies earn 200m profit a day, what he has put into the club doesn't even amount to a weeks profits. Forget the press be pleased that we have an owner who is prepared to back this club to the hilt in every type of investment possible, to put a smile back on our faces and believe that at last we have something we can be truly proud of. I for one am chuffed to mintballs where we are now and just wish I was in my early twenties to be around when our club becomes the biggest and best football club in the world. (Checks drugs cabinet for elixire of life).
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
Who gives a shit !!!!!!!!!
Does HH seem concerned ??
Thought not, otherwise we`d have been doing a Fergie and spending peanuts.
Time will come when its NOT an option,but let the owners and all connected at City worry about the future.
In faith I have !!
Does HH seem concerned ??
Thought not, otherwise we`d have been doing a Fergie and spending peanuts.
Time will come when its NOT an option,but let the owners and all connected at City worry about the future.
In faith I have !!
malg
Well-Known Member
Welcome to Bluemoon, although I wouldn't guarantee a welcome from others! I definitely agree with your point about not taking european opposition too lightly! I thought some of the press coverage of your CL draw against Young Boys was reminiscent of the coverage of England World Cup draw (EASY).marcspurs said:All those wanting Spurs to lose last night should think again..... if we don't make the group stages there is a chance that the PL could lose a CL place... would it not be ironic if you finished 4th and missed out cos we cocked up in the play-off?? Be careful what you wish for......
Good luck Thursday..... let our game be a warning.... there are no easy away days in Europe.... unless you play a Scottish team (sorry to all the Scottish people on here but the standard north of the border is dire)....
Reference the article in the Times and SSN...it's the Murdoch press for FFS!
Rammyblues
Well-Known Member
All those wanting Spurs to lose last night should think again..... if we don't make the group stages there is a chance that the PL could lose a CL place... would it not be ironic if you finished 4th and missed out cos we cocked up in the play-off?? Be careful what you wish for......
Good luck Thursday..... let our game be a warning.... there are no easy away days in Europe.... unless you play a Scottish team (sorry to all the Scottish people on here but the standard north of the border is dire)....
I personally did not want to see you fail it will make your chances of retaining the top four a lot harder if you do get into the group stages and beyond because of the extra games and travelling. Having said that I may be in the minority but I would rather you qualify to CL next year as well as ourselves and maybe have Arsenal or the Rags out of the cosy top four that they have occupied for so long.
City Raider
Well-Known Member
Sky alone are responsible for the ridiculous state of financial affairs in English football. They bludgeoned in, threw money at it and changed the face of football forever.
And who benefitted most? Manchester United, constantly spending more than anyone until Abramovitch came along. So what on earth Fergie is prattling on about, I don't know. Hypocrites all.
Sky created the climate where it is impossible to compete without major finance, now they're worried a bigger player is calling the shots. They've lost control.
And who benefitted most? Manchester United, constantly spending more than anyone until Abramovitch came along. So what on earth Fergie is prattling on about, I don't know. Hypocrites all.
Sky created the climate where it is impossible to compete without major finance, now they're worried a bigger player is calling the shots. They've lost control.
projectriver said:alera said:It sounds alot because it is. But if you look at other clubs looking for investment in comparison its quite interesting. Lets look at Liverpool from an investment point of view. The yanks want £650 million to buy the club. Going on £400 million of debt.
£350 - £400 million MINIMUM to build the new stadium in stanley park - which they needed badly 3 years ago.
Thats 1.5 billion before you spend a penny on players and its clear they are going to need a major squad rebuild if they want to challenge for the title and to get back into the champions league again. You could spend £2 billion on Liverpool to get them where Utd and Arsenal are now in terms of infreastructure and you could argue squad and youth setup.
Even then you would still have a stadium hemmed in on every side - no scope for extra development and revenue potential Vs hundred of acres for pennies or free from th council within 10 minutes of the country second city + a mandate to do whatever our owners want. Vs Militant bordering communist Liverpool city council worst run in the country that are obstructive to virtually everything proposed in that city.
Plus Liverpool has exceptionaly poor demograhics as a city as a whole when you consider Liverpool vs Manchester. Liverpools population has been in decline for 40 years 600,000 people in a city built for over a million. Vs Manchester which has one of the fastest growing populations conurbation wise outside the south east.
Liverpool is also one of the poorest regions in the country per capita, yet they are deprived parts of Manchester some of the poorest in the country but large areas of Greater Manchester the south in particular and close surrounding areas are very affluent in comparison to Merseyside.
Our owners are not idiots, after the rags, Arsenal, Chelsea (due to land values) city were by far the best investment opportunity LONG TERM still available. Which is why we got this takeover and Liverpool didnt.
Although I agree with what you say about Liverpool as a place/council, your numbers are nonsense.
Liverpool will never be sold right now for £650m - more like £250m on a debt/cash free basis. The £650m "pie in the sky" valuation, often quoted is the number inc. debt. The new stadium could be built for half the £400m you are suggesting.
Whichever way you look at the deal with Sheik Mansour it was not about long term "investment" potential or financial return. With the spending already made it would take 20 years of sustained success at the highest levels to be able to get to zero. The club will generate revenues of around £90m this year (at best) and has a wage bill alone of over £130m. Add on the cost of goods sold, running costs and all the other costs and you have a business that this year will lose £80-100m. IF we win something and qualify for the Champions League we could reduce these losses next season by £30-40m. It will take billions of "investment" followed by writing off/conversion to equity of all that money before the club can generate profits on a standalone, if ever.
The story is not made up bull. Its pretty accurate relative to most of the crap the Times has been writing recently. But who cares, its not our money. As a standalone business the club has been effectively broke and reliant on 3rd party funding for a long, long time. Fortunately we have the best third party funder anyone could want.
Very well put..... and I have to say it is all well and good having that 3rd party funder, but if you want to play in Europe's top competitions the club being run as it is will be barred from competing from 2012 onwards unless they can show they generate the revenue to cover the costs.... it is no good anymore relying on a 3rd party funder....
You may well point to the Barcas and Madrids of this world, but remember these are European super powers that will ensure they show the figures stack up when it comes to it, far tougher for a team that has been in Europe twice in 20 years, not won anything for 34 years (that Tueart overhead kick is still one of the greatest Wembley goals) and turns over less than a third of these Spanish giants.....UEFA are not stupid.... they know that your revenue streams are not going to double or more in this economic climate without some help from the owner so I would guess they will be monitoring City very closely....
UEFA have already barred Real Mallorca from Europe this season for being in administration at the end of last season (although now under new ownership)..... they won't think twice about "bullying" an unfashionable side....
I am sure the City owners understand this, but the wages are really ridiculous....We have King, Modric, Bale and Keane earning a week what Ya Ya Toure earns on his own!! And we have a turnover in excess of £150m a year (around £60m more than City) and a wage bill of 45% of that turnover..... which proves getting into the top four and running a club within it's means is achievable.....
In terms of perfect investment, we are by far the best in the PL......
No debt, London based (all be it a shit hole of an area), a very young up coming squad, new training centre being built and a new stadium coming soon, there will be little or no borrowing on either of these projects......
In terms of investment we are perfect for it...... new 57,500 stadium by 2013..... no debt and a club although not hugely successful in trophy terms in the last 20 years, have been in Europe five of the last 6 seasons.........