Finance

390 posts
User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5520
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: The Frozen North

Re: Finance

by Franchise FC » 03 Jul 2020 18:37

Lower West
Franchise FC
Sutekh
Not knowing very much about these things, wouldn’t the shares just be bought up by Mr Yongge either directly or through one of his businesses or is that not allowed?

That's not necessarily the point. The point is that it is possible to issue share capital from a company without any cash being received. It wouldn't make much sense in this scenario, but it is possible.


Simply convert debt into equity.

Absolutely

User avatar
Hitchytwo
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 13:32

Re: Finance

by Hitchytwo » 11 Jul 2020 08:15

Zip
Snowflake Royal
WoodleyRoyal
Just need to sell a prized asset, moore swift puscas or olise maybe two of them. and with the like of mannone gone our second highest earner see if we can push aluko out and with the other who are ooc we will be fine.

We're supposed to have been on 200%+ of income on wages. It's going to take more than that.[/quote


We must reduce the squad size this summer. It’s been too large for far too long. Get rid of 9 or 10 and bring in about 4.


There has to be a wage cap introduced before next season. I'm no accountant but shouldn't it be that any business should spend 40% of the income on wages not 200%. Which is something that no club in the league has been doing. This should be calculated by someone at the club and enforced before we become another club that gets hammered by the big swinging arm of the EFL and relegated because of it. If the club want to start working towards that they need to get rid of the old and bring in the new.

Gunter, Mcleary, Aluko, Obita, Moore, Swift all have to go to keep the club afloat, with they're wages gone and some transfer fees coming from the same of people like swift we could be ok for the future ahead.

Elm Park Kid
Member
Posts: 997
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 10:45

Re: Finance

by Elm Park Kid » 11 Jul 2020 10:11

Hitchytwo
Zip
Snowflake Royal

We're supposed to have been on 200%+ of income on wages. It's going to take more than that.[/quote


We must reduce the squad size this summer. It’s been too large for far too long. Get rid of 9 or 10 and bring in about 4.


There has to be a wage cap introduced before next season. I'm no accountant but shouldn't it be that any business should spend 40% of the income on wages not 200%. Which is something that no club in the league has been doing. This should be calculated by someone at the club and enforced before we become another club that gets hammered by the big swinging arm of the EFL and relegated because of it. If the club want to start working towards that they need to get rid of the old and bring in the new.

Gunter, Mcleary, Aluko, Obita, Moore, Swift all have to go to keep the club afloat, with they're wages gone and some transfer fees coming from the same of people like swift we could be ok for the future ahead.


The club can't bring in a wage cap by itself as it will be almost certain mean relegation at some point. If you can't afford to pay championship wages then you won't be able to attract/keep championship players.

A % of turnover cap for every club in the league would then mean that those clubs with large parachute payments or other income will be guaranteed to be able to afford better players than the rest. Maybe that's ok, it would probably be better than the current system, but it would probably make the league less competitive.

In reality football is a business driven by the self interest of players, agents and owners. They are not going to do anything that stops them making money, no matter how many individual clubs fold or fans complain.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 16035
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: Finance

by Snowflake Royal » 11 Jul 2020 11:05

Football is pretty much the example that free market economics doesn't work, it just leads to everyone chasing success by overspending and then getting in financial problems.

There's nothing wrong with a model of success leading to growth leading to increased revenue leading to success. That's sustainable. More varied teams won the league when that was the model. Since the PL and money going crazy it's been much more limited.

There are examples of teams challenging without breaking the bank, and over the years some of our better players have been our cheaper ones whilst some of the worst have been the more expensive.

Just look at Pog, Drenthe, Mannone, Moore, Vydra, Guthrie, Aluko, Bridge, Gunter

Vs

Meite, Olise, Morrison, Rinomhota, Richards, Yiadom, Hector, Obita


Do you really think that Baldock is 10 times better than Olise? Or Swift 3 times better than Rino?

And the benefit of using players who slash the wage budget is that if they succeed we make a massive profit on them, and if we fail and go down we're in far less financial difficulty and more able to recover. Whilst if we go down with a wage bill at 100%+ of Championship income we are in big trouble in L1 (stone cold oxf*rd at the current 200%+) unless we bounce back very quickly. And how are we going to do that with overpaid wasters on a downward curve.

Elm Park Kid
Member
Posts: 997
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 10:45

Re: Finance

by Elm Park Kid » 11 Jul 2020 12:12

The free market is working pretty well for everyone involved in football who is making money. There's piles of the stuff being shared around. The problem is that free markets involve failure - that's the nature of capitalism - so club failure is a natural part of the system. But then a clubs supporters are not just customers who can move on to another 'option' - the club is part of their lives and community and it's loss is potentially devastating. So, society ends up bailing out this failure, and with it the entire system.

Expensive players are not expensive for the fun of it. They're expensive because they either have a proven track record of being able to compete at a certain level, or have shown a large amount of potential to do so. That doesn't mean that they always come good of course, but it means that statistically they have a better chance of performing than a lower cost player. That's not my theory, it's a basic reality of how the free market in football players works. Those that are in high demand cost more.

Of course though that depends on the ability of managers/owners/scouts being able to understand what represents good value or not. The whole point of the 'Moneyball' thing was that experts showed that overall the wrong decisions were being made, and that if you looked at things statistically you could bring in better players for less. But that approach has now spread throughout football and i'd be surprised if there is now much scope for improvement.

TLDR: English football is doing an excellent job at making money for the people running it. The cost of players represent their value to clubs and there is no short-cut to spending less and achieving success.


User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 16035
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: Finance

by Snowflake Royal » 11 Jul 2020 12:25

Elm Park Kid The free market is working pretty well for everyone involved in football who is making money. There's piles of the stuff being shared around. The problem is that free markets involve failure - that's the nature of capitalism - so club failure is a natural part of the system. But then a clubs supporters are not just customers who can move on to another 'option' - the club is part of their lives and community and it's loss is potentially devastating. So, society ends up bailing out this failure, and with it the entire system.

Expensive players are not expensive for the fun of it. They're expensive because they either have a proven track record of being able to compete at a certain level, or have shown a large amount of potential to do so. That doesn't mean that they always come good of course, but it means that statistically they have a better chance of performing than a lower cost player. That's not my theory, it's a basic reality of how the free market in football players works. Those that are in high demand cost more.

Of course though that depends on the ability of managers/owners/scouts being able to understand what represents good value or not. The whole point of the 'Moneyball' thing was that experts showed that overall the wrong decisions were being made, and that if you looked at things statistically you could bring in better players for less. But that approach has now spread throughout football and i'd be surprised if there is now much scope for improvement.

TLDR: English football is doing an excellent job at making money for the people running it. The cost of players represent their value to clubs and there is no short-cut to spending less and achieving success.

It's excellent at making money for the players and top end managers. And SKY. Not really for the owners though.

Although it's obviously great to launder cash, embezzle or asset strip.

And no, I don't accept the players get paid that much because they're proven or high value potential. They hold all the cards whilst fans apply endless pressure to benefit them.

As I say, the difference in ability between our highest earners and lowest first team earners is not proportionate to their ability.

User avatar
Hitchytwo
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 13:32

Re: Finance

by Hitchytwo » 16 Jul 2020 08:09

Snowflake Royal
Elm Park Kid The free market is working pretty well for everyone involved in football who is making money. There's piles of the stuff being shared around. The problem is that free markets involve failure - that's the nature of capitalism - so club failure is a natural part of the system. But then a clubs supporters are not just customers who can move on to another 'option' - the club is part of their lives and community and it's loss is potentially devastating. So, society ends up bailing out this failure, and with it the entire system.

Expensive players are not expensive for the fun of it. They're expensive because they either have a proven track record of being able to compete at a certain level, or have shown a large amount of potential to do so. That doesn't mean that they always come good of course, but it means that statistically they have a better chance of performing than a lower cost player. That's not my theory, it's a basic reality of how the free market in football players works. Those that are in high demand cost more.

Of course though that depends on the ability of managers/owners/scouts being able to understand what represents good value or not. The whole point of the 'Moneyball' thing was that experts showed that overall the wrong decisions were being made, and that if you looked at things statistically you could bring in better players for less. But that approach has now spread throughout football and i'd be surprised if there is now much scope for improvement.

TLDR: English football is doing an excellent job at making money for the people running it. The cost of players represent their value to clubs and there is no short-cut to spending less and achieving success.

It's excellent at making money for the players and top end managers. And SKY. Not really for the owners though.

Although it's obviously great to launder cash, embezzle or asset strip.

And no, I don't accept the players get paid that much because they're proven or high value potential. They hold all the cards whilst fans apply endless pressure to benefit them.

As I say, the difference in ability between our highest earners and lowest first team earners is not proportionate to their ability.


I completely agree, Just because a player is "worth" 300 billion pounds doesn't really mean he's any better then the players at your academy. Yes to compete in the Premier league some investment is needed. But you can invest with the incoming money that you get from being in the league. The championship gets pennies compared to the prem. Its not realistic to pay prem wages until your actually in the prem.

User avatar
Sutekh
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10167
Joined: 12 Feb 2014 14:05
Location: Undiscovered pyramid somewhere in Egypt

Re: Finance

by Sutekh » 16 Jul 2020 13:42

Snowflake Royal
Elm Park Kid The free market is working pretty well for everyone involved in football who is making money. There's piles of the stuff being shared around. The problem is that free markets involve failure - that's the nature of capitalism - so club failure is a natural part of the system. But then a clubs supporters are not just customers who can move on to another 'option' - the club is part of their lives and community and it's loss is potentially devastating. So, society ends up bailing out this failure, and with it the entire system.

Expensive players are not expensive for the fun of it. They're expensive because they either have a proven track record of being able to compete at a certain level, or have shown a large amount of potential to do so. That doesn't mean that they always come good of course, but it means that statistically they have a better chance of performing than a lower cost player. That's not my theory, it's a basic reality of how the free market in football players works. Those that are in high demand cost more.

Of course though that depends on the ability of managers/owners/scouts being able to understand what represents good value or not. The whole point of the 'Moneyball' thing was that experts showed that overall the wrong decisions were being made, and that if you looked at things statistically you could bring in better players for less. But that approach has now spread throughout football and i'd be surprised if there is now much scope for improvement.

TLDR: English football is doing an excellent job at making money for the people running it. The cost of players represent their value to clubs and there is no short-cut to spending less and achieving success.

It's excellent at making money for the players and top end managers. And SKY. Not really for the owners though.

Although it's obviously great to launder cash, embezzle or asset strip.

And no, I don't accept the players get paid that much because they're proven or high value potential. They hold all the cards whilst fans apply endless pressure to benefit them.

As I say, the difference in ability between our highest earners and lowest first team earners is not proportionate to their ability.


Hopefully that should start to change now. Top of the PL aside, clubs will be releasing probably a lot more players as they struggle to maintain some little financial control and those players released are not going to find it overly easy to get new clubs and certainly not at quite the silly money they had before. Therefore there should be bargains to be had for those clubs with their finger on the pulse of things

Also reckon there may well be a lot more loan deals in the leagues next season.

3points
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2130
Joined: 27 Oct 2013 17:22

Re: Finance

by 3points » 16 Jul 2020 23:15

Clubs could operate on smaller squads if the emergency loan transfer system was reintroduced. Teams now have to have large squads (or rely on youth) to cover the risk of long term injuries and suspensions thereby increasing the cost of a playing squad.


User avatar
Sutekh
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10167
Joined: 12 Feb 2014 14:05
Location: Undiscovered pyramid somewhere in Egypt

Re: Finance

by Sutekh » 17 Jul 2020 13:28

3points Clubs could operate on smaller squads if the emergency loan transfer system was reintroduced. Teams now have to have large squads (or rely on youth) to cover the risk of long term injuries and suspensions thereby increasing the cost of a playing squad.


Said it before. Get rid of transfer windows. Just have the one “close” date in March like we all used to have. Clubs then have the flexibility of movement and finance throughout the season and aren’t forced to try and cover all eventualities with players that won’t get much (if any) game time and stall careers. This system wasn’t broken so why FiFA had to try and “mend” it I just don’t know.

390 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 109 guests

It is currently 31 Oct 2020 22:43