Happy Face

Can't believe what I'm reading tbh. Guthrie's been ok as a stop gap, but he's provided nowt outside of what was ultimately a consolation goal against Fulham. Without Ryan Taylor we need someone to turn provider, and Cabaye is a class apart from Guthrie on that score.

Precisely. Norwich City make a profit of £2m with a turnover of £38m. Manchester United make a loss of £10m with a turnover of £350m. Who are in a better position to be to afford the wages of Leo Messi, and who can barely afford to keep Grant Holt. That's not really a great comparison to be fair. Is it better to make £90 million and break even or £100 million and a loss of £20 million? Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity. Fans are vain, not sane. Can you imagine West Brom and Norwich fans taking the piss out of Man U's losses

The point about Spurs was that they are on the up to some degree. That was the only thing you disagreed with me on, that there were any clubs on the up. If you just want to restrict it to the last year, then we're on the up too obviously. Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal all grew revenue between £2m and £45m according to the chart you directed me to. But Stevie's point and the entire premise of the discussion is where Ashley has taken us, very narrowly in terms of maximising turnover, whather you want to disregard it or not, it's one of the best indicators of a clubs size, which is very important to Stevie. Huge clubs can have massive losses, small clubs large profits. Growing turnover, while not a very effective indicator of prudent business acumen, is a good overall barometer of the importance of a club to sponsors, fans, tv and the league. Since Ashley arrived, those clubs comparable to us have grown, we haven't. I did say the chart supported you too, in that most clubs plateaued out over the last couple of years, But Stevie's point is longer term than that, I think, and more clearly displayed here by omitting the intervening years... http://s10.postimage.org/hndavv9pj/untitled.jpg

Thanks for imparting your knowledge. Some are on the up to varying degrees despite the economic situation, some have stagnated, several have gone into financial dire straits. We've more than doubled the size of our debt but wiped out year on year losses. What have I said that you don't agree with? Everything! Not really. Of those still performing well, sound analysis extracts the difference between actual results and potential results and adjust for underlying trends across the business. 'Is it growing' is not an analysis of anything, its an observation. You might want to factor in (e.g. just within the commercial line) the breakdown of geographic sources of income e.g. UK, EU, RoW. Then you look at trends withing each region and overall demand levels. If Man U's commercial line is increasing, it may be because they have a large % of their commercial incomes coming from Asia-Pac which is growing as a market. Thus by standing stil there, they grow their income as the market grows. This growth rate may more than offset the proportional losses in UK commercial sales, returning a better commercial performance. For a club with a base-case of low to negligible business outside of the UK, the impact of the depression in the UK market will be greater. Bringing in clubs like Sunderland, Villa etc is fair here, not Man U / Arsenal etc as their fundamentals are different and hence drive off different market dynamics. I feel like i'm imparting more than just knowledge here. So Spurs aren't better off now than they were in 2007? Lordy, I'm really learning from you here Master Po.

Are revenue and turnover not subtly different? Not in the sense its being used here, no. Dont worry, until yesterday i thought the economy was flatlining and consumer spending was down across the board. I was further under the impression that the underlying fundamentals in the football sector were being dampened via these economic factors. I was also under the impression that business analysis was a bit more complicated that 'how much revenue did they make' or even 'is it growing' but you and Stevie have shown me the light. Football clubs everywhere are bouyant and on the up apart from us. Aye. Thanks for imparting your knowledge. Some are on the up to varying degrees despite the economic situation, some have stagnated, several have gone into financial dire straits. We've more than doubled the size of our debt but wiped out year on year losses. What have I said that you don't agree with?

Are revenue and turnover not subtly different?

Haven't we been fed rhetoric by the club that there has been a 6 or 7% increase in the wage bill even after the departure of these players? Believe that was true immediately following promotion. Getting Barton, Nolan and Smith of the books should contribute to another drop though. Whether that's offset by Tiote's improved deal and a potential improvement to Coloccini's deal, we'll have to see. Fingers crossed both remain on the books. Replacing Nolan with Cabaye at a loss or Barton with Obertan at a loss have been cited as reasons to believe that Ashley is investing more on the field, but the wages are ignored while the fees involved remain the focus. Shouldn't forget the replacements are on half the money. No idea of the actual numbers, but as an example, Obertan's 5 year deal... £3.5m + £30k a week for 5 years = £11.3m for Obertan No fee + £60k a week for 5 years = £15.6m for Barton It was the cheaper option to let Barton go for free and replace him with Obertan.

All the best chaps.

Got the new Menzingers album which is great. Not enjoyed punk as much since Titus Andronicus. Also got the new Speech Debelle one to listen to. Not too confident having heard the single.

We aren't ITK

Chill out man angry dad, you're gonna do yourself a mischief. Where have those come from like? Missed that part of the thread.

Can't remember any club singing a pro-owner chant tbh, that's the nature of club ownership, all the blame, little of the credit.

Aye completely supporting my ignored main point. You should add 2011 on. There's no amounts out for 2011 yet is there? Happy to, if provided.

How very dare you! What's up with it? It doesn't come up at all. Reload it. http://s15.postimage.org/mrg20g76h/Turnover.jpg

Still got my fingers crossed for Villa. one win in 6. Keep falling you fuckers!

Asics were a class apart

They're looking at Brian McDermott instead. A man resembling a paedophile clearly preferable to Bruce.

Is Rtaylor fit? Moot btw

How very dare you! What's up with it?

I bet you mean that as well. He's a globally recognised expert on football finances who works in finance. His site is fantastic and it goes to prove the very last point made to Stevie in the other thread, the rest of the world are looking at us thinking 'thats good financial management that'. Not the Swiss Ramble btw...The Football Ramble.

I had all the turnovers in a spreadie from last time we had this argument, so whacked them in a chart of comparable clubs to us. Think it illustrates the points of both Stevie and Chez. The Mackems, Villa, Everton, Fulham and Blackburn all overtook our level of turnover when the extra PL money came in. All of those with the exception of Fulham and Villa have done it simply by stagnating though, even with that huge amount of extra TV money coming in. It's just our lower turnover that has seen us fall below them. We can expect to recover to pre-relegation levels in 2011, effectively showing the same level of stagnation overall Like Fulham and Villa, Liverpool and (to a lesser extent) Spurs have managed to grow revenue though, either closing the gap on us or extending it. With or without relegation though, we are the only club where the overall trend was downwards rather than up.

Aye. If your son in law is slapping your daughter about, you don't ignore it and appreciate the excellent work he does paying the bills and putting food on the table.

Nae fucker watches Channel 5 man

Think the Europa money is relatively insignificant. Barely worth the 10 extra games to fuck the squad up.

How do Arsenal so comprehensively trounce Man U on turnover?