ChezGiven 0 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Aye. Was gonna say, the changeable exchange rate renders my year by year growth comparison entirely redundant. Unfortunately, I dunno where to find a similar amount of data in £'s on one page. Unless i've misunderstood, would the swiss rambler table not give you that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 HF (and Pud) were putting £ signs in front of Deloitte's numbers. Deloitte's numbers are actually in Euros. The Rambler uses £s. Turnover = income. Also, Deloitte's figures look out to me and may reflect the exchange rate issues involved in EU income comparisons. I was yes, however my correction post this morning used the Sterling figures, these obviously arent subject to the exchange rate issues. And just for anyone wondering. If we had a £100m revenue in 2007, the Deloitte figure would be based on the ex/r at the time e.g. 1:1.4. Therefore, they would estimate it at Euros 140m. If we had a £100m revenue in 2010, the Deloitte figure would be based on the ex/r at the time e.g. 1:1.2. Therefore, they would estimate it at Euros 120m Same revenue but different absolute figures after conversion. However the only time you'd need to use the Euro figures would be to compare to other European clubs which I think is completely irrelevant in this argument as they are subject to completely different outside influences. If we're just talking about the English clubs then the Sterling figures Deloittes quotes are perfectly legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Aye. Was gonna say, the changeable exchange rate renders my year by year growth comparison entirely redundant. Unfortunately, I dunno where to find a similar amount of data in £'s on one page. Unless i've misunderstood, would the swiss rambler table not give you that? I thought so, otherwise is this site not worth using? Anyone have any experience of it and how reliable the info is? www.footballeconomy.com might look to see if its possible to scrape the data from there to build up a database of the figures across the board. That is as long as theyre reputable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Aye. Was gonna say, the changeable exchange rate renders my year by year growth comparison entirely redundant. Unfortunately, I dunno where to find a similar amount of data in £'s on one page. Unless i've misunderstood, would the swiss rambler table not give you that? I mean for a comparison with other clubs. He doesn't necessarily include those years' revenues in every write up he does for different clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Something like this.... http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/big...r-200405-200708 But it stopped 3 years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Aye. Was gonna say, the changeable exchange rate renders my year by year growth comparison entirely redundant. Unfortunately, I dunno where to find a similar amount of data in £'s on one page. Unless i've misunderstood, would the swiss rambler table not give you that? I mean for a comparison with other clubs. He doesn't necessarily include those years' revenues in every write up he does for different clubs. Recent data will be the most difficult to come across in summarised form but a quick scan of the blog's homepage shows he has this in pounds sterling for Sunderland, Villa, Everton, Spurs, Fulham, Bolton & Stoke up till 2009. 2010 is missing but the trend in income for these clubs from 2005 to 2009 is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Surely if we wanted to we could quite easily come up with the missing data collectively ie take a club each and research the missing values? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Easy, just need to google 'clubname' + 2009/10 accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 There's so many conflicting numbers. The guardians numbers for 07/08 turnover http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/table/2...over-wages-debt Some of them match that footballeconomy page, others are miles out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46141 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 What the fuck are you lot even trying to work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Villa missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 You're still cherry picking. What about other Champions League qualifiers Leeds Utd and Blackburn Rovers, or European contenders in the Premier league years, like Norwich City and Nottingham Forest? You've included Manchester City, they were never n the top 20 with us. I don't know what the average would be so I'm not suggesting we've done well in terms of growth comparably...but it's "zombie stats" (painting the picture you want to see rather than the truth) which gives statistics a bad name. "You can prove anything with statistics" they say, well no, you can't, if you do it properly and include ALL the members of a group or a suitably randomised selection, then you'll get the truth to pretty accurate percentage of certainty. Sorry, but it's a bugbear of mine. You seem to forget why I posted those stats originally, the question I was replying to was "how much should we be able to increase turnover to?" Logically to answer that you need to use comparable data, the fact we were in the Top 20 for previous years told you that there are comparable English teams in terms of size and Turnover ie those that were also up there. If they managed to sustain growth then there's no reason why we shouldn't have done also. Using Stoke, Portsmouth, Mackems or anyone else wouldn't have given a fair comparison because as seen by Stoke, you can have huge jumps for comparatively small differences in fortunes. But none of the teams you chose is really comparable data in my opinion. Man U and Liverpool are the 2 most succesful clubs in English history, they have a worldwide support unmatched by anyone else going back decades. Arsenal aren't far behind in terms of long term success. Chelsea and Man City have the wealthiest individual owners in the world too. If you're being realistic and want to compare like for like, as a club without any of the advantages of those listed above, as a club who have only temporarily made a dent on the top 30 without any sustained success and without unlimited funds from our owners, we're more comparable to Tottenham, Villa, Everton, Fulham and West Ham. Of those, only Tottenham have (so far) been able to sustain their position at the top end of the money league. Spurs are our benchmark now in this racket...I've said it a million times on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3517 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 What the fuck are you lot even trying to work out? The blinding obvious; whether fat Mike is taking the piss or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3517 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 You're still cherry picking. What about other Champions League qualifiers Leeds Utd and Blackburn Rovers, or European contenders in the Premier league years, like Norwich City and Nottingham Forest? You've included Manchester City, they were never n the top 20 with us. I don't know what the average would be so I'm not suggesting we've done well in terms of growth comparably...but it's "zombie stats" (painting the picture you want to see rather than the truth) which gives statistics a bad name. "You can prove anything with statistics" they say, well no, you can't, if you do it properly and include ALL the members of a group or a suitably randomised selection, then you'll get the truth to pretty accurate percentage of certainty. Sorry, but it's a bugbear of mine. You seem to forget why I posted those stats originally, the question I was replying to was "how much should we be able to increase turnover to?" Logically to answer that you need to use comparable data, the fact we were in the Top 20 for previous years told you that there are comparable English teams in terms of size and Turnover ie those that were also up there. If they managed to sustain growth then there's no reason why we shouldn't have done also. Using Stoke, Portsmouth, Mackems or anyone else wouldn't have given a fair comparison because as seen by Stoke, you can have huge jumps for comparatively small differences in fortunes. But none of the teams you chose is really comparable data in my opinion. Man U and Liverpool are the 2 most succesful clubs in English history, they have a worldwide support unmatched by anyone else going back decades. Arsenal aren't far behind in terms of long term success. Chelsea and Man City have the wealthiest individual owners in the world too. If you're being realistic and want to compare like for like, as a club without any of the advantages of those listed above, as a club who have only temporarily made a dent on the top 30 without any sustained success and without unlimited funds from our owners, we're more comparable to Tottenham, Villa, Everton, Fulham and West Ham. Of those, only Tottenham have (so far) been able to sustain their position at the top end of the money league. West Brom are our benchmark now in this racket...I'm yet to said it a million times on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10002 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) Villa missing. Villa's a difficult one as theres something like 5 "companies" in Lerners ownership model, two of which are variations of AVFC Ltd !, but Ramble uses what he thought was the holding companies accounts for his estimates but he has never tabulated it. From the rambler - "the figures from a company called Reform Acquisitions Limited, which is the parent company for Aston Villa’s five (yes, five!) companies, including Aston Villa FC Limited, whose principal activity is described as “professional football club”, and, confusingly, Aston Villa Football Club Limited, whose principal activity is “commercial and retail operations”. The ultimate holding company is Reform Acquisitions LLC, which is registered in the Good Old US of A, with the controlling party being Mr. R Lerner" This is a cracking debate/analysis mind (just catching it up). Edited September 23, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10002 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Aye. Was gonna say, the changeable exchange rate renders my year by year growth comparison entirely redundant. Unfortunately, I dunno where to find a similar amount of data in £'s on one page. Not necessarily - If you use the actual exchange rate from the same date each year it'll be as decent an approximation as anything.... so: I took 1st June (midpoint of the year-ish): 2006 1.46 2007 1.47 2008 1.26 2009 1.16 2010 1.20 Source: http://www.x-rates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi Apply those to the years and see what pops out, you have the spreadsheet already so I'll let you do the work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Aye. Was gonna say, the changeable exchange rate renders my year by year growth comparison entirely redundant. Unfortunately, I dunno where to find a similar amount of data in £'s on one page. Not necessarily - If you use the actual exchange rate from the same date each year it'll be as decent an approximation as anything.... so: I took 1st June (midpoint of the year-ish): 2006 1.46 2007 1.47 2008 1.26 2009 1.16 2010 1.20 Source: http://www.x-rates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi Apply those to the years and see what pops out, you have the spreadsheet already so I'll let you do the work Good idea in theory, but the Deloittes report comes out in early Feb. I could take the exchange rate from that moment, but all the clubs being surveyed announce their yearly results across a wide spread of the year, each when the exchange rate is different to another. Just looking at the figure it results in for Newcastle's income, 2005-2007 is pretty close, but after that it's way off as the exchange rate becomes more volatile... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10002 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Aye. Was gonna say, the changeable exchange rate renders my year by year growth comparison entirely redundant. Unfortunately, I dunno where to find a similar amount of data in £'s on one page. Not necessarily - If you use the actual exchange rate from the same date each year it'll be as decent an approximation as anything.... so: I took 1st June (midpoint of the year-ish): 2006 1.46 2007 1.47 2008 1.26 2009 1.16 2010 1.20 Source: http://www.x-rates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi Apply those to the years and see what pops out, you have the spreadsheet already so I'll let you do the work Good idea in theory, but the Deloittes report comes out in early Feb. I could take the exchange rate from that moment, but all the clubs being surveyed announce their yearly results across a wide spread of the year, each when the exchange rate is different to another. Just looking at the figure it results in for Newcastle's income, 2005-2007 is pretty close, but after that it's way off as the exchange rate becomes more volatile... Well, we know NUFC turnover per year definitively in £££'s (from the accounts) so divide that into the Delloite Euro figure each year to give a "Toontastic/Delloit" exchange rate for each year. GBP (Accounts) 2005 87 Mill 2006 83 Mill 2007 87.1 Mill 2008 99.4 Mill 2009 86.1 Mill Euro (per Delloite) 2005 ??? Mill 2006 124.3 Mill 2007 129.4 Mill 2008 125.6 Mill 2009 101 Mill Exchange Rate calculated: 2005 ??? 2006 1.50 2007 1.49 2008 1.26 2009 1.17 Close as we're gonna get without hours/days of digging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) It get's to the point where the effort involved isn't really worth the spurious numbers thrown out. Thanks to Chez picking loads of numbers out of the ramble and a few google searches, here's the PL ordered by growth since 2005. Highlighted Spurs as the comparable club at the time. EDIT: NUFC and WBA were in the Championship for the last set of figures.....Norwich in League 1. Stands to reason. Edited September 23, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) It get's to the point where the effort involved isn't really worth the spurious numbers thrown out. Thanks to Chez picking loads of numbers out of the ramble and a few google searches, here's the PL ordered by growth since 2005. Highlighted Spurs as the comparable club at the time. For the millionth time Spurs is our benchmark of what is poss. The only slightly mad fees they've paid in recent history (3years) is Modric 16.5 and Bale 14m. I'm not counting the Defoe and Keane fiascos. Edited September 23, 2011 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 It get's to the point where the effort involved isn't really worth the spurious numbers thrown out. Thanks to Chez picking loads of numbers out of the ramble and a few google searches, here's the PL ordered by growth since 2005. Highlighted Spurs as the comparable club at the time. For the millionth time Spurs is our benchmark of what is poss. That's why I highlighted them numbnuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31230 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We have much more potential than Spurs tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Since Ashley's first results (2008)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We have much more potential than Spurs tbh. In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Think Spurs (doing well) could potentially charge a canny bit more for tickets too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now