ewerk 27584 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 They're also 11th in the PL spending list for the past 5 years so they have clearly backed their manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 48 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 We backed our managed in Souness. you have to though really, you have to let them spend and build otherwise whats the point. But, thats going OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guttierrors 0 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 portsmouth may supposedly be unable to complete their season fixtures according to sky news and the former owner getting the parachute payments is a joke surely since he left, the second year parachute payment should have went to the club. wonder if this could become a more regular occurance or will the fifa financial fair play rules bring balance to the force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) 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. are they an example of how you [or others] think NUFC should be run, on and off the pitch ? Would you be happy with their finances and placings ? This question is also open to the football finance [non match-going] whizz kids. Edited March 1, 2012 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 48 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Finances and places no. Maybe arrogant but I see us as a much bigger club than Wolves. I expect us to attract bigger Turnover. With that bigger turnover bigger running costs. To gain bigger running costs Id expect us to have higher wages reflecting in a higher quality of playing staff. As for the way is club is ran, I dont pay enough attention to them to know how they are ran on and off the pitch. But if you mean in relation to them showing a small profit for the year, I'd rather see us running more like a not for profit organisation. We spend what we earn and leave nowt in the tin. This would mean some seasons we have a profit and some seasons a loss but trade within our means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guttierrors 0 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 exactly, balance is not a difficult concept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Nothing wrong with being on a sound financial footing, as we are, as long as the team can compete, which we can. We definitely need more players tho and I'm sure it will happen in lines with the current transfer policy. Maybe a £200/300 mil debt would get a more realistic chance of top 4 and maybe we would still be fighting for 6th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Nothing wrong with being on a sound financial footing, as we are, as long as the team can compete, which we can. We definitely need more players tho and I'm sure it will happen in lines with the current transfer policy. Maybe a £200/300 mil debt would get a more realistic chance of top 4 and maybe we would still be fighting for 6th I'm not sure we're on a "sound financial footing" just yet are we? I thought we were in hock to the tune of 150 mill, which includes a sizeable interest free loan from Fat Mike? Also are our operating revenues covering our costs these days or are we relying on player sales and shareholder debt to fund the difference? I haven't seen the financial stats in some time I admit. Edited March 1, 2012 by Kitman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guttierrors 0 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 apart from the 150 or whatever owed to fat mike I thought this was the objective, club making profit (definately) income vs outgoings a positive now but for who remains the question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 apart from the 150 or whatever owed to fat mike I thought this was the objective, club making profit (definately) income vs outgoings a positive now but for who remains the question Are we making a profit now before player trading? Genuine question, I'm not up to date with this stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guttierrors 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 in all honesty I think you would have to say yes , wages vs income near or lower than 65% , getting concrete details is harder now but player trading must be a purely profit creating thing unless he,s paying off what we owe him. reading the portsmouth position on sky sports they were reporting a year in the premiership equivelant to 45 million, our first year back in prem with a 12th placed finish netted 88.5m income, anyway, profit? undoubtedly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 7394 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 apart from the 150 or whatever owed to fat mike I thought this was the objective, club making profit (definately) income vs outgoings a positive now but for who remains the question Are we making a profit now before player trading? Genuine question, I'm not up to date with this stuff I would doubt it, be good if we were, Arsenal sometines do (though not for a couple of years), Spurs who made profits in 5 of the last 6 years only made an operating profit once in that time before player trading (2007) all the other years they showed a loss before the player trading was added in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 apart from the 150 or whatever owed to fat mike I thought this was the objective, club making profit (definately) income vs outgoings a positive now but for who remains the question Are we making a profit now before player trading? Genuine question, I'm not up to date with this stuff I would doubt it, be good if we were, Arsenal sometines do (though not for a couple of years), Spurs who made profits in 5 of the last 6 years only made an operating profit once in that time before player trading (2007) all the other years they showed a loss before the player trading was added in. God. You're like flies to ratshit. Don't you ever post about anything else ? You are macbeth, aren't you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 So are you Leazes, except with you its everytime something glaringly contradicts your outdated narrative you revert to nonsense cliched responses. All Toonpack did was post some facts. You say you want the truth but you cant handle the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Always pictured LM more as Jack Nicholson & Chez as Tom Cruise, but it's the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) So are you Leazes, except with you its everytime something glaringly contradicts your outdated narrative you revert to nonsense cliched responses. All Toonpack did was post some facts. You say you want the truth but you cant handle the truth. the truth is in the league positions mate, and the FACT that they are nowhere near previous, and never will be. We have been relegated since they took over, the average league position has dived, we wonder who is going to be sold rather than who we will buy in transfer windows, and financially the club has also gone down the football rich list. These are the facts. The only cliches are those spouted by the "anybody but Fred" brigade, such as macbeth on the old message board, who's mantra has been taken over by Toonpack. BTW, whats your view on the Wolves situation ? Do you think they will make progress ie are a well run club, by using their profits to speculate and live within their means, and their fans ought to be ecstatic at the excellent way the club is being run ? Edited March 2, 2012 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 37733 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 LM as Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest, Chez as Cruise in Magnolia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 37733 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 At the end of Cuckoos Nest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 LM as Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest, Chez as Cruise in Magnolia. back from counting your beans are you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Reminds me to dust off that leather waistcoat, might slip it on tonight for the pub. I live by the mantra 'respect the cock and tame the cunt'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Reminds me to dust off that leather waistcoat, might slip it on tonight for the pub. I live by the mantra 'respect the cock and tame the cunt'. answer the question, as ewerk would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Respect the cock Tame the cunt Wolves are shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6381 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 How can th PL get it so wrong with the parachute payments setup? Surely they should be paid to the registered club, not an individual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 How can th PL get it so wrong with the parachute payments setup? Surely they should be paid to the registered club, not an individual? i think they do get paid to the club, but under the last CVA they are legally assigned to Gaydamak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Respect the cock Tame the cunt Wolves are shit The Wolves supporters should be ecstatic, according to the financial whizz kids, even if they are relegated they have good and improving finances ? Soon they will be like Spurs. 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