MuffMantoff

Posts: 272

March 3 He doesnt wanna sell

ToffeeCup

Posts: 3,044

March 4
This Arsenal rumour does offer a stark change in football club purchasing. Chelsea weren't much before Roman weighed in. Citeh were awful.... but who cares, all the more fun to buy cheap and spend your cash on players.

But the rules have changed now.

On the current exchange rate with the new Financial Fair Play regulations... clubs can now only run up loses of £37 million over three years. And while there are ways and means around losing the odd ten million here and another 10 million there, lets just look at the figures based on those released. The comparrison makes the case that not only do these rules now prevent someone from coming in and taking a stoke city into the champions league thus strengthening the established top end clubs.... but they also ensure that the established top end clubs are now where those would-be owners will now look to invest.


Arsenal's turnover is was up 10 million to £235.3million. So heading in the right direction and they made a profit of £36.6 million.

Everton's turnover was down 1.5 million to £80.5million and registered a net loss of £9.1million.


Dividing the allowable loss figure of 37 million by three we get 12.3 million (roughly).



So Arsenal could, with no messing about, under these rules spends £48.9 million a year. More on top if their turner over continues on its current trajectory. And lets not forget these rules will have an impact... and not just on players wages as it widely touted but very much on big transfer fees too! 

Where as purchasing Everton could see someone lavishing as much as £3.2 million a year on them. Just imagine what that sort of cash could do for Mr Moyes, or whoever should he elect to leave at the end of the season.









N.B, its fair to say that Everton's loss is more than likely just a paper one. A loss that will probably please the accountants of the main shareholders as they offset it against their other, profitable, business interests. And that stadium expenditure would not count in these regulations, neither does paying off debt. And also that sponsorship deals from a new owners other business interests could be signed to artificially inflate our turnover (ala citeh) and there for the money we could spend. You would also imagine that failure to get into the CL for Arsenal would make a dent too! But those figures are just the plain facts with no messing about or chicanery.

CharlieCroker

Posts: 965

March 4 Regarding the FFP regulations, I can think of numerous ways round them, off the top of my head:
1. Inflated sponsorship deals, as TC said.
2. Players' wages augmented by third party companies, who are then compensated by their club's shareholders. The various invoices would be for intangibles like "consultancy", "image rights" etc.
3. Transfers routed through profitable clubs- for example, Man U buy an expensive player then sell him at a paper loss, to a club with insufficient income to cover the real purchase price of the player. The owners of the two clubs then settle up behind the bike sheds. Or fix matches. The FFP regulations are a welcome mat for criminals, aren't they?

No doubt the middlemen involved in deals of the above nature would cream off some of the money, but there is still hope for the owners of clubs like Everton, Man City, Chelsea et al, to catch up with the clubs who already have high income.

What do the FFP regulations cover? I thought that things like stadium improvements, training academies etc. were exempt from them- that they only covered stuff like transfer fees and players' wages.

What would you estimate EFC's sale value to be? According to today's press, Kroenke has said he's not selling, so this group of investors may be looking elsewhere. I wonder if £250m would give Bill and his mates an adequate return on their outlay? There would be plenty left in that £1,500m kitty for a few players and a coat of paint for the Bullens Road stand.

CharlieCroker

Posts: 965

March 4 I would guess that Everton are the club with the best potential to grow their income, for a given investment. We are a player or two short of qualifying for the CL. I have seen varous figures quoted for CL revenue, between £20m and £50m, possibly dependent on how far a club progresses in it. This would obviously make a huge difference to our small (c/w Liverpool and Arsenal) turnover. A few years in that competition would help increase long term sponsorship/merchandising/TV revenue too.

Future increases in footy revenue will come from growing overseas markets, I reckon. These new "fans" will "support" clubs with well-known names- CL participation is essential, if we are not be be left behind permanently. These present owners' reluctance/failure in January, to support our bid for 4th place, convinces me that they must sell as soon as possible, for the good of the Club. I've got about a quarter of a century left to go, and I want to see Everton win the League in that time. Just once will do.

CharlieCroker

Posts: 965

March 4

Knoxy2001e said:

null

-----------------

Good sheds seem to cost about £300m. This is what Liverpool were quoted for that monstrosity they were proposing to plonk on the Park. Given that the construction of one would add to any future sale value of a club, it does not seem like an insurmountable hurdle, at least not for a firm with £1,500 to spend. Of course, any potential buyer of EFC will use the lack of a modern stadium to lever the price down. I would rather the new stadium, if it happens, is funded by a new owner, rather than thrown up on a shoestring by the existing lot. A new stadium must cater for the needs of a club for 100 years or so. If EFC is to compete, at any stage in the coming decades, with Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool, it must have facilities to match. This is why I was against the Kirkby proposals- they were a cheap effort to make the Club saleable, but to what sort of buyer? One who is content to own a club with a small stadium on a supermarket car park in a council estate in no-man's land. These people trying to buy Arsenal seem to be a cut above that. If they exist, there will be more like them. I suspect that the main obstacle, to our Club finding an owner with the funds to realise its potential, is mainly financial- Bill and his cronies want too high a price.

koolhandluke8

Posts: 3,024

March 4 I luurve all the assumptions people make on here... as though they they are "in the know"......

sambo applecart

Posts: 24,216

March 4

tonyd said:

We don't need a new stadium we need a team with more black players in it with exotic names nah in all seriousness we aren't for sale bills a_wanker and to many on here he is immune to aids, takeovers and criticism.

-----------------

need a team with more black players



that would be a good start though mate ;)

tonyd

Posts: 2,853

March 4

sambo applecart said:

need a team with more black players



that would be a good start though mate ;)

-----------------

That useless heap of_shite Rodallega would have fitted the bill nicely tbh sandals

tonyd

Posts: 2,853

March 4

sambo applecart said:

tonyd said:

That useless heap of_shite Rodallega would have fitted the bill nicely tbh sandals

aye, gotta hold my hands up there mate, wouldnt have gone to plan would it.....


where you been at buddy, you getting nervous about the quarter final??

-----------------

I've been casing Kenwrights joint to see his comings and going so I can get a bomb put under his **** mobile

tonyd

Posts: 2,853

March 4 and yes you didn't think that one through on the exotic pineapple head rodders hes awful lad

and no after witnessing the demolition of oldham first hand I fully expect to turn up saturday and beat wigan and get me wembley ticket

I think the murderous_shite did us a favour lamping wigan it may shift martinez's priorities form the cup to the premier league survival watch this space