The Footie Thread

[Deleted member 1740]

Isn’t that the point though mate? Pre RA the PL was won 8 times by Utd, 3 by Arsenal and Blackburn, RA’s approach woke other Clubs up and now more teams are in with a shout.

As for spends etc, absolutely agree the Lpool approach would be ideal for everyone, but that’s today’s position and if you choose to ignore the previous 15-20yrs and we’ll never have a level starting point to get there.

Utd did spend a bit, not Chelsea or City standard, but certainly a lot relative to the period, Blomquist, Stam, O’Shea, Yorke plus others in 1 season, Carroll, Ruud van Nistelrooy, Verón, Laurent Blanc and Diego Forlán in one other etc.

If any Club should get stick for spends and how they are run, it is Utd, just look at the debt their owners have caused, where as Chelsea have been debt free since 2008.

So to pick RA out and lay all the issues of the PL on him is unfair as previously said, the PL issues started before him and were made worse after him.

Look at the were the majority of Clubs get their money from and why? Maybe they should be thanking RA for spending the way he did as I believe every PL Club has benefitted from the knock on effect.

The highlighted bit.

I havent blamed all the PL issues now on RA but his aggressive spending and extortionate wages at that very time changed how PL ownership would become.

Every club was owned by a millionaire. Now to be a Guaranteed PL club you need to be close to a billionaire. He changed that and only him.

Look at how football club ownership has changed over the years, bar Brighton&Norwich off the top of my head the rest all have foreign owners who are all multi milionaires.

At that time it was only Chelsea smashing people out the park for transfer fees and wages. From then on everyone else had to do it.


No club will win the Premier League without a billionaire owner.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

He’s written off the debt in his statement this week.?‍

So they haven’t been debt free since 2008 ?

And it’s ok if the club has an owner that’s willing to wipe off £1.5bn is moneys owed - but I bet the asking price will cover thah

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The highlighted bit.

I havent blamed all the PL issues now on RA but his aggressive spending and extortionate wages at that very time changed how PL ownership would become.

Every club was owned by a millionaire. Now to be a Guaranteed PL club you need to be close to a billionaire. He changed that and only him.

Look at how football club ownership has changed over the years, bar Brighton&Norwich off the top of my head the rest all have foreign owners who are all multi milionaires.

At that time it was only Chelsea smashing people out the park for transfer fees and wages. From then on everyone else had to do it.


No club will win the Premier League without a billionaire owner.

Since he took over 3 Clubs have won it 5 times, its not as if he dominated the PL like Utd had done prior to that.

Yes, he took transfer fees up a level, but wages at Chelsea have always been around 70% of revenue raised (I think that’s how it is described) so almost a wages cap, infact others in the top 4/6 have paid higher wages when paying lesser transfer fees over the years.

Have a watch of this vid showing transfers/wages since the Prem began until end of 2021:
https://www.givemesport.com/1817108...end-since-the-start-of-the-premier-league/amp

 

[Deleted member 16999]

So they haven’t been debt free since 2008 ?

And it’s ok if the club has an owner that’s willing to wipe off £1.5bn is moneys owed - but I bet the asking price will cover thah

“Chelsea have a unique ownership structure, wherein the club’s debt (about £1.3 billion owed to Abramovich) has been converted to debt held in a holding company, Fordstam Limited.
While on one hand, the debt exposure towards related parties is significant, on the other, Chelsea have no interest-bearing financial debt owed to other parties, such as financial institutions.

This bit of financial hand-waving means that Chelsea, as a club, are essentially debt-free, though Abramovich could theoretically call in the full amount owed, which could lead to an interesting situation.”

This change took place in 2008 and recently he’s waived the debt.

 

[Foxholer]

...
But the model IMO is what all clubs should be using - clubs should be forced imo to spend only what they earn and then rely on being well run , better recruitment and player development

That zero investment policy is simply unrealistic for PL clubs!

 

[Foxholer]

...
Every club was owned by a millionaire. Now to be a Guaranteed PL club you need to be close to a billionaire. He changed that and only him.

Look at how football club ownership has changed over the years, bar Brighton&Norwich off the top of my head the rest all have foreign owners who are all multi milionaires.

West Ham? Though owners are certainly multi-millionaires.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

West Ham? Though owners are certainly multi-millionaires.

How could i forget the Dildo brothers??‍??‍
Like i said it was off the top of my head whilst i was on the hoof so to speak.

 

[Blue in Munich]

....
At that time it was only Chelsea smashing people out the park for transfer fees and wages. From then on everyone else had to do it....

As close as I can remember it; "Every player now has 2 prices; the normal price and the Chelsea price." Arsene Wenger.

So whilst it's true Roman had the money Stu, it could be argued that the greed of other clubs was as much a cause as his millions.

 

[Foxholer]

Blackburn Rovers (from 1990 to present day), who, for me, started the 'hugely wealthy and ambitious owner' process, demonstrate the difference between good and bad owners - irrespective of their wealth!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

That zero investment policy is simply unrealistic for PL clubs!

i know I’ll regret this but if it’s unrealistic how come Liverpool managed to win the league and CL doing it and challenging again this season ?

 

[Foxholer]

i know I’ll regret this but if it’s unrealistic how come Liverpool managed to win the league and CL doing it and challenging again this season ?

Here's a link that demonstrates that they've actually spent nearly 100m more than they earned (from player transfers) in the last 5 years.
And, like most, if not all, PL clubs they posted an operating losses in their last accounts (of around 4.8M and 45M). So by your 'rule' should not have spent the approx 75m (balanced by sales of about 25m and 15m) in this and last season!
https://www.transferleague.co.uk/pr...tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-liverpool/alletransfers/verein/31

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Here's a link that demonstrates that they've actually spent nearly 100m more than they earned (from player transfers) in the last 5 years.
And, like most, if not all, PL clubs they posted an operating loss in their last accounts (of around 45M). So by your 'rule' should not have spent the approx 75m (balanced by sales of about 25m and 15m) in this and last season!
https://www.transferleague.co.uk/pr...tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-liverpool/alletransfers/verein/31

You do know a club earns more than just players sales and that is not on a year by year basis - and many player sales and purchases are in instalments

As well as the accounts being made mid season and the last couple of years covid affected with the club like others taking credit lines when the Telly money etc stopped

But the point is very clear - the club is self sustaining, it doesn’t rely on any owner investment on player purchases , it’s all done from the clubs income.

The owners did take out a loan to build the stands up but again the club pays that loan back

The only money the owners have used from their accounts is to purchase the club and pay off previous debts

So the point still stands - we were able to win the CL and league without the owners spending their own money to buy players and being a self sustaining club

 

[Deleted member 1740]

As close as I can remember it; "Every player now has 2 prices; the normal price and the Chelsea price." Arsene Wenger.

So whilst it's true he had the money Stu, it could be argued that the greed of other clubs was as much a cause as his millions.

Whilst he was prepared to pay it you cant blame the seller.

Bit like concert/football ticket touts.

 

[Foxholer]

You do know a club earns more than just players sales and that is not on a year by year basis - and many player sales and purchases are in instalments

As well as the accounts being made mid season and the last couple of years covid affected with the club like others taking credit lines when the Telly money etc stopped

But the point is very clear - the club is self sustaining, it doesn’t rely on any owner investment on player purchases , it’s all done from the clubs income.

The owners did take out a loan to build the stands up but again the club pays that loan back

The only money the owners have used from their accounts is to purchase the club and pay off previous debts

So the point still stands - we were able to win the CL and league without the owners spending their own money to buy players and being a self sustaining club

I don't disagree with most of the above.
But that's not what your original post stated!
FWIW, I prefer the Liverpool approach - which is the same as Arsenal, Man U, Tottenham etc. model to the Chelsea/Man City one

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You do know a club earns more than just players sales and that is not on a year by year basis - and many player sales and purchases are in instalments

As well as the accounts being made mid season and the last couple of years covid affected with the club like others taking credit lines when the Telly money etc stopped

But the point is very clear - the club is self sustaining, it doesn’t rely on any owner investment on player purchases , it’s all done from the clubs income.

The owners did take out a loan to build the stands up but again the club pays that loan back

The only money the owners have used from their accounts is to purchase the club and pay off previous debts

So the point still stands - we were able to win the CL and league without the owners spending their own money to buy players and being a self sustaining club

So a genuine question as as I’ve said I agree the self sustainable model would be good for all.

What are the owners actually paying for then? Or are they just sitting back and taking a nice profit each year?
Depending on what you read LPool have debts anywhere between £150 million and £270 million pound and if the Club isn’t making a profit and the owners aren’t investing, surely that debt will only increase?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So a genuine question as as I’ve said I agree the self sustainable model would be good for all.

What are the owners actually paying for then? Or are they sitting back and taking a nice profit each year?
Depending on what you read LPool have debts anywhere between £150 and £270 million pound and if the Club isn’t making a profit and the owners aren’t investing, surely that debt will only increase?

The owners are taking no profit ?‍

One of them has a directors wage but there is no dividends paid to them

The only time the owners will make a profit is if/when they sell the club or a percentage of it

For example when they just sold a percentage of FSG to Redbird for £500mil etc

And the debt the club has is for the bank loan for the two stand extensions , loan taken out by the owners and then given to the club and the club pays it back plus any working capital credit lines that were needed during the pandemic

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...s/fsg-truth-liverpools-238m-debt-20485647.amp

“
A total of £197m was drawn down from the credit facility, although it is understood that a significant chunk of that loan has been paid back already after football restarted and media revenues started to trickle in once more, as well as other monies that have been brought into the business in past months.

The £197m figure adds on to the £71m that Liverpool owe to owners Fenway Sports Group, paying off a further £8m of their £110m loan to aid the redevelopment of the Main Stand at Anfield. That takes the gross debt at the club to £268m.”

The year before Pandemic the club made a profit of around £45mil , the current accounts show a loss of £40mil but a drop of £60mil in match day revenue ( no crowds etc )

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The owners are taking no profit ?‍

One of them has a directors wage but there is no dividends paid to them

The only time the owners will make a profit is if/when they sell the club or a percentage of it

For example when they just sold a percentage of FSG to Redbird for £500mil etc

And the debt the club has is for the bank loan for the two stand extensions , loan taken out by the owners and then given to the club and the club pays it back plus any working capital credit lines that were needed during the pandemic

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...s/fsg-truth-liverpools-238m-debt-20485647.amp

“
A total of £197m was drawn down from the credit facility, although it is understood that a significant chunk of that loan has been paid back already after football restarted and media revenues started to trickle in once more, as well as other monies that have been brought into the business in past months.

The £197m figure adds on to the £71m that Liverpool owe to owners Fenway Sports Group, paying off a further £8m of their £110m loan to aid the redevelopment of the Main Stand at Anfield. That takes the gross debt at the club to £268m.”

The year before Pandemic the club made a profit of around £45mil , the current accounts show a loss of £40mil but a drop of £60mil in match day revenue ( no crowds etc )

Cheers for that, I can see why though some fans would get frustrated with FSG, they paid £300mil for Lpool, now estimated to be worth over £4 billion, if they did sell that would be a massive profit for them.

 

[Dando]

Top keepers cost around that. I dont think 65 is too high for a player who was 25 when he signed and can play for 10 years plus. Id call that good value.

they could’ve signed me for a box of beer and a kebab

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Cheers for that, I can see why though some fans would get frustrated with FSG, they paid £300mil for Lpool, now estimated to be worth over £4 billion, if they did sell that would be a massive profit for them.

The club is worth that because of the progress that’s been made since they bought the club - Investment into a club can be more than just financially, they have put in place the right people in the right roles , either in the transfers or coaching and financial team. The club is worlds away from when they bought us - 16th in the league , just knocked out of the League Cup by Northampton- a team full of players like Koncheskey.

They have helped move the club forward on and off the pitch and if they do sell the club ( which I don’t see happening ) and get a profit then that’s a sign of the improvements of the club that were made under their ownership.

FSG haven’t been perfect , made some errors - furlough , ticket prices and super league to name a few but they have shown they want the club to be a success - with the Prem not ever following the 50+1 model they have in Germany then I’m not sure what owners in the Prem I would swap for

 

[Foxholer]

So a genuine question as as I’ve said I agree the self sustainable model would be good for all.

What are the owners actually paying for then? Or are they just sitting back and taking a nice profit each year?
Depending on what you read LPool have debts anywhere between £150 million and £270 million pound and if the Club isn’t making a profit and the owners aren’t investing, surely that debt will only increase?

To me, it's the difference between running the football club as a business - which is what most PL teams are - and using/running it more like a toy/hobby - which is how Chelsea and Man City are.
Kroenke (Arsenal), Lewis/Levy (Tottenham), Glazers (Man U) and Fenway(Liverpool) are all involved in running sports related businesses in US. The owners of Chelsea and Man City are in decidedly different circumstances - and their football clubs are run more as a hobby!