- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Man U reports record revenues-Interesting
Posted on 9/10/14 at 7:51 am
Posted on 9/10/14 at 7:51 am
Preemptive move to justify their record spending?
I love European soccer, but it is so stinkin' corrupt, I don't buy anything these clubs say.
I love European soccer, but it is so stinkin' corrupt, I don't buy anything these clubs say.
6
Posted on 9/10/14 at 8:00 am to Tigertown in ATL
Whats the problem?
Posted on 9/10/14 at 8:03 am to Tigertown in ATL
they've been killing it for awhile now. even though they'll lose CL next go round, they'll still make a lot more than everybody else.
as everyone always points out, ManU, real, and barça haul in cash hand over fist and won't ever have a problem with FFP.
as everyone always points out, ManU, real, and barça haul in cash hand over fist and won't ever have a problem with FFP.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 8:06 am to The Mick
quote:
Whats the problem?
With penalties being handed out for "financial fair play" I am skeptical of everything.
Like I said, it's corrupt. And the financial fair play is a complete joke.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 8:19 am to Tigertown in ATL
Do you have any evidence or facts to support your belief that United has falsified it's earnings?
Or, did you just start a thread because...
Or, did you just start a thread because...
Posted on 9/10/14 at 8:25 am to PeepleHeppinBidness
quote:
Do you have any evidence or facts to support your belief that United has falsified it's earnings?
I don't believe or disbelieve everything.
If they did, I wouldn't be surprised.
This post was edited on 9/10/14 at 11:28 am
Posted on 9/10/14 at 8:56 am to Tigertown in ATL
Usually opinion is swayed or supported by some sort of fact. I was trying to find out which facts might be supporting yours. For example, when critics knock PSG's ad revenue, they point to the fact that the owners have substantial connections to the businesses entering into the deals with the club.
United has been reporting record revenues every year for a while now. Recently, the club entered into several major sponsorship deals which substantially increased club revenue. The knock on the Glazers before this window was that they were spending a large part of the club's revenues to service their debts, rather than reinvesting in the club. Now that some of the owner's debts are more serviceable, the club did spend some substantial money in the market. However, I don't think the club's recent revenue figures were bumped to justify the spending. I think the recent figures are reflective of the new sponsorship deals and consistent growth over a period of years. But, take that for what it's worth, I could just be a blind United homer, with deep ties to Manchester
United has been reporting record revenues every year for a while now. Recently, the club entered into several major sponsorship deals which substantially increased club revenue. The knock on the Glazers before this window was that they were spending a large part of the club's revenues to service their debts, rather than reinvesting in the club. Now that some of the owner's debts are more serviceable, the club did spend some substantial money in the market. However, I don't think the club's recent revenue figures were bumped to justify the spending. I think the recent figures are reflective of the new sponsorship deals and consistent growth over a period of years. But, take that for what it's worth, I could just be a blind United homer, with deep ties to Manchester
Posted on 9/10/14 at 9:05 am to Tigertown in ATL
quote:
With penalties being handed out for "financial fair play" I am skeptical of everything.
Like I said, it's corrupt. And the financial fair play is a complete joke.
do you know how FFP works?
The issue would be if Man United spent 100+ million for about 5 seasons in a row and didn't sell anyone or turn any profit.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 9:09 am to Tigertown in ATL
United has always made a shite ton of money especially with a lot of their new commercial deals. I don't think those reports include the small hit they'll take from missing out on Europe but it probably still won't be significant unless they miss out again, then I think their sponsorship deals go down a bit. I still wouldn't worry about their financials too much for now. They're a huge club with one of the largest followings in the world.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 9:15 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
do you know how FFP works?
Yes. It is a joke.
For whom is it "fair?"
Posted on 9/10/14 at 9:17 am to PeepleHeppinBidness
quote:etc. etc.
United has been reporting
Substitute Arsenal, Chelsea, Barcelona, Man City, Real, Bayern or whoever you want.
quote:
I could just be a blind United homer, with deep ties to Manchester
Edit: my point is that it is not a commentary on ManU. Post would have been the same regardless of whatever huge spending club we are talking about.
This post was edited on 9/10/14 at 9:20 am
Posted on 9/10/14 at 9:21 am to Tigertown in ATL
quote:
Yes. It is a joke.
Then why did almost every club in Europe vote yes for it except basically City and PSG?
quote:
For whom is it "fair?"
Its designed to create some kind of competitive balance. If it works we will see. Also puts a big emphasis on using youth academies which is a great thing.
Also designed to keep clubs from going under do to not being responsible with their spending and protect clubs who get bought the owner spends big and then bounces.
At least a club like City seems to now be on board while PSG is just saying frick it we don't care.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 9:34 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Then why did almost every club in Europe vote yes for it except basically City and PSG?
Just because it is slightly better than free for all spending doesn't mean it still isn't a joke.
quote:
Its designed to create some kind of competitive balance.
Only at the very top. Burnley and most others, even larger clubs like Sunderland will never have a chance to truly compete.
And it will never help the Celtic and 9 Patsies League.
quote:
Also designed to keep clubs from going under do to not being responsible with their spending
Valid point. It won't make the competition "fair", but this is at least a good step.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 9:43 am to Tigertown in ATL
quote:
Only at the very top. Burnley and most others, even larger clubs like Sunderland will never have a chance to truly compete.
Burnley is an extremely small club who will never amount to anything. It is what it is.
Actually it could help Sunderland with a major factor being the size of their stadium.
Regarding Celtic. The SPL is a joke b/c 3 of its big clubs are in the 2nd division.
This post was edited on 9/10/14 at 9:43 am
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:17 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Burnley is an extremely small club who will never amount to anything. It is what it is.
Actually it could help Sunderland with a major factor being the size of their stadium.
Now, with FFP, Sunderland "is it what it is" as well since there's no longer any chance a rich oligarch could buy them, spend a lot right away and take a precious CL away from a traditional power and "ruin football" like Man City and Chelsea. They can certainly build intelligently but without some massive transfer spending they are very unlikely to begin to tap into the all important CL positions since they are unlucky enough to play in the EPL and without that you're really not going to emerge as a powerful club.
To keep more Chelsea/Man City/PSG clubs from arising may well be a good thing ultimately but the benefits of FFP are clearly most acute for Manchester United, Real Madrid and Barcelona.
It's really tough to argue that point.
I say this as a fan of AS Roma who also probably stands to benefit since FFP has already been instrumental in dissuading the purchase of at least two Serie A clubs by oligarchs in the past couple of years. Roma is somewhat of a "sleeping giant" and currently has owners committed to growing the club through previously untapped revenue streams. Since Roma already benefits from the huge Serie A TV contracts (which are bigger than La Liga and much bigger than Bundesliga) and have been perpetual "underachievers" considering that it's the biggest club in a huge high profile city and a hotbed of local talent, it's the exact type of club that FFP should ultimately "help" as well.
However, even as a Roma fan, I can say tha FFP may prove to be good for the overall financial health of the leagues but I'm not going to argue that it really locks certain immense competitive advantages bigger clubs already have even more securely in place.
This post was edited on 9/10/14 at 10:23 am
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:48 am to Tigertown in ATL
quote:
Only at the very top. Burnley and most others, even larger clubs like Sunderland will never have a chance to truly compete.
I understand what you're saying and think there is value in it. This is the most common argument thrown out in opposition to FFP. But if this is being turned into a FFP thread, I would have to say that these types of clubs have never been competitive at the highest levels in any era, with or without FFP.
So, my question would be: how has FFP really affected the competitive balance of the game?
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:53 am to PeepleHeppinBidness
quote:
my question would be: how has FFP really affected the competitive balance of the game?
I would have to say, very little if any right now. Your other comments and reasons make a lot of sense. Might have kept clubs like Leeds out of huge problems.
Perhaps over time, clubs that are big clubs, like Newcastle, and even Forest and some others could compete.
I'm probably just personally offended because I would like to see more balance and a chance for more clubs to get CL spots.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 11:10 am to PeepleHeppinBidness
quote:
So, my question would be: how has FFP really affected the competitive balance of the game?
I would say that the main effect is that without FFP, top clubs in all the big leagues would be dealing with at least one new Man City/PSG/Chelsea every few years years.
It's not huge in one sense but when so much hinges on CL spots it is significant.
AS Roma, for example, is probably benefiting from Cagliari and AS Bari not currently overpaying for players and becoming CL spot contenders overnight (like Malaga did) since deals with similar groups that own PSG fell through due to FFP concerns.
This post was edited on 9/10/14 at 11:12 am
Posted on 9/10/14 at 11:12 am to wm72
quote:
top clubs in all the big leagues would be dealing with at least one new Man City/PSG/Chelsea every few years years.
This and the keeping clubs out of financial problems are good things.
I am rethinking the whole thing.
Appreciate the good discussion.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 12:03 pm to Tigertown in ATL
quote:
This and the keeping clubs out of financial problems are good things.
I am rethinking the whole thing.
Appreciate the good discussion.
The immediate reaction against FFP from so many is that it's clear the main reason FFP passed was that it benefits the richest traditional powers. Anything that doesn't has little to no chance of happening (just like in any political space).
In this sense, FFP is a bit of a farce insofar as it claims to really be for the "little guys" when fans of the little guys (like QPR currently) dream of a third world oligarch making them Chelsea.
There is also very serious doubt about how evenly the rules will be applied.
I agree with many of your reservations if for no other reason than that it's funny to see the old guard clubs freaking out over the rise of traditionally mediocre ones like Man City, Chelsea and PSG.
However, it's not that the existence of those clubs helps anyone else either. Better the devil you know, I suppose.
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 1:42 pm
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News