Football Clubs & Debt

[Baggio 0]

Without meaning to turn this into a 20 page debate but I don't remember Shepherd splashing big wages on any new signing before 2004, he done it trying to dig himself out of the hole made by employing Souness and it was hardly a success.

 

Now why didn't he need to do it under Robson?

[LoveTheBobby 1]

[LeazesMag 0]

Without meaning to turn this into a 20 page debate but I don't remember Shepherd splashing big wages on any new signing before 2004, he done it trying to dig himself out of the hole made by employing Souness and it was hardly a success.

 

Now why didn't he need to do it under Robson?

 

who's talking about Shepherd ?

[Baggio 0]

Villa have just announced a loss of £53.9 million for last year.

[Kitman 2204]

Villa have just announced a loss of £53.9 million for last year.

 

To be in the lower bottom half of the table. It just goes to show that a good manager is the most important part of being a well run club. McLeish is dog shit, I don't recall how O'Neill did exactly but I think he was average at best.

[JawD 99]

Despite the 53m loss though they have lowered their bank loan by 8m. Basically RL pumped a further £25M in to the club. Also think that loss is after player sales/purchases.

[Happy Face 29]

WOLVES’ profits plunged by almost £7 million during the club’s Premier League relegation fight.

 

The team managed to secure safety on the final day of the last campaign. But latest accounts for the financial year ending on May 31, 2011, showed a pre-tax profit of just £2.2 million after player trading and net interest charges, compared to over £9million the previous year.

 

The club revealed that operating costs had increased significantly from £29.8 million in 2009/10 to £37.9 million because of rocketing players’ wages. Turnover increased to £64.6million compared to £60.4million because of a new three-year television deal.

 

Wolves CEO Jez Moxey said: “These are solid results which reflect the club’s financial health. We are committed to running the club on a firm financial footing, while constantly investing in the first team.”

 

He said that continued infrastructure investment was also aimed at first-team success.

 

Read More http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/02/29/latest-accounts-reveal-wolves-profits-plunge-by-7m-during-premier-league-relegation-battle-97319-30427528/#ixzz1nliOfB8F

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm saying nowt.

[Happy Face 29]

Good lad. It's to your credit.

[LeazesMag 0]

Good lad. It's to your credit.

 

good lad

[JawD 99]

More teams know that the clubs need to be ran differently now. HMRC is clamping down on football and tax evasion (Further reading:

 

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/01/13/hmrc-aim-to-give-elite-football-%E2%80%9Ca-good-kicking%E2%80%9D-on-tax-after-evasion-tip-off-130101/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/8849216/Football-Association-ordered-to-open-its-books-as-tax-man-launches-new-clampdown-on-agents-fees.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9103962/HMRC-launches-tax-evasion-task-force.html

 

Plus with the financial fair play rules coming in. It will be interesting to see how the bigger clubs react. Personally, I think there will be some kind of creative accounting to enable the super rich owners to pump money into the club and keep to the rules. Inflated advertising, rent or whatever.

[JawD 99]

For interest re Financial Fair Play

 

UEFA's Executive Committee unanimously approved a financial fair play concept for the game's well-being in September 2009. The concept has also been supported by the entire football family, with its principal objectives being:

• to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances;

• to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect;

• to encourage clubs to compete with(in) their revenues;

• to encourage long-term investments in the youth sector and infrastructure;

• to protect the long-term viability of European club football;

• to ensure clubs settle their liabilities on a timely basis.

 

These approved objectives reflect the view that UEFA has a duty to consider the systemic environment of European club football in which individual clubs compete, and in particular the wider inflationary impact of clubs' spending on salaries and transfer fees.

 

 

In recent seasons many clubs have reported repeated, and worsening, financial losses. The wider economic situation has created difficult market conditions for clubs in Europe, and this can negatively impact revenue generation and creates additional challenges for clubs in respect of availability of financing and assessment of going concern. Many clubs have experienced liquidity shortfalls, for instance leading to delayed payments to other clubs, employees and social/tax authorities.

 

Therefore, as requested by the football family, and in consultation with the football family, UEFA is introducing sensible and achievable measures to realise these goals. They include an obligation for clubs, over a period of time, to balance their books or break even. Under the concept, clubs cannot repeatedly spend more than their generated revenues, and clubs will be obliged to meet all their transfer and employee payment commitments at all times. Higher-risk clubs that fail certain indicators will also be required to provide budgets detailing their strategic plans.

 

 

The financial fair play measures will involve a multi-year assessment enabling a longer-term view to be formed and within the wider context of European club football. They will reach beyond the current UEFA club licensing system criteria that are primarily designed to enable an assessment of a club's financial situation in the short term.

 

A Club Financial Control Panel has been set up to monitor and ensure that clubs adhere to the financial fair play requirements - and in May 2010, the UEFA Executive Committee approved the UEFA Club Licensing and Fair Play Regulations - which have the support of all stakeholders in European football. Financial fair play measures will be implemented over a three-year period, with the break-even assessment covering the financial years ending 2012 and 2013 assessed during 2013/14, and starting with the assessment by the Club Financial Control Panel of all transfer and employee payables in the summer of 2011.

[Toonpack 9303]

For interest re Financial Fair Play

 

UEFA's Executive Committee unanimously approved a financial fair play concept for the game's well-being in September 2009. The concept has also been supported by the entire football family, with its principal objectives being:

• to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances;

• to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect;

• to encourage clubs to compete with(in) their revenues;

• to encourage long-term investments in the youth sector and infrastructure;

• to protect the long-term viability of European club football;

• to ensure clubs settle their liabilities on a timely basis.

 

These approved objectives reflect the view that UEFA has a duty to consider the systemic environment of European club football in which individual clubs compete, and in particular the wider inflationary impact of clubs' spending on salaries and transfer fees.

 

 

In recent seasons many clubs have reported repeated, and worsening, financial losses. The wider economic situation has created difficult market conditions for clubs in Europe, and this can negatively impact revenue generation and creates additional challenges for clubs in respect of availability of financing and assessment of going concern. Many clubs have experienced liquidity shortfalls, for instance leading to delayed payments to other clubs, employees and social/tax authorities.

 

Therefore, as requested by the football family, and in consultation with the football family, UEFA is introducing sensible and achievable measures to realise these goals. They include an obligation for clubs, over a period of time, to balance their books or break even. Under the concept, clubs cannot repeatedly spend more than their generated revenues, and clubs will be obliged to meet all their transfer and employee payment commitments at all times. Higher-risk clubs that fail certain indicators will also be required to provide budgets detailing their strategic plans.

 

 

The financial fair play measures will involve a multi-year assessment enabling a longer-term view to be formed and within the wider context of European club football. They will reach beyond the current UEFA club licensing system criteria that are primarily designed to enable an assessment of a club's financial situation in the short term.

 

A Club Financial Control Panel has been set up to monitor and ensure that clubs adhere to the financial fair play requirements - and in May 2010, the UEFA Executive Committee approved the UEFA Club Licensing and Fair Play Regulations - which have the support of all stakeholders in European football. Financial fair play measures will be implemented over a three-year period, with the break-even assessment covering the financial years ending 2012 and 2013 assessed during 2013/14, and starting with the assessment by the Club Financial Control Panel of all transfer and employee payables in the summer of 2011.

 

You can download a PDF of the full rules from UEFA, canny read tbh IF they make it stick.

[JawD 99]

Aye, big IF isnt it?

 

While they may have it covered, what is to stop (for example) Chelsea, charging their owner over the top for a box, or advertising, or ground use etc to inflate their income?

 

That said, if they did I assume it would be to break even as they would not want to be taxed on creative income.

[Happy Face 29]

You can download a PDF of the full rules from UEFA, canny read tbh IF they make it stick.

 

 

Must establish and apply a policy to tackle racism and discrimination in football in line with UEFA’s 10-point plan on racism as defined in the UEFA Safety and Security Regulation.

 

Scousers in trouble.

[Toonpack 9303]

Aye, big IF isnt it?

 

While they may have it covered, what is to stop (for example) Chelsea, charging their owner over the top for a box, or advertising, or ground use etc to inflate their income?

 

That said, if they did I assume it would be to break even as they would not want to be taxed on creative income.

 

There is a "market rate" check/audit in place on other revenue to stop that happening, that's why City got in with their blockbuster, Ehitad I think, deal before the rules kicked in, but the big IF remains.

[LeazesMag 0]

Aye, big IF isnt it?

 

While they may have it covered, what is to stop (for example) Chelsea, charging their owner over the top for a box, or advertising, or ground use etc to inflate their income?

 

That said, if they did I assume it would be to break even as they would not want to be taxed on creative income.

 

There is a "market rate" check/audit in place on other revenue to stop that happening, that's why City got in with their blockbuster, Ehitad I think, deal before the rules kicked in, but the big IF remains.

 

right on cue

 

[JawD 99]

Any need LM? I didnt know there was a market rate that is checked at audit so appreciated his reply.

[LeazesMag 0]

Any need LM? I didnt know there was a market rate that is checked at audit so appreciated his reply.

 

I'm pleased that when that has been directed at me by people, that you decided to police the place on that occasion too.

 

Anyway, what [or anybody else] do you think of that post about Wolves ?

[ewerk 30385]

Leazes, what point are you trying to make about Wolves?

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, what point are you trying to make about Wolves?

 

my thoughts have been made clear for a long time now, if you still don't see it, that's your problem.

 

What are your thoughts on the post about Wolves ?

Edited February 29, 2012 by LeazesMag

[ewerk 30385]

Leazes, what point are you trying to make about Wolves?

 

my thoughts have been made clear for a long time now, if you still don't see it, that's your problem.

 

State your fucking opinion or keep quiet.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, what point are you trying to make about Wolves?

 

my thoughts have been made clear for a long time now, if you still don't see it, that's your problem.

 

State your fucking opinion or keep quiet.

 

State your fucking opinion, I've stated my views for a long time now, or piss off.

[JawD 99]

Any need LM? I didnt know there was a market rate that is checked at audit so appreciated his reply.

 

I'm pleased that when that has been directed at me by people, that you decided to police the place on that occasion too.

 

Anyway, what [or anybody else] do you think of that post about Wolves ?

 

Only if Im directly involved in the conversation. Which is this case I was. Come on man, you've been telling people to grow up all day then you post that?

[JawD 99]

Any need LM? I didnt know there was a market rate that is checked at audit so appreciated his reply.

 

I'm pleased that when that has been directed at me by people, that you decided to police the place on that occasion too.

 

Anyway, what [or anybody else] do you think of that post about Wolves ?

 

This?

 

WOLVES’ profits plunged by almost £7 million during the club’s Premier League relegation fight.

The team managed to secure safety on the final day of the last campaign. But latest accounts for the financial year ending on May 31, 2011, showed a pre-tax profit of just £2.2 million after player trading and net interest charges, compared to over £9million the previous year.

The club revealed that operating costs had increased significantly from £29.8 million in 2009/10 to £37.9 million because of rocketing players’ wages. Turnover increased to £64.6million compared to £60.4million because of a new three-year television deal.

Wolves CEO Jez Moxey said: “These are solid results which reflect the club’s financial health. We are committed to running the club on a firm financial footing, while constantly investing in the first team.”

He said that continued infrastructure investment was also aimed at first-team success.

 

What do I think? It kinda follows the trend and what I was saying earlier about revenue increasing but not as fast as costs. They are showing a small trading (though reduced) profit on operation.