RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted January 22, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 22, 2010 Arsenal ? What about the cost of building Ashburton Grove, read somewhere that that was in the region of ??300 million, surely that'd prohibt them. That's the whole thing, pretty much all the clubs in the premier league run on some form of debt nowadays. Different kind of debt I think, at any rate the debt associated with investing in a new stadium is mitigated by the gain in balance sheet value that the asset (ie the stadium brings). in Utd and Liverpools case the debt dosnt have a corresponding asset given that rather than being finance raised for a specific project, it was just the debt from the owners takeover being dumped on the club. The difference is that excluding exceptionals like transfer fees, Arsenal Football Club runs at a profit, whereas MUFC runs at a loss... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Devil Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Different kind of debt I think, at any rate the debt associated with investing in a new stadium is mitigated by the gain in balance sheet value that the asset (ie the stadium brings). in Utd and Liverpools case the debt dosnt have a corresponding asset given that rather than being finance raised for a specific project, it was just the debt from the owners takeover being dumped on the club. The difference is that excluding exceptionals like transfer fees, Arsenal Football Club runs at a profit, whereas MUFC runs at a loss... Wrong on several points, MUFC 'debt' was incurred by the Glazer family purchasing United and placing the debt of their purchase on the club, MUFC (until Glazer ownership) was the most profitable sporting 'franchise'(hate that term) in the world, it's ground improvements (ie along the line of what Arsenal had to do) were paid in for in cash from the balance sheet, no borrowing involved, that was how and why United have a 76,000 seat stadium paid for. United do not run at a loss, they make a profit, any losses are run up by Red Football Limted (the Glazer holding company that's syphoning inthe region of 45 million pounds a year out of Old Trafford for interest payments only.) At the end of the day debt is debt, it still has to be paid for, the difference being is that United are paying for the benefits of Glazer ownership and most Fans don't like itor even want it, Arsenal would be in exactly the same position (actually worse) if either Stan Kronke or Usmanov purchased the club outright and did the same thing. I sincerley hope it doesn't happen. But the debt remains on the balance sheet and is a debt no matter what, it's not a better kind of debt. I don't want to get into another aguement about something that'll never happen, i.e. Eufa banning clubs with debt, because they won't but if they do pretty much everyone is going to be knackered. Platini was on about 'sustainable' debt being ok at one stage so that's what'll happen if anything, and lets face it who's going to want to watch a champions league without all the big boys in it, we already have that and it's called the Europa league and it's hardly setting the world on fire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 ....'sustainable' debt .... *groan* We'll have environmentally-friendly or organic debt next Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Fulham and Birmingham in the Champions { and also rans } league. Oh dear now that is frightening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Fulham and Birmingham in the Champions { and also rans } league. Oh dear now that is frightening. Why? I'd prefer to see one of them than the overpaid, over sexed and over here louts of Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United and Liverpool, anyday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Why? I'd prefer to see one of them than the overpaid, over sexed and over here louts of Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United and Liverpool, anyday. Wouldnt be much chance of an English team winning it then. BUT yes it would make a change. Anyway i dont agree with the competition being called 'Champions ' league when teams finishing 4th can qualify. Should be renamed European super league or go back to the old format, but i think thats been discussed on here before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dseagull Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Hailsham Town 4 - Pagham 1 OG, Brockwell 2, Putland After a delayed kickoff due to problems on the A27, Hailsham took an early lead when a low cross was deflected into the net by Pagham's number 3. A second followed about 10 minutes later - a good move, and a cool finish, curved round 'keeper Hallett by Gary Brockwell. The home support were certainly the happier, whilst Pagham tried to play football, but found the Hailsham defence strong, and in the latter stages of the first half, Brockwell drilled home his second of the match from the edge of the box. With the front two of Brockwell and Putland linking up well, the second half saw an early corner, Brockwell the provider this time, and a towering, far post header from Putland on his debut giving him the goal that he deserved. Hailsham sat back a little after this, Pagham enjoying good spells of possession, but unable to make the breakthrough. Putland and Brockwell made way on the hour mark, and with around 15 to go, Pagham made their possession count - a switched ball, and a fine, volleyed finish. There were further chances for both sides - Barden, Lock and especially sub Dave Harris all close, whilst at the other end, Jenner was kept busy. Well chuffed with the result though, and some really good performances from the always industrious Lewis, as well as another new boy, Andy Ducille, and the front two of Putland and Brockwell. A word for Pagham - 'keeper Wes Hallett was in fine form, denying Brockwell with an acrobatic tip in particular. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Anyway i dont agree with the competition being called 'Champions ' league when teams finishing 4th can qualify. As a matter of interest, which is the lowest placed team to have won the "Champions" League? Bearing in mind that IIRC only England, Spain, Italy and Germany have four entries the others have two. Geoff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 As a matter of interest, which is the lowest placed team to have won the "Champions" League? Bearing in mind that IIRC only England, Spain, Italy and Germany have four entries the others have two. Geoff. Got a funny feeling it might be Liverpool. I know they finished 5th that season, but qualified for the following season due to being holders. That loophole i believe has now been closed.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Claude_Dreyfus Posted January 23, 2010 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 23, 2010 As a matter of interest, which is the lowest placed team to have won the "Champions" League? Bearing in mind that IIRC only England, Spain, Italy and Germany have four entries the others have two. Geoff. A good contender would be Liverpool. They won it in 2005 having finished 4th in the Premiership at the end of the 2003/4 season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 The difference is that excluding exceptionals like transfer fees, Arsenal Football Club runs at a profit, whereas MUFC runs at a loss... Wrong on several points, MUFC 'debt' was incurred by the Glazer family purchasing United and placing the debt of their purchase on the club, MUFC (until Glazer ownership) was the most profitable sporting 'franchise'(hate that term) in the world, ..... ...United do not run at a loss, they make a profit, any losses are run up by Red Football Limted (the Glazer holding company that's syphoning inthe region of 45 million pounds a year out of Old Trafford for interest payments only.) .... Just to clarify the situation. The financial results being talked about are for the year ending June 2009. MUFC revenues were substantially up on previous years at UKL 278 million. Before tax profit was UKL 92 million. After tax profit was UKL 47 million These figures include the Ronaldo deal and substantial payments for the ground extensions (the quadrants). The football club operation still runs at a huge profit (UKL47 million after tax) but the holding company, Red Football, is saddled with the huge debt lumped on it by the Glazers. The overall company profit has been reduced to UKL 6.4 million as a result. The soaring interest charges on part of the loans is causing the damage. These are the Payment-In-Kind loans which have a large rate of rising interest attached to them. The PIK loans have grown from UKL 138 million to UKL 202 million and interest alone for last year alone had grown to UKL 68.5 million. The bond issue that was completed last week, has raised UKL 500 million, but UKL 15 million has gone in bank and lawyers fees for the issue and a further UKL 39 million will have to be paid as a penalty for lost interest in paying loans off early. A huge chunk of the "senior debt" owed in straight loans from the banks, will now be paid off. A large chunk of the PIK's loans will also be able to be paid off to. The challenge will be to reduce the remainder of the PIK loans over the next couple of years. Finally to answer Fatadder's assertion that United don't have equity behind the debt. sorry that's just plain nonsense. The assets of the club are worth a huge amount and the value of the club is still being reported around the billion pound mark. . 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Claude_Dreyfus Posted January 25, 2010 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2010 I don't believe it, Pompey are through to the next round Two wins and a draw so far in the competition, hopefully this will raise the confidence a little to enable us to proess on in the league. Next up in the cup a real humdinger - Southampton vs. Pompey... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I don't believe it, Pompey are through to the next round Two wins and a draw so far in the competition, hopefully this will raise the confidence a little to enable us to proess on in the league. Next up in the cup a real humdinger - Southampton vs. Pompey... Better get 'arry' to go to that game as a pundit !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 If you thought West Ham v Millwall was a bit naughty, Saints v Pompey will make it look like Dominoes Night down at the Legion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Temeraire Posted January 26, 2010 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2010 Saints v Pompey will make it look like Dominoes Night down at the Legion. I doubt it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 Football doesn't make a lot of sense does it. On Saturday Spurs { premiership} drew with Leeds { lge 1 }. 3 days later Spurs Beat Fulham also of the premiership and Leeds lose to Swindon, also of league 1 !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calnefoxile Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 I have just seen on the BBC Sport website that Crystal Palace have been deducted 10 points for going into administration, now this is all fine and dandy and in line with the rules, but my gripe is (and I'm not an Eagles fan) is with the last paragraph of the article http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/crystal_palace/8484824.stm , and I quote "Administrators were appointed earlier this week after the Eagles twice paid players late this season." Can I just ask the questios, HOW MANY TIMES DID POMPEY NOT PAY THEIR PLAYERS ON TIME????? WHY DID THEY NOT END UP IN ADMINISTRATION AND GET 10 POINTS DEDUCTED???? I can answer the 2nd question myself, quite simply. BECAUSE THEY ARE A PREMIERSHIP TEAM, and it wouldn't be good form or good publicity for the Premiership for a team to go into administration whilst in the Premier League, or am I being to cynical ????? Many Regards Neal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 WHY DID THEY NOT END UP IN ADMINISTRATION AND GET 10 POINTS DEDUCTED???? Neal, the FA, FL or the Premiership don't place clubs into administration. Pompey aren't in administration.......yet ! . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Claude_Dreyfus Posted January 28, 2010 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28, 2010 Sorry to hear about Palace; my Dad was a loyal supporter, and I still keep an interest in them. As already mentioned, Pompey are not in administration - despite the financial problems we have been facing. If that does happen, then the deduction will be 9 points. Then again, we might have another new owner...Saadi Gaddafi . All rumours of course, and highly unlikely. Question is, would he pass the Premier league 'fit and proper' test? Then again these rules seem to be so lax that had Pol Pot put a bid in to own Hull City it probably would have been agreed! At least Gaddafi Jnr would have an advantage over some of the previous owners...he knows at least a little bit about football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 ..... these rules seem to be so lax that had Pol Pot put a bid in to own Hull City it probably would have been agreed!..... Given that the man's been dead for quite a few years, that would have been an achievement in itself Meanwhile, in the Presidential Palace at Malabo in Equatorial Guinea, some club prospectuses are being examined..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted January 30, 2010 Author Share Posted January 30, 2010 Despite the fact I am a Charlton fan (and palace nearly ran us into oblivion in the 1980s), I do have some sympathy with the Palace situation. The administration itself is a tad harsh, due to the circumstances (a backer pulling out at the last minute) and given the football they played this season I find it rather hard to stomach that the ten point penalty leaves them above the no mans land of relelgation. It all comes back to the same thing - why is going into administration a ten point penalty anyway? The loss of revenue these clubs would have had if they had finished higher would have made their situations more manageable. Further - they aven't cheated on the pitch, so why should their league standing be affected by circumstances off it? In the same way that the Carlos Tevez saga always reminds me of how West Ham should have been docked points, every administration since that rule was introduced reminds me of how harsh the penalty here is, by comparison. To be punished in a way that affects their standing on the pitch when they have not affected matters on the pitch is plainly wrong and not comaprable to teams, proven time and again, to have cheated on the pitch. My sympathies to all the eagles fans out there, and my hopes that, like us, you can get out of it quickly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BoD Posted January 30, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 30, 2010 In the same way that the Carlos Tevez saga always reminds me of how West Ham should have been docked points, every administration since that rule was introduced reminds me of how harsh the penalty here is, by comparison. Whilst I agree with what you say (and I'm sure someone will enlighten us as to why there is a penalty for administration) is it harsh by comparison? I'm sure the powers that be at Palace are saying I'm glad they didn't fine is Xmillion pound and just docked us points in the same way West Ham were saying we're glad they fined us and didn't dock us points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 From what i can remember, the 10 point deduction for going into administraion was brought in after i believe Leicester, though i could be wrong and i am sure some one will tell me, went into admin to get rid of debt. This debt had been 'run up' buying players they could not afford to gain promotion. The FA decided that wasnt fair as any club could gain promotion by borrowing bucket loads of cash, then not paying it back, so the deducted points rule came in, I am not saying that is right, but look at Leeds as an example under Risdale. Also i have to feel a tad sorry for creditors some of whom could very well be small business's who are unlikelyto get their money, and who will care if they go to the wall.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Claude_Dreyfus Posted January 30, 2010 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 30, 2010 Given that the man's been dead for quite a few years, that would have been an achievement in itself Did he not win 'Britains Got Talent' a few years back? In other football news, nice to see that the Confederation of African Football have got their priorities right http://news.bbc.co.u...ica/8489127.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Did he not win 'Britains Got Talent' a few years back? In other football news, nice to see that the Confederation of African Football have got their priorities right http://news.bbc.co.u...ica/8489127.stm UNBELIEVABLE, what a mickey mouse competition Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now