• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

Lemonade Money said:
There are always two sides to the story, Redknapp pleaded for Eden Hazard, but Levy said no. Defoe, Palacios, Crouch, Kranjcar. You can always cherry pick. The 'we' bit I don't care about, if we play football that good. Agree it should be down to a DoF and the bigger picture though.
Click to expand...
Every manager wants players a club can’t get
That’s human nature to want nice things
 
Until we releash ourselves of the perpetual loser that is Daniel Levy we will never be winners.

Guy has proven himself as a loser for a quarter of a century. But....but..just more 2 years...

Guy is a loser. A failure. The worst chairman in the history of our club. Filling his pockets with our dough whilst systematically failing in his job. It's not Ange. It's him. Guy is a habitual loser
 
Batspur said:
Until we releash ourselves of the perpetual loser that is Daniel Levy we will never be winners.

Guy has proven himself as a loser for a quarter of a century. But....but..just more 2 years...

Guy is a loser. A failure. The worst chairman in the history of our club. Filling his pockets with our dough whilst systematically failing in his job. It's not Ange. It's him. Guy is a habitual loser
Click to expand...
If this doesn't scream out "I want an Arab to take over" i don't know what does.
 
25 fudging years of failure on the pitch.


But hey! Uncle Joe and Tavistock have accumulated 6bn of revenue of an outlay of 26 million quid.

Brilliant. I love soccer!
 
Muttley said:
Yeah, it did but we immediately fell back into the Europa League format but couldn't get the wage bill right sized based on the reducing revenues for 2-3 years after. That meant money paid on wages for players who had no 1st team impact didn't turn into transfer kitty. Then Harry would have the Sky microphone shoved under his nose and make nasty little digs about our chairman not buying players. Harry never once spoke in the "we" about THFC. He eventually got Levy'd in the end and rightly so. Then the cleanup operation began just like it did at Pompey, QPR and Brum. lol - Christopher Samba anyone?

Reckless guys like Redknapp always needed a DoF.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that is true. We've always operated towards the bottom end of wage to turnover ratios in the PL.
 
Batspur said:
Until we releash ourselves of the perpetual loser that is Daniel Levy we will never be winners.

Guy has proven himself as a loser for a quarter of a century. But....but..just more 2 years...

Guy is a loser. A failure. The worst chairman in the history of our club. Filling his pockets with our dough whilst systematically failing in his job. It's not Ange. It's him. Guy is a habitual loser
Click to expand...
He does?
 
Finney Is Back said:
I'm not convinced that is true. We've always operated towards the bottom end of wage to turnover ratios in the PL.
Click to expand...

I tend to not worry about the ratios nowadays. The problem is that the salary bill is compared to all those elements of our revenues that were designed to pay back this amazing stadium we have e.g. NFL or Karting. We won't really have a true comparative until we own our stadium. We're also the best in the land at holding the base salary lower and the bonuses high so some of these comparatives to other clubs don't really hold water. I never know what to believe.

What I do know is that our salaries were the reason that we didn't land players like Mane and Wijnaldum a few years back. It held Poch back, but at least was willing to play with a lean squad and make each player have value. Redknapp wasn't. Neither was Jose or Conte. None of these guys accepted the job and felt proprietorial about the company they worked for....THFC.

It will be interesting whether salaries will be a hot topic again under Ange. I've not heard of it being an issue recently with incoming players. Might be wrong though.
 
Muttley said:
the salary bill is compared to all those elements of our revenues that were designed to pay back this amazing stadium we have e.g. NFL or Karting. We won't really have a true comparative until we own our stadium.
Click to expand...
Can you explain this please, it doesn't make sense to me.
 
Bullet said:
Can you explain this please, it doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

The way I understand it is that big capital projects like our stadium cost a bundle but amortise over something like 60 years. That amortisation is a charge to our P&L. We cover that cost and the repayments of the stadium against the debt by assigning some of our profits from revenue streams created by the stadium. The NFL, pop concerts, rugby and F1 Drive incomes are great examples of non football items that you may not expect Levy and co to turn into transfer kitty or player salaries. They need these revenue streams to pay for the stadium. However, all we see in the salaries ratio calculation is a denominator that is currently compared to our total revenue of £550m which includes all football and non-football incomes.

I think Levy would say that he's negotiated the very best interest rates on the debt and once the stadium costs are covered each year every last penny goes back to Munn in football operations. I believe him. Some fans think that because we're now at £550m revenue that we'd have the same cashflow as other clubs that don't have a shiny new stadium. We don't as we're playing the long game financially.
 
Muttley said:
The way I understand it is that big capital projects like our stadium cost a bundle but amortise over something like 60 years. That amortisation is a charge to our P&L. We cover that cost and the repayments of the stadium against the debt by assigning some of our profits from revenue streams created by the stadium. The NFL, pop concerts, rugby and F1 Drive incomes are great examples of non football items that you may not expect Levy and co to turn into transfer kitty or player salaries. They need these revenue streams to pay for the stadium. However, all we see in the salaries ratio calculation is a denominator that is currently compared to our total revenue of £550m which includes all football and non-football incomes.

I think Levy would say that he's negotiated the very best interest rates on the debt and once the stadium costs are covered each year every last penny goes back to Munn in football operations. I believe him. Some fans think that because we're now at £550m revenue that we'd have the same cashflow as other clubs that don't have a shiny new stadium. We don't as we're playing the long game financially.
Click to expand...
The issue with fans is they think turnover equates to profit which equates to transfers …
No one gets the debt thing. And I mean transfer debt for which we are one the highest in money we owe
Then add the wages
Running cost of the club
Other material items such as maintenance and many other variables
And you can underage a different picture
That Deloitte table is one of the daftest things I see in football and it creates hysterics from fans who don’t understand basic finance
Now if we had sold a few players each season for moderate money it would all look a little better but we have brought so much crap that we couldn’t sell it hurts us most years. We will thus summer be seeing go in a free another high value purchase in Reggie and we will take a huge hit on Brian Gil. Unless we counter that with a skipp we’re at a deficit to start with.
 
Muttley said:
The way I understand it is that big capital projects like our stadium cost a bundle but amortise over something like 60 years. That amortisation is a charge to our P&L. We cover that cost and the repayments of the stadium against the debt by assigning some of our profits from revenue streams created by the stadium. The NFL, pop concerts, rugby and F1 Drive incomes are great examples of non football items that you may not expect Levy and co to turn into transfer kitty or player salaries. They need these revenue streams to pay for the stadium. However, all we see in the salaries ratio calculation is a denominator that is currently compared to our total revenue of £550m which includes all football and non-football incomes.

I think Levy would say that he's negotiated the very best interest rates on the debt and once the stadium costs are covered each year every last penny goes back to Munn in football operations. I believe him. Some fans think that because we're now at £550m revenue that we'd have the same cashflow as other clubs that don't have a shiny new stadium. We don't as we're playing the long game financially.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I now understand what you are saying.
Putting it in very crude terms and using completely incorrect figures, if our revenue is £550m and we spent £300m on wages, the ratio of wages to turnover would be 300/550 = 55%
Whereas you note we might be spending £50m on financing the stadium so the ratio should be 300/500=60%

Obviously these actual figures are wrong, I'm just using figures to make your point, that the ratio we spend on wages is actually higher than advertised.


Meanwhile, one cannot have the huge revenue (the £550m) without having to finance it (the £50m) and we are far better off with this net £500m than if we had stayed in the old WHL with £200m revenue (or whatever figure, I know these are not the correct figures) so the new stadium is a huge success financially.

Is that what you're saying? I don't want to twist your words.
 
Bullet said:
Thanks, I now understand what you are saying.
Putting it in very crude terms and using completely incorrect figures, if our revenue is £550m and we spent £300m on wages, the ratio of wages to turnover would be 300/550 = 55%
Whereas you note we might be spending £50m on financing the stadium so the ratio should be 300/500=60%

Obviously these actual figures are wrong, I'm just using figures to make your point, that the ratio we spend on wages is actually higher than advertised.


Meanwhile, one cannot have the huge revenue (the £550m) without having to finance it (the £50m) and we are far better off with this net £500m than if we had stayed in the old WHL with £200m revenue (or whatever figure, I know these are not the correct figures) so the new stadium is a huge success financially.

Is that what you're saying? I don't want to twist your words.
Click to expand...

Dunno whether that is the point he was making but it's a fair point all the same.

Not sure we're repaying enough each season to cause a dramatic shift in the headline % of wages to turnover mind
 
billyiddo said:
Dunno whether that is the point he was making but it's a fair point all the same.

Not sure we're repaying enough each season to cause a dramatic shift in the headline % of wages to turnover mind
Click to expand...
We are only servicing the debt pile (akin to interest only mortgage)................circa £20-25m a year.

(Edit: £45m in the last accounts, which appears hefty given most of the £851m debt is secured at 2.8% average??)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back