smal clubs need sugar daddys so lets not be to hard on them
"your missing the point, if you didnt win you would not of been in it this season
"
Good thing we bought new players this season to rectify this and to take over from players that went the other way (do you understand the term buying players?)
"More than you by the look of it. You're blustering."
sorry I still don't think you've grasped the fact that any debt that was made in the past is irrelevant as it has already been covered.
RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)
Ashley owns Sports Direct who sponsor Sid James Park.
minded mind a Temporary rename if it helped the club
Right,
As a City fan, of course I would be opposed to this going through. Partly due to the on the pitch investment that we have had over the last few years, but that is not the sole reason by any means. Take that investment away, I would still be a City fan and I would still be happy with my lot.
The reason I have a problem with it depends on what the caveat are that come around it. Investment at City has not just happened on the playing pitch, it has happened in the community to a massive extent. Not only is this creating jobs and pumping money in to the economy (at a time when I would find it incredibly absurd that any industry would try and limit investment in to the country), it is giving people access to sports facilities that are not there. This is not money that would have come from the council or lottery funding, this area would have stayed as it was.
Prices for fans have stayed relatively stagnant throughout, whereas in the sustainable model, it is always passed on (as it has been in football generally over the last twenty years). Football, at least at the highest level, has been gradually priced out of its natural fan base and is getting more middle class all the time, no-one should be happy with that and if the principle of this sustainability leads to higher ticket prices, then again, I have a problem with it.
The only thing that I can see that is wrong with investment from other peoples eyes (or how I felt when it happened to Chelsea), was a mixture of jealousy and reduced competition. In terms of reduced competition, the money within football was creating that already way before these super rich owners came along (and there have been very rich investors since football began, that is not a new thing), I cannot see how sustainability makes it more fair, it still means that the richest win and the poorest don't.
In my eyes, every fan of every club is equal and anything that increases competition and gives anyone the opportunity to feel like I felt winning the title last year should be welcomed with open arms. For me, sustainability does not do that, football needs to be changed on a far wider scale than just that for it to happen.
The funny thing is.......they call the Sheik a very shrewd businessman.
When actually for ONLY a little more than he's invested in City so far.....he could have acquired the world's biggest football club and brand, Manchester United.
Had they offered Uncle Malc, 1.5bn......he'd have snatched their hands off. And then they'd be in control of a club who reach every corner of the globe.....not just Greater Manchester.
For City to remain this competitive, they are going to have to continue to invest huge amounts. Had they bought United for example.....they could have let the club run itself and saved themselves a fortune and made HUGE PROFITS in the long run !!!
"The first profit was posted this year, I'm sure with revenue growth each year that profits will be posted again"
First ANNUAL profit, or CUMULATIVE profit ??
If the former, then Chelsky are by definition in debt.
If the latter, then back to my original understanding re 2008, it has taken you 4 yrs longer than the original plan.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
"The reason I have a problem with it depends on what the caveat are that come around it. Investment at City has not just happened on the playing pitch, it has happened in the community to a massive extent. Not only is this creating jobs and pumping money in to the economy (at a time when I would find it incredibly absurd that any industry would try and limit investment in to the country), it is giving people access to sports facilities that are not there. This is not money that would have come from the council or lottery funding, this area would have stayed as it was."
-------------
Sorry melton, but as we Arsenal supporters are constantly told, this is about football, not economics.
To make 1.5 million profit chel-ski will have to win the champions leageu every yr
Bye
Binky
as ever... keep up to programme
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/9596399/Newcastle-United-sponsorship-deal-with-Wonga-will-see-St-James-Park-reinstated-as-stadium-name.html
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Investment at City has not just happened on the playing pitch, it has happened in the community to a massive extent. Not only is this creating jobs and pumping money in to the economy (at a time when I would find it incredibly absurd that any industry would try and limit investment in to the country), it is giving people access to sports facilities that are not there. This is not money that would have come from the council or lottery funding, this area would have stayed as it was.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to my mate who is a blue by the way......they have just laid off 150 staff in the last 2 months from the offices and backround staff.
The new complex is supposedly going to create 80 new jobs.....most of which will be menial pay.
"To make 1.5 million profit chel-ski will have to win the champions leageu every yr"
No because, as expected from an idiot who has no grasp of basic concepts, the club is posting in growth of revenue each year whilst at the same time cutting losses hence the next time we post our figures the CL final money will more than likely be irrelevant
city have websites all over the world now, all selling stuff at ridiculous prices ,hopefully
a neccesity due to those are determined to make citys billionaire owners even richer
An investor is someone who allocates capital with the expectation of a financial return.
See the problem yet?
"An investor is someone who allocates capital with the expectation of a financial return.
See the problem yet?
"
He converts the debt into an asset of the club
city have websites all over the world now, all selling stuff at ridiculous prices ,hopefully
a neccesity due to those are determined to make citys billionaire owners even richer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
City played a pre season friendly over seas recently in front of just 9,000 fans.
United got over 20,000 for a training session on the very same tour and sold out for all their games.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Tbh I'm glad City and Chelsea both got their moment in the sun.
Good to mix these things up a bit.
"No because the debt has been written off by an investor (do you understand what an investor is?) do you still not grasp this?"
So what you are telling us is that at the end of every business year since 2003, that whenever Chelsky make an annual loss, Oligarsky immediately steps in and pays off the creditors ??
If the answer is yes, then what I am asking (again) is whether the club has cumulatively ever made profits equal to or greater to the amount Oligarsky has paid in settling the debts ??
Or more precisely :
Cumulative profits (CP) = sum(all annual profits)
Cumulative losses (CL) = sum(all annual losses)
Has CP - CL ever been greater than zero ??
Feel free to ask for clarification on whichever basic concepts you do not understand, and I will endeavour to explain them.
"He converts the debt into an asset of the club"
Would you by any chance be trying to state he has paid the debt by allocating share equity that he has then purchased ... ??
all chelseas debt has been paid out in players wages and written off every yr..club are embarressing
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Premier League clubs agree new cost control
Page 7 of 17
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
posted on 18/12/12
smal clubs need sugar daddys so lets not be to hard on them
posted on 18/12/12
"your missing the point, if you didnt win you would not of been in it this season
"
Good thing we bought new players this season to rectify this and to take over from players that went the other way (do you understand the term buying players?)
"More than you by the look of it. You're blustering."
sorry I still don't think you've grasped the fact that any debt that was made in the past is irrelevant as it has already been covered.
posted on 18/12/12
RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)
Ashley owns Sports Direct who sponsor Sid James Park.
posted on 18/12/12
minded mind a Temporary rename if it helped the club
posted on 18/12/12
Right,
As a City fan, of course I would be opposed to this going through. Partly due to the on the pitch investment that we have had over the last few years, but that is not the sole reason by any means. Take that investment away, I would still be a City fan and I would still be happy with my lot.
The reason I have a problem with it depends on what the caveat are that come around it. Investment at City has not just happened on the playing pitch, it has happened in the community to a massive extent. Not only is this creating jobs and pumping money in to the economy (at a time when I would find it incredibly absurd that any industry would try and limit investment in to the country), it is giving people access to sports facilities that are not there. This is not money that would have come from the council or lottery funding, this area would have stayed as it was.
Prices for fans have stayed relatively stagnant throughout, whereas in the sustainable model, it is always passed on (as it has been in football generally over the last twenty years). Football, at least at the highest level, has been gradually priced out of its natural fan base and is getting more middle class all the time, no-one should be happy with that and if the principle of this sustainability leads to higher ticket prices, then again, I have a problem with it.
The only thing that I can see that is wrong with investment from other peoples eyes (or how I felt when it happened to Chelsea), was a mixture of jealousy and reduced competition. In terms of reduced competition, the money within football was creating that already way before these super rich owners came along (and there have been very rich investors since football began, that is not a new thing), I cannot see how sustainability makes it more fair, it still means that the richest win and the poorest don't.
In my eyes, every fan of every club is equal and anything that increases competition and gives anyone the opportunity to feel like I felt winning the title last year should be welcomed with open arms. For me, sustainability does not do that, football needs to be changed on a far wider scale than just that for it to happen.
posted on 18/12/12
The funny thing is.......they call the Sheik a very shrewd businessman.
When actually for ONLY a little more than he's invested in City so far.....he could have acquired the world's biggest football club and brand, Manchester United.
Had they offered Uncle Malc, 1.5bn......he'd have snatched their hands off. And then they'd be in control of a club who reach every corner of the globe.....not just Greater Manchester.
For City to remain this competitive, they are going to have to continue to invest huge amounts. Had they bought United for example.....they could have let the club run itself and saved themselves a fortune and made HUGE PROFITS in the long run !!!
posted on 18/12/12
"The first profit was posted this year, I'm sure with revenue growth each year that profits will be posted again"
First ANNUAL profit, or CUMULATIVE profit ??
If the former, then Chelsky are by definition in debt.
If the latter, then back to my original understanding re 2008, it has taken you 4 yrs longer than the original plan.
posted on 18/12/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/12/12
"The reason I have a problem with it depends on what the caveat are that come around it. Investment at City has not just happened on the playing pitch, it has happened in the community to a massive extent. Not only is this creating jobs and pumping money in to the economy (at a time when I would find it incredibly absurd that any industry would try and limit investment in to the country), it is giving people access to sports facilities that are not there. This is not money that would have come from the council or lottery funding, this area would have stayed as it was."
-------------
Sorry melton, but as we Arsenal supporters are constantly told, this is about football, not economics.
posted on 18/12/12
To make 1.5 million profit chel-ski will have to win the champions leageu every yr
Bye
posted on 18/12/12
Binky
as ever... keep up to programme
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/9596399/Newcastle-United-sponsorship-deal-with-Wonga-will-see-St-James-Park-reinstated-as-stadium-name.html
posted on 18/12/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/12/12
Investment at City has not just happened on the playing pitch, it has happened in the community to a massive extent. Not only is this creating jobs and pumping money in to the economy (at a time when I would find it incredibly absurd that any industry would try and limit investment in to the country), it is giving people access to sports facilities that are not there. This is not money that would have come from the council or lottery funding, this area would have stayed as it was.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to my mate who is a blue by the way......they have just laid off 150 staff in the last 2 months from the offices and backround staff.
The new complex is supposedly going to create 80 new jobs.....most of which will be menial pay.
posted on 18/12/12
"To make 1.5 million profit chel-ski will have to win the champions leageu every yr"
No because, as expected from an idiot who has no grasp of basic concepts, the club is posting in growth of revenue each year whilst at the same time cutting losses hence the next time we post our figures the CL final money will more than likely be irrelevant
posted on 18/12/12
city have websites all over the world now, all selling stuff at ridiculous prices ,hopefully
a neccesity due to those are determined to make citys billionaire owners even richer
posted on 18/12/12
An investor is someone who allocates capital with the expectation of a financial return.
See the problem yet?
posted on 18/12/12
"An investor is someone who allocates capital with the expectation of a financial return.
See the problem yet?
"
He converts the debt into an asset of the club
posted on 18/12/12
posted on 18/12/12
city have websites all over the world now, all selling stuff at ridiculous prices ,hopefully
a neccesity due to those are determined to make citys billionaire owners even richer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
City played a pre season friendly over seas recently in front of just 9,000 fans.
United got over 20,000 for a training session on the very same tour and sold out for all their games.
posted on 18/12/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/12/12
Tbh I'm glad City and Chelsea both got their moment in the sun.
Good to mix these things up a bit.
posted on 18/12/12
"No because the debt has been written off by an investor (do you understand what an investor is?) do you still not grasp this?"
So what you are telling us is that at the end of every business year since 2003, that whenever Chelsky make an annual loss, Oligarsky immediately steps in and pays off the creditors ??
If the answer is yes, then what I am asking (again) is whether the club has cumulatively ever made profits equal to or greater to the amount Oligarsky has paid in settling the debts ??
Or more precisely :
Cumulative profits (CP) = sum(all annual profits)
Cumulative losses (CL) = sum(all annual losses)
Has CP - CL ever been greater than zero ??
Feel free to ask for clarification on whichever basic concepts you do not understand, and I will endeavour to explain them.
posted on 18/12/12
"He converts the debt into an asset of the club"
Would you by any chance be trying to state he has paid the debt by allocating share equity that he has then purchased ... ??
posted on 18/12/12
all chelseas debt has been paid out in players wages and written off every yr..club are embarressing
posted on 18/12/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 7 of 17
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12