Seems to me that players today just want to join the team at the top and sit back and let the trophys roll in ?
What happened to being loyal to your club and building a team to challenge the best
When i was younger i was sponsered to be Professional at Snooker
We were the best team in our league and every yr at the trophy presentation evening we collected 90-95% of all the trophys , singles doubles , team, league, highest break etc .. sounds great but after a couple of yrs i got fed up of knowing all i had to do was turn up to win and the trophys meant nothing to me, so i joined another league and played against the best instead of with the best , i knew i had to be at my best every week to have any chance of winning
My point being, How much of a achievment would it be for a player like Luca Modric to stay at Tottenham or RVP to stay at Arsenal and win the title and beat the best along the way instead of just wanting to play in the strongest team that they know will spend double what everyone else does
Maybe im dreaming but are players really that greedy for money and success that they just sell their souls to the biggest club
To play for or against the best ?
posted on 16/5/12
That doesn't deflect from the point that Phil Hall was making.
In the Forbes list released last month, City were valued at $443m. In 2008 (prior to the takeover) the club was valued at $181m.
During the same period, the club's revenue has increased from $114m to $246m.
posted on 16/5/12
RC - does your source also indicate how the clubs debt and outgoings have changed over that same period too? For a balanced picture.
posted on 16/5/12
HC, the source - Forbes - shows that the current (2012) debt/value is 12%. The current operating income is minus $123m.
posted on 16/5/12
Ta. Now I don't spend too much time on this sort of thing, but does that mean that the current debt is just ~$54m, or ? How does that work with an operating loss of over $120m? Or is it the other way around and the current debt is actually $3.7bn?
posted on 16/5/12
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that it means that the value of the club is $443, and the debt is 12% of that ($54.16m).
The operating income is defined as "Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization for the 2010-11 season."
So before all of that is taken into account, the operating income was minus $123m. What it was after that -- I would imagine the figure would be higher. Again, I'm not sure, but perhaps the debt ($53.16m) reflects that differential.
Either that, or the operating income losses have been "wiped" by the owner.
posted on 16/5/12
(Correction - not $54.16m, but $53.16m)
posted on 16/5/12
199
posted on 16/5/12
200
posted on 16/5/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 16/5/12
zzzzzz
Admin Please multi-board my pointless article with my thinly veiled exclaimation of the greatness of Man City even though they are 3-19 against United and even Blackburn Rovers have won more league honours than them