Premier League Money: Do we have any ?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

bubble wrap Carparks in South East London 23 Jan 14 9.20am
Quote paperhat at 23 Jan 2014 9.12am Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.39pm Quote sueagle2012 at 22 Jan 2014 6.26pm Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.15pm Off the top of my head I believe the accounts noted there were a number of expenses after the period they run up to; £18m in transfer fees from the summer £4m in ground improvements £2.2m for the training ground £4m in promotion bonuses £10m in repaying debt to the directors There were £18m in wages last year, we can expect that to have risen substantially (a random guess might be somewhere over £20m). So that's the vast majority of the £60m TV money gone straight away. That leaves gate money and sponsorship deals to cover routine maintenance and general running expenses, I couldn't hazard a guess at how much that would generate/leave, but it's unlikely to come close to covering a couple of £6m+ players on prem wages... All plausible ...I personally have seen very little value for the £4 m in ground improvement ..if indeed all this money has been spent already. So it seems we have very little money to spend ..in which case it is futile to the debate possibility of big name signings. I personaly don't think we are in too bad a position to fight for survival and our current squad is good enough to keep us up. There is also a risk of destabilizing the current squad/team if a couple of high earners are brought in ..and turn out to be mediocre. So overall ...focus on getting the best from the squad we have rather than bring fresh faces ? I'm definitely inclined to agree. The work on the ground mostly involved the tv gantry, cabling, building the tv studio thing etc, so won't be immediately apparent either way. But maybe a couple of shrewd acquisitions might help, and Browett assures us we have a "reasonably pleasing" budget to bring people in. But I wouldn't expect us to be buying particularly big names. Thing is, with the mass hysteria for transfers; It's not that long ago the majority seemed proud of the fact we'd got a squad that can compete, that was assembled for (comparatively) peanuts. I still feel that way, tbh! Call me naive but wtf is that thing for? No-one has been in it since it was built, it serves no known purpose yet has incurred the wrath of our disabled supporters. disgusting that no on ehad explained or at least apologised. Had to be built for TV company who demanded it. They pays the money.
Alert a moderator to this post

bubble wrap

Carparks in South East London 23 Jan 14 9.20am

Quote paperhat at 23 Jan 2014 9.12am

Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.39pm

Quote sueagle2012 at 22 Jan 2014 6.26pm

Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.15pm

Off the top of my head I believe the accounts noted there were a number of expenses after the period they run up to;

£18m in transfer fees from the summer
£4m in ground improvements
£2.2m for the training ground
£4m in promotion bonuses
£10m in repaying debt to the directors

There were £18m in wages last year, we can expect that to have risen substantially (a random guess might be somewhere over £20m). So that's the vast majority of the £60m TV money gone straight away. That leaves gate money and sponsorship deals to cover routine maintenance and general running expenses, I couldn't hazard a guess at how much that would generate/leave, but it's unlikely to come close to covering a couple of £6m+ players on prem wages...

All plausible ...I personally have seen very little value for the £4 m in ground improvement ..if indeed all this money has been spent already.

So it seems we have very little money to spend ..in which case it is futile to the debate possibility of big name signings. I personaly don't think we are in too bad a position to fight for survival and our current squad is good enough to keep us up.

There is also a risk of destabilizing the current squad/team if a couple of high earners are brought in ..and turn out to be mediocre.

So overall ...focus on getting the best from the squad we have rather than bring fresh faces ?

I'm definitely inclined to agree. The work on the ground mostly involved the tv gantry, cabling, building the tv studio thing etc, so won't be immediately apparent either way. But maybe a couple of shrewd acquisitions might help, and Browett assures us we have a "reasonably pleasing" budget to bring people in. But I wouldn't expect us to be buying particularly big names. Thing is, with the mass hysteria for transfers; It's not that long ago the majority seemed proud of the fact we'd got a squad that can compete, that was assembled for (comparatively) peanuts. I still feel that way, tbh!

Call me naive but wtf is that thing for? No-one has been in it since it was built, it serves no known purpose yet has incurred the wrath of our disabled supporters. disgusting that no on ehad explained or at least apologised.

Had to be built for TV company who demanded it.
They pays the money.

Alert a moderator to this post

cols123 beckenham 23 Jan 14 9.20am
Don't forget the medium to long term ambition of the club is to have a better stadium. Ultimately it that is seen as more important than investing heavily on what will anyway you cut it be a punt at staying up. If we stick with what weve got we gamble with staying up. If we spend we are still gambling on staying up Edited by cols123 (23 Jan 2014 9.20am)
Alert a moderator to this post

cols123

beckenham 23 Jan 14 9.20am

Don't forget the medium to long term ambition of the club is to have a better stadium.

Ultimately it that is seen as more important than investing heavily on what will anyway you cut it be a punt at staying up.

If we stick with what weve got we gamble with staying up.
If we spend we are still gambling on staying up

Edited by cols123 (23 Jan 2014 9.20am)

Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop Portishead 23 Jan 14 9.22am
Quote sueagle2012 at 22 Jan 2014 6.26pm Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.15pm Off the top of my head I believe the accounts noted there were a number of expenses after the period they run up to; £18m in transfer fees from the summer £4m in ground improvements £2.2m for the training ground £4m in promotion bonuses £10m in repaying debt to the directors There were £18m in wages last year, we can expect that to have risen substantially (a random guess might be somewhere over £20m). So that's the vast majority of the £60m TV money gone straight away. That leaves gate money and sponsorship deals to cover routine maintenance and general running expenses, I couldn't hazard a guess at how much that would generate/leave, but it's unlikely to come close to covering a couple of £6m+ players on prem wages... All plausible ...I personally have seen very little value for the £4 m in ground improvement ..if indeed all this money has been spent already. So it seems we have very little money to spend ..in which case it is futile to the debate possibility of big name signings. I personaly don't think we are in too bad a position to fight for survival and our current squad is good enough to keep us up. There is also a risk of destabilizing the current squad/team if a couple of high earners are brought in ..and turn out to be mediocre. So overall ...focus on getting the best from the squad we have rather than bring fresh faces ? Money largely spent on media facilities, miles of wiring etc for tv cameras etc. So hardly surprising you havn't seen any difference.
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 23 Jan 14 9.22am

Quote sueagle2012 at 22 Jan 2014 6.26pm

Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.15pm

Off the top of my head I believe the accounts noted there were a number of expenses after the period they run up to;

£18m in transfer fees from the summer
£4m in ground improvements
£2.2m for the training ground
£4m in promotion bonuses
£10m in repaying debt to the directors

All plausible ...I personally have seen very little value for the £4 m in ground improvement ..if indeed all this money has been spent already.

There is also a risk of destabilizing the current squad/team if a couple of high earners are brought in ..and turn out to be mediocre.

So overall ...focus on getting the best from the squad we have rather than bring fresh faces ?

Money largely spent on media facilities, miles of wiring etc for tv cameras etc. So hardly surprising you havn't seen any difference.

Alert a moderator to this post

tonykaos Ealing 24 Jan 14 12.28am
Quote silvertop at 23 Jan 2014 9.22am Quote sueagle2012 at 22 Jan 2014 6.26pm Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.15pm Off the top of my head I believe the accounts noted there were a number of expenses after the period they run up to; £18m in transfer fees from the summer £4m in ground improvements £2.2m for the training ground £4m in promotion bonuses £10m in repaying debt to the directors There were £18m in wages last year, we can expect that to have risen substantially (a random guess might be somewhere over £20m). So that's the vast majority of the £60m TV money gone straight away. That leaves gate money and sponsorship deals to cover routine maintenance and general running expenses, I couldn't hazard a guess at how much that would generate/leave, but it's unlikely to come close to covering a couple of £6m+ players on prem wages... All plausible ...I personally have seen very little value for the £4 m in ground improvement ..if indeed all this money has been spent already. So it seems we have very little money to spend ..in which case it is futile to the debate possibility of big name signings. I personaly don't think we are in too bad a position to fight for survival and our current squad is good enough to keep us up. There is also a risk of destabilizing the current squad/team if a couple of high earners are brought in ..and turn out to be mediocre. So overall ...focus on getting the best from the squad we have rather than bring fresh faces ? Money largely spent on media facilities, miles of wiring etc for tv cameras etc. So hardly surprising you havn't seen any difference. I vaguely remember a TV interview a while ago, I think it was Steve Parish. He said the media facilities, cabling, (and I think) the hawk-eye goal line cameras are all a mandatory part of the sky deal, and its cost the club £3m. So, what can you really do with a million quid on a ground that old? New seats, facias and signage, thats about it really. Going back to the Original thead posters comments though. Its plain to see that we have a conservative set of board members now. They got a little bit burned in the opening window, and are making sure who, if anyone comes in is right for the club in the long term. I think we'd be able to do much better business next season if we were in the chamionship. we are going to be better off than at least 50% of the teams, so we can build the stronger side without breaking the bank. Win automatic promotion and bounce back with more credibility. I know I'm probably going to get slated for that, but it makes sense, to me at least! But maybe thats because I've seen the club on a knifes edge, twice. I'm pretty convinced the board know this too. Edited by tonykaos (24 Jan 2014 12.40am)
Alert a moderator to this post

tonykaos

Ealing 24 Jan 14 12.28am

Quote silvertop at 23 Jan 2014 9.22am

Quote sueagle2012 at 22 Jan 2014 6.26pm

Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.15pm

Off the top of my head I believe the accounts noted there were a number of expenses after the period they run up to;

£18m in transfer fees from the summer
£4m in ground improvements
£2.2m for the training ground
£4m in promotion bonuses
£10m in repaying debt to the directors

All plausible ...I personally have seen very little value for the £4 m in ground improvement ..if indeed all this money has been spent already.

There is also a risk of destabilizing the current squad/team if a couple of high earners are brought in ..and turn out to be mediocre.

So overall ...focus on getting the best from the squad we have rather than bring fresh faces ?

Money largely spent on media facilities, miles of wiring etc for tv cameras etc. So hardly surprising you havn't seen any difference.

I vaguely remember a TV interview a while ago, I think it was Steve Parish. He said the media facilities, cabling, (and I think) the hawk-eye goal line cameras are all a mandatory part of the sky deal, and its cost the club £3m. So, what can you really do with a million quid on a ground that old? New seats, facias and signage, thats about it really.

Going back to the Original thead posters comments though.

Its plain to see that we have a conservative set of board members now. They got a little bit burned in the opening window, and are making sure who, if anyone comes in is right for the club in the long term.

I think we'd be able to do much better business next season if we were in the chamionship. we are going to be better off than at least 50% of the teams, so we can build the stronger side without breaking the bank. Win automatic promotion and bounce back with more credibility. I know I'm probably going to get slated for that, but it makes sense, to me at least! But maybe thats because I've seen the club on a knifes edge, twice. I'm pretty convinced the board know this too.

Edited by tonykaos (24 Jan 2014 12.40am)

Alert a moderator to this post

paperhat croydon 24 Jan 14 9.03am
Quote tonykaos at 24 Jan 2014 12.28am I think we'd be able to do much better business next season if we were in the chamionship. we are going to be better off than at least 50% of the teams, so we can build the stronger side without breaking the bank. Win automatic promotion and bounce back with more credibility. I know I'm probably going to get slated for that, but it makes sense, to me at least! But maybe thats because I've seen the club on a knifes edge, twice. I'm pretty convinced the board know this too. Edited by tonykaos (24 Jan 2014 12.40am) Just what QPR thought too and they aint guaranteed anything. They spent like mad in the prem too. They had the advantage of a 'fashionable' manager to lure players in with huge salaries which we also wont do. Edited by paperhat (24 Jan 2014 9.03am) Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan
Alert a moderator to this post

paperhat

croydon 24 Jan 14 9.03am

Quote tonykaos at 24 Jan 2014 12.28am

I think we'd be able to do much better business next season if we were in the chamionship. we are going to be better off than at least 50% of the teams, so we can build the stronger side without breaking the bank. Win automatic promotion and bounce back with more credibility. I know I'm probably going to get slated for that, but it makes sense, to me at least! But maybe thats because I've seen the club on a knifes edge, twice. I'm pretty convinced the board know this too.

Edited by tonykaos (24 Jan 2014 12.40am)

Just what QPR thought too and they aint guaranteed anything. They spent like mad in the prem too. They had the advantage of a 'fashionable' manager to lure players in with huge salaries which we also wont do.

Edited by paperhat (24 Jan 2014 9.03am)

Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jan 14 9.24am
Problem is, if you want to spend it before its paid out, then you have to borrow it. If you borrow it, you have to pay interest on it, which means over time future incomes are reduced. This has been a problem for quite a few clubs, they have accumilated debts and interest based on being a premiership club. The problem is compounded by the fact that the assets you spend that money on, depreciate rapidly over time, but the cost of having them doesn't. If your relegated this can be catastrophic because your income drops very dramatically, whilst your costs remain the same. In theory the parachute payments cover this, but in reality, clubs that have been in the premiership more than a few seasons really suffer when relegated, because their parachute payments largely are consumed by interest on existing debts, and they still have to find the money to pay wages at premiership level. The wise move is to save as much of the premiership money as possible, whilst strengthening the squad over time by trying to, even if that means being relegated for a season or two. To borrow upfront, against staying up is a massive gamble if you don't have a few hundred million in disposable income sitting around. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 24 Jan 14 9.24am

Problem is, if you want to spend it before its paid out, then you have to borrow it. If you borrow it, you have to pay interest on it, which means over time future incomes are reduced. This has been a problem for quite a few clubs, they have accumilated debts and interest based on being a premiership club.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the assets you spend that money on, depreciate rapidly over time, but the cost of having them doesn't.

If your relegated this can be catastrophic because your income drops very dramatically, whilst your costs remain the same. In theory the parachute payments cover this, but in reality, clubs that have been in the premiership more than a few seasons really suffer when relegated, because their parachute payments largely are consumed by interest on existing debts, and they still have to find the money to pay wages at premiership level.

The wise move is to save as much of the premiership money as possible, whilst strengthening the squad over time by trying to, even if that means being relegated for a season or two.

To borrow upfront, against staying up is a massive gamble if you don't have a few hundred million in disposable income sitting around.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 24 Jan 14 9.32am
Quote paperhat at 23 Jan 2014 9.12am Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.39pm Quote sueagle2012 at 22 Jan 2014 6.26pm Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.15pm Off the top of my head I believe the accounts noted there were a number of expenses after the period they run up to; £18m in transfer fees from the summer £4m in ground improvements £2.2m for the training ground £4m in promotion bonuses £10m in repaying debt to the directors There were £18m in wages last year, we can expect that to have risen substantially (a random guess might be somewhere over £20m). So that's the vast majority of the £60m TV money gone straight away. That leaves gate money and sponsorship deals to cover routine maintenance and general running expenses, I couldn't hazard a guess at how much that would generate/leave, but it's unlikely to come close to covering a couple of £6m+ players on prem wages... All plausible ...I personally have seen very little value for the £4 m in ground improvement ..if indeed all this money has been spent already. So it seems we have very little money to spend ..in which case it is futile to the debate possibility of big name signings. I personaly don't think we are in too bad a position to fight for survival and our current squad is good enough to keep us up. There is also a risk of destabilizing the current squad/team if a couple of high earners are brought in ..and turn out to be mediocre. So overall ...focus on getting the best from the squad we have rather than bring fresh faces ? I'm definitely inclined to agree. The work on the ground mostly involved the tv gantry, cabling, building the tv studio thing etc, so won't be immediately apparent either way. But maybe a couple of shrewd acquisitions might help, and Browett assures us we have a "reasonably pleasing" budget to bring people in. But I wouldn't expect us to be buying particularly big names. Thing is, with the mass hysteria for transfers; It's not that long ago the majority seemed proud of the fact we'd got a squad that can compete, that was assembled for (comparatively) peanuts. I still feel that way, tbh! Call me naive but wtf is that thing for? No-one has been in it since it was built, it serves no known purpose yet has incurred the wrath of our disabled supporters. disgusting that no on ehad explained or at least apologised. Super Sunday 4pm kick offs I'd guess. We haven't had one yet and Sky normally cover the 1.30pm k.o. game from the studio at the 4pm game. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 24 Jan 14 9.32am

Quote paperhat at 23 Jan 2014 9.12am

Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.39pm

Quote sueagle2012 at 22 Jan 2014 6.26pm

Quote Eunectes at 22 Jan 2014 6.15pm

Off the top of my head I believe the accounts noted there were a number of expenses after the period they run up to;

£18m in transfer fees from the summer
£4m in ground improvements
£2.2m for the training ground
£4m in promotion bonuses
£10m in repaying debt to the directors

All plausible ...I personally have seen very little value for the £4 m in ground improvement ..if indeed all this money has been spent already.

There is also a risk of destabilizing the current squad/team if a couple of high earners are brought in ..and turn out to be mediocre.

So overall ...focus on getting the best from the squad we have rather than bring fresh faces ?

Super Sunday 4pm kick offs I'd guess.

We haven't had one yet and Sky normally cover the 1.30pm k.o. game from the studio at the 4pm game.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Premier League Money: Do we have any ?

Site Map

Sponsors