Economic downturn but still paying silly money.

drunkenmaster said:
THats where you're wrong, if Man City without Kaka win nothing, but with him win the CL, the League and the cups, thats 100mil in JUST the prize money, another 100mil in tv rights and ticket sales through all the various stages of all those cups, thats EVERY year aswell.

Remember also that say Kaka got 500k a week(which i don't remotely belive tbh, 250k seems more likely), but that makes the club seem serious, now to get say, Sergio Ramos in, without Kaka/Robinho, to persaude him it was worth joining they'd have to offer him 200k, but because Kaka and Robinho are their no persauding is required, he WANTS to join them and they pay him 100k a week instead.

You also need to remember, debt = turnover or income, debt is just that, debt.

if a club makes 100mil in a year through sales and merchandise, and spends 100mil in wages, thats fine, it would break even, if some stupid manager comes along and buys every player available(like redknapp at all clubs he goes to), in that instance you'd need extra cash. Sometimes its investors spending money they have, sometimes its loans, sometimes its multiple things, but mostly you'll find people spending money to make money. They think if they spend 50mil on players they'll do better, win a cup, make that money back, and from the increased position and cup winnings they think they'll sell more tickets and be able to sustain the higher wages they've given out. It all goes balls up when they spend more than they should and then they don't improve and don't increase their incoming money like they had planned to.
Click to expand...

I have rarely read such a complete load of ill-informed absolute rubbish in my life. Well done.
 
sargatanas said:
To the second point, It is NOT greed to ask for a slice of a MASSIVE profit coming in heavily reliant on your performances. You do big things for a big company, you get the reward no?
Click to expand...
But that would mean that the outgoings at the club would have to be less than the incomings else they'd be committing financial suicide. And they are judging by their debt so they (Portsmouth) can't afford to offer players like Pennant £50K per week.
 
Mr-White said:
big name players make their transfer fees back from just selling t-shirts with their name on the back

MW
Click to expand...
Poppycock.

Are Man City going to make £200M from selling KAKA shirts? Heck, they'd have to insist that he uses his real name of Dave De Santos Kakakaramungo on his shirt just so they could charge by the letter and try to make a tenth of their outlay on him.
 
Jeff Lynne said:
Poppycock.

Are Man City going to make £200M from selling KAKA shirts? Heck, they'd have to insist that he uses his real name of Dave De Santos Kakakaramungo on his shirt just so they could charge by the letter and try to make a tenth of their outlay on him.
Click to expand...

Man City are not an example. They are owned by the richest people in the world. As long as that is the case it really doesnt matter.
 
atpbx said:
Its economy of scale though isnt it, Hancock on its own did $645 million worldwide.
Kaka isnt going to generate $645 million worth of turnover for city, even if they win the CL and Prem year in, year out, yet he is going to be paid £15 million a year odd if reports are to be believed.

The rules should be that you cant spend more than earn, and the club should be run out of the income it generates and not from benefactors, I've been saying this since even before Jack walker bought the title with Blackburn. Its the fairest and most equal way of competition, every club started with nothing, People rag on about united being rich and buying the best players, yes, because the club EARNED the money.
Click to expand...

Earned it? its like saying Abromovich shouldn't be allowed to spend his money that he has EARNED. Does it matter if you are owned by a millionaire or can only buy players from the prize money and revenue you generate?

The only way a team can become profitable and earn more money is by buying the best players, as soon as team has promising player he gets snapped up by teams with more money.
 
This thread is about Man City though. The same could be said about the majority of the Premier League spunking money they haven't got on players that they can't afford just to keep up with the Joneses.

Sadly though I'd wager that the opinions on offer here are little more than idealistic nonsense from people who don't regulalrly watch their teams matches let alone have the slightest idea how running a football club works.
 
footballers (even going to the same team) dont want to be 2nd best to anyone - why would A N Other Galatico accept half of what Kaka is on, even if the 2nd player doesnt actually know (like has been stated, press are saying £500k if taxes are paid, but its more likely £250k/wk offshore or tax free) he will use the widely publicised figures as a bargaining tool and even if he "only" gets 2/3 - subsequant transfers at the same level will also

Arsenal are a different kettle of fish, as they have been up there and done it consistantly for 10 years or more (maybe missing out on the odd year, but I dont think so), Man City have never been there - whether you do it once or twice is really irrelevant, you have to do it over and over again year after year and WIN to sustain the wages etc - maybe one year City would come out on top with profit (even though the odds of winning everything are astronomically low even with the best 11 on the planet) but over 38 games in the EPL there will be bans, injuries or just rest days and do you then go out and get the 2nd best XI in the world to cover?

Not to mention the extra games the side has to play for being Champion/FA Cup winners / CL winners etc etc which then cause fixture clashes / congestion just when the team/club doesnt need it, and how well thats coped with comes with experience
 
cheets64 said:
Earned it? its like saying Abromovich shouldn't be allowed to spend his money that he has EARNED. Does it matter if you are owned by a millionaire or can only buy players from the prize money and revenue you generate?
Click to expand...
I disagree with what you're saying here. The FA should have a duty of care to ensure that clubs remain stable and able to sustain themselves without the backing of a sole investor.

Gretna are a good example of why.
 
Jeff Lynne said:
But that would mean that the outgoings at the club would have to be less than the incomings else they'd be committing financial suicide. And they are judging by their debt so they (Portsmouth) can't afford to offer players like Pennant £50K per week.
Click to expand...

Ok maybe i should have said income rather than profit, but the same still applies.
 
Jeff Lynne said:
I disagree with what you're saying here. The FA should have a duty of care to ensure that clubs remain stable and able to sustain themselves without the backing of a sole investor.

Gretna are a good example of why.
Click to expand...

Remember the whole sage over Glazer buying Man United, look how thats turned out.

The FA is a business now and a very big one at that, they are too bothered about pimping the game around the world and even wanted an extra game to be played than to care about a clubs history and its roots.
 
If certain clubs want to blow their money due to a rather rich invester that's fine by me.

In these hard times, I want to see ticket prices and whatnot reduced.
 
Jeff Lynne said:
But that would mean that the outgoings at the club would have to be less than the incomings else they'd be committing financial suicide. And they are judging by their debt so they (Portsmouth) can't afford to offer players like Pennant £50K per week.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much they are committing financial suicide

Utd have a debt of around £650 - £700m , and to service that loan is approximately £30m a year

Pompey have a debt 1/6 -1/7th the size - now while Im sure Pompey didnt get the same % rate, £5m - £10m a year absolute max is what they will be paying on the loan. They will be making 2-3 times that at least from ticket sales home and away, shirt sales, sponserships etc etc - in fact I would be surprised if they didnt make £40m a season or more with the tv money for being in Europe also
 
cheets64 said:
Earned it? its like saying Abromovich shouldn't be allowed to spend his money that he has EARNED. Does it matter if you are owned by a millionaire or can only buy players from the prize money and revenue you generate?

The only way a team can become profitable and earn more money is by buying the best players, as soon as team has promising player he gets snapped up by teams with more money.
Click to expand...


Abramovich isnt the club is he? just like the glaziers are not the club.
Chelsea owe Abramovich and associated investors £736 million.
United owe the Glaziers £746 million.

See, I dont care HOW Abromich spends his money, United have won the league the past two seasons, liverpool are nowhere as usual despite spending a fortune of someone elses cash, and City will get nowhere either.

We WILL see the death of several big name clubs over the next two years, clubs like Boro, West ham, Fulham, Blackburn, all owe vast sums of money, have no real value in their playing squads, or in their physical assets, and all will fall by the waysides because they spent more than they earned and their suger daddies couldnt keep it up.
 
FrankJH said:
I doubt very much they are committing financial suicide

Utd have a debt of around £650 - £700m , and to service that loan is approximately £30m a year

Pompey have a debt 1/6 -1/7th the size - now while Im sure Pompey didnt get the same % rate, £5m - £10m a year absolute max is what they will be paying on the loan. They will be making 2-3 times that at least from ticket sales home and away, shirt sales, sponserships etc etc - in fact I would be surprised if they didnt make £40m a season or more with the tv money for being in Europe also
Click to expand...

Pompey owe 36 million pounds, but have no liquid funds, or saleable assets. their entire squad, and ground, wouldnt fetch £36 million if sold even in todays market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom