sonicyouth
 Offline
Posts: 22352
|
 |
« Reply #1815 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 16:53:40 » |
|
Wigan? Last time I checked they were £80m in debt, not exactly self sustaining.
i missed the word 'self' when reading it. oops although on that note, are there are any clubs in the top two divisions who are self sustaining? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Red Frog
Not a Dave
Offline
Posts: 9047
Pondlife
|
|
« Reply #1816 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 16:58:28 » |
|
Wigan? Last time I checked they were £80m in debt, not exactly self sustaining.
I think I read a similar figure for Swansea the other week. Wigan did at least turn a profit for the first time in years last season. So who in the top two leagues is "self-sustaining" - ie. regularly turns a profit without large injections of shareholder cash? Anyone? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Tout ce que je sais de plus sûr à propos de la moralité et des obligations des hommes, c'est au football que je le dois. - Albert Camus
|
|
|
jonny72
Offline
Posts: 5554
|
|
« Reply #1817 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 16:59:35 » |
|
The big clubs without the wealthy backer do ok, so Arsenal, Man Utd and Tottenham. Sure there are plenty of others.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trashbat?
Offline
Posts: 1565
|
|
« Reply #1819 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 17:07:57 » |
|
I have to be honest other than being passionate about the team, I can never see many reasons to buy a football club unless you are ready to write off a lot of money.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kerry red
|
|
« Reply #1820 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 17:14:15 » |
|
There are those who think the parachute payments to relegated PL clubs is virtually a free ticket back up again, need to take a look at Wolves, Bolton and to some extent Blackburn.
Wolves will become this season's Norwich/Southampton/Leeds and drop to League 1.
Can't really see Burnley getting back up in the near future and give a couple of seasons and Blackpool will be back amongst the dead men.
Hull seem to be making a decent fist of things this season (new stadium).
Still can't believe we spent our paltry parachute payment on Joey Beauchump
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Bob's Orange
Has brain escape barriers
Offline
Posts: 28533
|
|
« Reply #1821 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 17:16:53 » |
|
There are those who think the parachute payments to relegated PL clubs is virtually a free ticket back up again, need to take a look at Wolves, Bolton and to some extent Blackburn.
Wolves will become this season's Norwich/Southampton/Leeds and drop to League 1.
Can't really see Burnley getting back up in the near future and give a couple of seasons and Blackpool will be back amongst the dead men.
Hull seem to be making a decent fist of things this season (new stadium).
Still can't believe we spent our paltry parachute payment on Joey Beauchump
Wolves actually had a credit of 25 million in 2010/2011 so possibly aren't as financially buggered as Bolton and Blackburn. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
we've been to Aberdeen, we hate the Hibs, they make us spew up, so make some noise,
the gorgie boys, for Hearts in Europe.
|
|
|
horlock07
Offline
Posts: 18726
Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost
|
|
« Reply #1822 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 17:22:26 » |
|
The big clubs without the wealthy backer do ok, so Arsenal, Man Utd and Tottenham. Sure there are plenty of others.
arsenal are doing Ok now they have finally paid for the ground, but speak to any arsenal fan and they hate the financial model they operate to, and actually taking note of their position in the league is their financial model sustaining their league position. Man Utd are doing OK but remember their ground is probably 20% larger than any other of their competitors which makes things easier, plus they operate in a much bigger global market than probably 90% of clubs, do we get fans travelling huge distances from abroad to visit the club (apart from Norway obviously). They are also debted up to the eyeballs, our debts would only be petty cash to them. Spurs are a funny one, aren't they owned by some off shore company and thus I don't know their funding model, they have done well in selling players for huge profits over the last 5 years which may help, but thats a very risky model to follow. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
horlock07
Offline
Posts: 18726
Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost
|
|
« Reply #1823 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 17:24:58 » |
|
There are those who think the parachute payments to relegated PL clubs is virtually a free ticket back up again, need to take a look at Wolves, Bolton and to some extent Blackburn.
Wolves will become this season's Norwich/Southampton/Leeds and drop to League 1.
Can't really see Burnley getting back up in the near future and give a couple of seasons and Blackpool will be back amongst the dead men.
Hull seem to be making a decent fist of things this season (new stadium).
Still can't believe we spent our paltry parachute payment on Joey Beauchump
Hull have been at the KC since 2002 so way before their premiership years. Not sure what if anything they make from revenue as the ground is owned by, and was majority paid for, by the Council following the sale of Kingston Communications. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jonny72
Offline
Posts: 5554
|
|
« Reply #1824 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 17:32:39 » |
|
Can't remember where I heard it (Radio 5 possibly) but there was some research which shows the most successful clubs over time are the richest clubs, with just the occasional blip (ie someone pissing away their fortune). The richest clubs are those with the biggest fan base - Arsenals income is £100m more a season than Man City (whose sugar daddy won't last for ever). Seems obvious but the point is you can't buy long term success with a short term investment.
So if you want to back a club it would make a lot more sense investing all the money in increasing the fan base and related revenue making streams. That kind of investment lasts for ever rather than just covering salaries for a few seasons. It takes longer but it's the only way you'll ever be sustainable at the top level and be able to compete with the top clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jayohaitchenn
Wielder of the BANHAMMER
Offline
Posts: 12519
|
|
« Reply #1825 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 17:36:11 » |
|
You could argue that Man City will be getting more fans by winning trophies. Is that not how Man United did it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36318
|
|
« Reply #1826 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 17:46:15 » |
|
Man City were only about €5m behind Arsenal in the last Deloitte Money League. Jumped 5 places to 7th in one year alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
fittons_coaching_badge
Offline
Posts: 2059
|
|
« Reply #1827 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 17:56:12 » |
|
Man City were only about €5m behind Arsenal in the last Deloitte Money League. Jumped 5 places to 7th in one year alone.
Didn't there owners put in loads in the form of dodgy sponsorship deals? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
horlock07
Offline
Posts: 18726
Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost
|
|
« Reply #1828 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 17:57:38 » |
|
You could argue that Man City will be getting more fans by winning trophies. Is that not how Man United did it?
I would wholly agree, I may have a selective memory but when i grew up in the 1980's I don't remember any Man Utd supporters at my school, they all seemed to support Liverpool. However now many on Facebook seem to be Man Ure supporters and I suggest that if they keep it up the same may happen with City. Speaking to a lad I work with in Manchester he was saying his lad and all his school friends seem to be City fans so we shall see. I think prolonged investment and high level success brings a glory hunting fan base, don't think we are ever going to reach that with the occassional Johnsons Paint final sadly |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36318
|
|
« Reply #1829 on: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 18:28:48 » |
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 18:35:42 by Simon Pieman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
