Debt in the Premier League - Telegraph sports section (merged)

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in


HastingsSeagull

HastingsSeagull

Well-known member
Jan 13, 2010
9,433
BGC Manila
pork pie said:
How much were the tickets? Chelsea have charged stupid prices for years, the northern monkeys probably pay a lot less.
Click to expand...

More importantly what were the ticket prices 'as a percentage of fan's earnings' as would imagine Chelsea fans working in London earn more than northern monkeys and are used to paying more for everything they buy living in London. These days granted Chelsea are everywhere but back then were mostly local fans right?
 




Stumpy Tim

Stumpy Tim

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2003
14,162
Back in Brighton. Well Hove actually


P

Postman Pat

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2007
6,973
Coldean
Simster said:
Indeed, but not to the rest of the world.

There is something seriously wrong with the world when people can spunk that sort of cash on a football team thousands of miles away while a large portion of his own population lie in poverty.
Click to expand...

True, but if he wasn't spending it on football it would be art, property, wives, racehorses or massive yachts (and probably already is).

At least this way they get some enjoyment. I doubt he is expecting much of a return on his investment.
 




Notters

Notters

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2003
24,896
Guiseley
itszamora said:
Too true. You often hear fans clamouring for a team to spend money. That's all well and good, but what if they simply don't have that money and are actually trying to live within their means and run as a proper business? I'm hopeful that Financial Fair Play will help in this regard, but I imagine there's some loopholes that the likes of Man City and Chelsea will be able to exploit to be able to still spend hugely unsustainable wads of cash.
Click to expand...
You can spend what you like if it comes from a rich benefactor, can't you? I though financial fair play just limited borrowing?
 




A

Aadam

Resident Plastic
Feb 6, 2012
1,130
itszamora said:
Too true. You often hear fans clamouring for a team to spend money. That's all well and good, but what if they simply don't have that money and are actually trying to live within their means and run as a proper business? I'm hopeful that Financial Fair Play will help in this regard, but I imagine there's some loopholes that the likes of Man City and Chelsea will be able to exploit to be able to still spend hugely unsustainable wads of cash.
Click to expand...

It won't solve a thing. FFP has good intentions, but there will be ways to get around it. Like using another company you have an interest in to sign a £400m naming rights deal with your club.

Weststander said:
Man City - up to May 2011, Sheikh Mansour had gifted them £930m, which didn't include 2011/12's big transfers & another season of wages alone way in excess of turnover.
Click to expand...

This I don't have a problem with. And I didn't have a problem when Chelsea did it, really. But the issue lies when these benefactors leave, the clubs will be in ruins and it will be the fans that are left with a mess of a club.

This is interesting:



HastingsSeagull said:
More importantly what were the ticket prices 'as a percentage of fan's earnings' as would imagine Chelsea fans working in London earn more than northern monkeys and are used to paying more for everything they buy living in London. These days granted Chelsea are everywhere but back then were mostly local fans right?
Click to expand...

You cannot discount demographics. Football to a northerner during those times maybe meant more to them than for someone in London. I'm assuming wealthier people would have more to do with their time and money, whereas, it's know people from the north are not as well off as those from London, so their way of life would revolve around a Saturday afternoon where they can watch their local team, rather than trips to the Hamptons and the like.

Notters said:
You can spend what you like if it comes from a rich benefactor, can't you? I though financial fair play just limited borrowing?
Click to expand...

No. A rich benefactor cannot pump money into the club. You cannot exceed your turnover and make a loss. This is what FFP is all about. Clubs have to break even, live within their means by running themselves properly, not by taking money from the owners.

As an initial compromise, clubs will be able to record maximum losses of €45 million (£39.5m) in total over the following three years. That can be subsidised by an owner but only if they invest the money permanently in return for shares, not by lending it as Roman Abramovich did when he first took control of Chelsea. If owners are unable to subsidise debts, the maximum loss is €5m (£4.4m).
 
Last edited:










Gazwag

Gazwag

5 millionth post poster
Mar 4, 2004
30,745
Bexhill-on-Sea
Maybe Wolves were setting money aside for the big capital investment of the new stand which will come out of the 2012 figures
 






Gritt23

Gritt23

New member
Jul 7, 2003
14,902
Meopham, Kent.
It's completely unsustainable, and when you look at the annual losses these clubs are posting, I just don't see how many of them can ever hope to turn it around without administration. At the moment the EPL has just about clung on to the denial that it doesn't happen, by ignoring the carnage once the clubs drop out of the Prem, but take a look at Fulham's debt level, and what happens there if the little shop-keeper drops down dead? He may be able to underwrite that debt figure, but would someone else step in? A few months of uncertainty could see them sucked into a relegation scrap one year, and relegation could only bring administration.

Tbh, I think Bolton are headed that way now.

The wages figures at some of the clubs is unbelievable. Blackpool put on pretty entertaining football last season on a fraction of what Chelsea were spending. It's madness, and it can't last. The sooner the bubble bursts, the better.
 




strings

strings

Moving further North...
Feb 19, 2006
9,969
Barnsley
Albion Dan said:
If you look at that Wolves are actually in a position of good health and should have no problem going back up next season.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong, and I think you're right.

I think Wolves are happy to be a yo-yo club whilst they redevelop Molineux and their training ground. The fans hate the board at the moment because the board seem to want to get the infrastructure right above everything else. This is probably what has cost them their seat at the top table.

It will be interesting to see where Wolves are next season in terms of wages. They have put the stadium building on hold for one year so they can focus on redoing the training ground.

Wolves are certainly building for the future, which is to be commended. The problem is that they are losing season ticket holders now. It will be interesting to see where the Wolves budget goes in terms of future development versus keeping the current set of fans happy.
 














Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,221
Goldstone


Gritt23

Gritt23

New member
Jul 7, 2003
14,902
Meopham, Kent.
Triggaaar said:
Why, what's new? That's why Alan Sugar left Spurs all those years ago. Aren't clubs like Utd and Arsenal still making a profit? Those figures don't show the profit/loss.
Click to expand...

Manchester United
30/06/2010: Profit after Tax £13.5m, but then they paid out a £100m in dividends (what club does that?!) to give them a loss to the Balance Sheet of £86.5m.
30/06/2011: Profit after Tax £9.5m. No dividends paid out.

Arsenal
30/06/2010: Profit after Tax £92m, and they also paid out a dividend, of £24.87m, leaving them with Retained Profits of £67m. Wow.
30/06/2011: Profit after Tax £13m, no dividend paid out.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top