PDA

View Full Version : Media Man City / EPL - A Busted Flush



KerPlunk
01-10-2010, 09:08 AM
How much longer will the authorities allow this bullsh*t ? British football is a joke.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/01/manchester-city-annual-report-huge-loss

easty
01-10-2010, 09:33 AM
You've got to speculate to accumulate.

The article mentions that its only the 2nd biggest loss in EPL history, Chelsea's was bigger at the end of Abramovichs 1st season.

Chelsea are in an excellent postion now because of this and the EPL is better to watch and more competitive thanks to Abramovichs investment.

Lago
01-10-2010, 09:43 AM
You've got to speculate to accumulate.

The article mentions that its only the 2nd biggest loss in EPL history, Chelsea's was bigger at the end of Abramovichs 1st season.

Chelsea are in an excellent postion now because of this and the EPL is better to watch and more competitive thanks to Abramovichs investment.

Quite frankly if the normal rules of business applied to football clubs half of them would be in receivership.

judas
01-10-2010, 10:17 AM
How much longer will the authorities allow this bullsh*t ? British football is a joke.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/01/manchester-city-annual-report-huge-loss

Totally agree. I think EPL has peaked and is now unwittingly killing itself.

The idea that I could take Spartans to the champions league if I had a few hundred million would be absurd, yet theoretically possible. It's not about football, it's about money.

No wonder England can't produce serious players anymore. What happened to living within your means and rearing your own players, bolstered with the odd signing?

cwilliamson85
01-10-2010, 10:27 AM
If you look what Chelsea have done its a great way to do things. Yes they spent a fortune on players who were at there peak but that won them championships and cups.

They are on the verge of breaking even in the next few years and the surrounding area of Stamford Bridge has some of the nicest bars clubs and shops anywhere in Europe.

Chelsea also have the benefit of owning there ground which for land value is the most expensive in the world. I am sure I read n article saying If Chelsea sold the Bridge they could clear there debts and buy the millennium dome and play there and still have a few million in the bank.

I think Man City will do the same. They are in a good situation with the squad they have got. Yes there weekly wages are a bit mental but if they start winning things and can attract the players they want without bribing them with £200k weekly wages surely it is a good thing for the EPL.

Liberal Hibby
01-10-2010, 10:28 AM
Chelsea are in an excellent postion now because of this and the EPL is better to watch and more competitive thanks to Abramovichs investment.

Really? If Abramovitch walks away they are donald ducked.

RIP
01-10-2010, 10:43 AM
If you look what Chelsea have done its a great way to do things. Yes they spent a fortune on players who were at there peak but that won them championships and cups.

They are on the verge of breaking even in the next few years and the surrounding area of Stamford Bridge has some of the nicest bars clubs and shops anywhere in Europe.

Chelsea also have the benefit of owning there ground which for land value is the most expensive in the world. I am sure I read n article saying If Chelsea sold the Bridge they could clear there debts and buy the millennium dome and play there and still have a few million in the bank.

Vladimir Romanov is a close business acquaintance of Abramovich. He sees the Chelsea model and believes it can be achieved here in Edinburgh.

Once the time is right, the new hotel complex will be built. There's a similar plan for Haymarket and the bars and shops in between in Dalry Road and Gorgie Road will transform into brasseries and designer boutiques. Property prices will rise as more upmarket condominiums are established between Ardmillan, Hutchison and Roseburn.

I foresee a Champion's league win for Hearts within a few years if Romanov has his way

cwilliamson85
01-10-2010, 11:18 AM
Vladimir Romanov is a close business acquaintance of Abramovich. He sees the Chelsea model and believes it can be achieved here in Edinburgh.

Once the time is right, the new hotel complex will be built. There's a similar plan for Haymarket and the bars and shops in between in Dalry Road and Gorgie Road will transform into brasseries and designer boutiques. Property prices will rise as more upmarket condominiums are established between Ardmillan, Hutchison and Roseburn.

I foresee a Champion's league win for Hearts within a few years if Romanov has his way

There are house prices in Gorgie? I thought it was Tesco mega store

Antifa Hibs
01-10-2010, 11:27 AM
You've got to speculate to accumulate.

The article mentions that its only the 2nd biggest loss in EPL history, Chelsea's was bigger at the end of Abramovichs 1st season.

Chelsea are in an excellent postion now because of this and the EPL is better to watch and more competitive thanks to Abramovichs investment.


If you look what Chelsea have done its a great way to do things. Yes they spent a fortune on players who were at there peak but that won them championships and cups.

They are on the verge of breaking even in the next few years and the surrounding area of Stamford Bridge has some of the nicest bars clubs and shops anywhere in Europe.

Chelsea also have the benefit of owning there ground which for land value is the most expensive in the world. I am sure I read n article saying If Chelsea sold the Bridge they could clear there debts and buy the millennium dome and play there and still have a few million in the bank.

I think Man City will do the same. They are in a good situation with the squad they have got. Yes there weekly wages are a bit mental but if they start winning things and can attract the players they want without bribing them with £200k weekly wages surely it is a good thing for the EPL.

Chelsea have ran at a loss since Abramovich took over. Last years financial results showed they run at a £21m loss, with a debt off over £340m. Great way of doing things :faf:

Edit: the £340m has been turned into share equity or some pesh like that. They do still owe Abramovich £726m though that he can call back at any time :faf:

ScottB
01-10-2010, 03:51 PM
Actually, Man City and to a lesser extent, Chelsea aren't the problem. Yes they both can / have ran up huge losses, but both have owners who would dismiss such sums as loose change.

The problem is the Man Utd's and Liverpool's, trying to spend on that level without the luxury of a trillionaire owner, racking up probably more than a billion pounds of debt between them.

Man City could afford to go pay £100 million for a player tomorrow in cash for christ sakes!

ScottB
01-10-2010, 03:54 PM
Chelsea have ran at a loss since Abramovich took over. Last years financial results showed they run at a £21m loss, with a debt off over £340m. Great way of doing things :faf:

Edit: the £340m has been turned into share equity or some pesh like that. They do still owe Abramovich £726m though that he can call back at any time :faf:

Bare in mind that probably any of the EPL clubs outwith Arsenal would dream of such financial results.

Honestly, everyone lines up to put the boot into Chelsea and City, when it's Man Utd and Liverpool that are the real financial basket cases. Chelsea owe a fortune to their benevolent billionaire owner, Liverpool owe a fortune to a bank, which sounds better to you?

Antifa Hibs
01-10-2010, 05:35 PM
Bare in mind that probably any of the EPL clubs outwith Arsenal would dream of such financial results.

Honestly, everyone lines up to put the boot into Chelsea and City, when it's Man Utd and Liverpool that are the real financial basket cases. Chelsea owe a fortune to their benevolent billionaire owner, Liverpool owe a fortune to a bank, which sounds better to you?

Man Utd didn't need trillionaires, they are the biggest club in the world, turning over more than Chelsea and City combined (or at least they did), making profits year on year for about the last 20 years. Their debt isn't from spending without their means, its due to the fact their owners took a debt out in the clubs name.... to buy the club.

ScottB
01-10-2010, 05:59 PM
Man Utd didn't need trillionaires, they are the biggest club in the world, turning over more than Chelsea and City combined (or at least they did), making profits year on year for about the last 20 years. Their debt isn't from spending without their means, its due to the fact their owners took a debt out in the clubs name.... to buy the club.

True, but it still leaves them in a simply hideous financial position!

Alfred E Newman
01-10-2010, 06:18 PM
Its tough on the supporters but the sooner some of these clubs go to the wall the sooner the game will come back into the real world.

The_Todd
01-10-2010, 06:28 PM
You've got to speculate to accumulate.

The article mentions that its only the 2nd biggest loss in EPL history, Chelsea's was bigger at the end of Abramovichs 1st season.

Chelsea are in an excellent postion now because of this and the EPL is better to watch and more competitive thanks to Abramovichs investment.

I suppose you think the SPL is currently wonderful due to Minty Moonbeams and Fergus McCann's investment?

MSK
01-10-2010, 06:37 PM
Its tough on the supporters but the sooner some of these clubs go to the wall the sooner the game will come back into the real world.:agree:

Kaiser1962
01-10-2010, 07:08 PM
hey Antifa you and I agree! A very valid point. Its not an "investment" if your out of pocket £726m now is it? "Speculate to accumulate" ? Accumulate what exactly? Accumulate a debt of £726m thats what. Chelsea are not an investment, neither are any of the others, what they are are a (very) rich man's toy.


Chelsea have ran at a loss since Abramovich took over. Last years financial results showed they run at a £21m loss, with a debt off over £340m. Great way of doing things :faf:

Edit: the £340m has been turned into share equity or some pesh like that. They do still owe Abramovich £726m though that he can call back at any time :faf:

hibsdaft
01-10-2010, 08:37 PM
modern football is *****.

Sir David Gray
01-10-2010, 08:42 PM
As long as Arab sheikhs are involved financially, Manchester City will be going nowhere anytime soon.

PISTOL1875
01-10-2010, 09:37 PM
As long as Arab sheikhs are involved financially, Manchester City will be going nowhere anytime soon.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1314406/Manchester-City-taking-Mickey-Disney-snub-Chelsea-rivals.html

easty
01-10-2010, 10:05 PM
I suppose you think the SPL is currently wonderful due to Minty Moonbeams and Fergus McCann's investment?

Aye thats what I said right enough..

Do you think the EPL is better for Abramovichs investment at Chelsea or not?

Vini1875
01-10-2010, 10:15 PM
Totally agree. I think EPL has peaked and is now unwittingly killing itself.

The idea that I could take Spartans to the champions league if I had a few hundred million would be absurd, yet theoretically possible. It's not about football, it's about money.

No wonder England can't produce serious players anymore. What happened to living within your means and rearing your own players, bolstered with the odd signing?


Doesn't seem to have harmed Spain with Barca and Real Madrid in particular spending ludicrous amounts of money on players. Don't think it did Italy any harm either.

Personally I think the big problem is TV

Haymaker
02-10-2010, 02:27 AM
Chelsea also have the benefit of owning there ground which for land value is the most expensive in the world. I am sure I read n article saying If Chelsea sold the Bridge they could clear there debts and buy the millennium dome and play there and still have a few million in the bank.

IIRC the name Chelsea Football Club is owned by a supporters collective and IIRC again if they sold Stamford Bridge to developers and moved elsewhere, they CANNOT called themselves Chelsea Football Club. Which might explain why they havent moved to the 60K+ stadium Roman promised.

Hibercelona
02-10-2010, 06:25 AM
IIRC the name Chelsea Football Club is owned by a supporters collective and IIRC again if they sold Stamford Bridge to developers and moved elsewhere, they CANNOT called themselves Chelsea Football Club. Which might explain why they havent moved to the 60K+ stadium Roman promised.

True.

They will however reserve the right to call themselves "Chelsea Daggers". :greengrin

Antifa Hibs
02-10-2010, 09:01 AM
Doesn't seem to have harmed Spain with Barca and Real Madrid in particular spending ludicrous amounts of money on players. Don't think it did Italy any harm either.

Personally I think the big problem is TV

You kidding? La Liga is in as much debt as the EPL.

Latest figures from what I can remember...

Real Madrid £550m, Barca £400m, Athletico Madrid £400m and Valencia about £500m.

No harm done at all :faf:

jane_says
02-10-2010, 09:21 AM
You kidding? La Liga is in as much debt as the EPL.

Latest figures from what I can remember...

Real Madrid £550m, Barca £400m, Athletico Madrid £400m and Valencia about £500m.

No harm done at all :faf:

did barca not have to take out some ridiculous emergency loan in the close season just to pay their players? a few weeks after spending 40 odd million on villa?

crazy.

Vini1875
02-10-2010, 10:06 AM
You kidding? La Liga is in as much debt as the EPL.

Latest figures from what I can remember...

Real Madrid £550m, Barca £400m, Athletico Madrid £400m and Valencia about £500m.

No harm done at all :faf:

I don't mean the debt I mean in terms of the national side which was the point I was replying to. The guy said no wonder England couldn't put out a team. And your figures illustrate my point, spains teams are in huge debt but they still manage to have a decent national team.

The_Todd
02-10-2010, 10:41 AM
Aye thats what I said right enough..

Do you think the EPL is better for Abramovichs investment at Chelsea or not?

No.