Owners

[Zidane98]

What are the increased costs of the new TV deal?

You seem to want to ignore increases in TV money by linking that with wages and transfer spending. And attribute all the profit making stuff to FFP.

You also like to ignore the transfer market and wage market inflation since 2011. The two biggest costs for clubs that have increased exponentially since 2011.

The facts are that losses have turned around from 700m to a profit of 1.5 billion in the first 7 years of FFP. To suggest that FFP has had zero effect on that is laughable. Its not the only factor but it certainly has played a large part in recovery of club finances.

 

[moomba]

You also like to ignore the transfer market and wage market inflation since 2011. The two biggest costs for clubs that have increased exponentially since 2011.

The facts are that losses have turned around from 700m to a profit of 1.5 billion in the first 7 years of FFP. To suggest that FFP has had zero effect on that is laughable. Its not the only factor but it certainly has played a large part in recovery of club finances.

The transfer market doesn't affect overall profitability. One side spends, the other side receives. The net effect is zero.

In the premier league, revenue has increased by £2.5bn since FFP came into effect. Most of that is domestic TV revenue, although commercial income and champions league revenue have had huge increases as well. Wages have gone up £1.2bn, which is (if my maths is correct) a fair way short of £2.5bn.

 

[Zidane98]

The transfer market doesn't affect overall profitability. One side spends, the other side receives. The net effect is zero.

In the premier league, revenue has increased by £2.5bn since FFP came into effect. Most of that is domestic TV revenue, although commercial income and champions league revenue have had huge increases as well. Wages have gone up £1.2bn, which is (if my maths is correct) a fair way short of £2.5bn.

Ha ha net effect of zero on transfers. I thought you didnt believe in that, lol.

 

[moomba]

Ha ha net effect of zero on transfers. I thought you didnt believe in that, lol.

I take it you don't understand the concept, as it has nothing to do with net spend w***ers.

 

[Zidane98]

£2bn spent in just the last 5 years after player sales. Suggest that the data will be more forva 7 year period betweeen 11-18.

Premier League Club Netspend 5 Season - Transfer League

This Transfer League Table is a record of the amount of money spent in transfer fees by English Premier League Football Clubs over the last five seasons. The table also shows new investment which club owners have made available to their

www.transferleague.co.uk

 

[Zidane98]

But apparently the net effect is zero lol

 

[moomba]

£2bn spent in just the last 5 years after player sales. Suggest that the data will be more forva 7 year period betweeen 11-18.

Premier League Club Netspend 5 Season - Transfer League

This Transfer League Table is a record of the amount of money spent in transfer fees by English Premier League Football Clubs over the last five seasons. The table also shows new investment which club owners have made available to their

www.transferleague.co.uk

Did that money spent disappear into thin air?

It contributes towards the profitability of the club that sold the player. Hence it having a zero effect on overall profitability.

Can I make it simple for you. Liverpool sell TAA to Man City for £100m. Our profitability reduces by £20m a year for the next five years, but Liverpools profitability increases by £100m does it not?

So the overall effect is 100-20-20-20-20-20 = ?

 

[Bulldog1954]

Define "big spender". Chelsea havent been big spenders for awhile.

Manchester United are big spenders. Hows that going for them since SAF retired?

You said there are plenty of ways to compete for trophies without big spending. Can you list the clubs that have consistently competed for trophies without big spending?

 

[Zidane98]

Did that money spent disappear into thin air?

It contributes towards the profitability of the club that sold the player. Hence it having a zero effect on overall profitability.

Can I make it simple for you. Liverpool sell TAA to Man City for £100m. Our profitability reduces by £20m a year for the next five years, but Liverpools profitability increases by £100m does it not?

So the overall effect is 100-20-20-20-20-20 = ?

Your sounding like that net spend guy again.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Plenty of ways to challenge for trophies other than being big spenders.

What are the other ways?

Define "big spender". Chelsea havent been big spenders for awhile.

Manchester United are big spenders. Hows that going for them since SAF retired?

You're perspective of big spenders is interesting. Some clubs spend more on 1 player than other clubs spend in their history and don't regard that as big spending. The idea that Chelsea could be regarded as not big spenders shows the massive disparity between the haves and have nots.

Nothing sums up the absolute desire to keep the traditional hierarchy intact than this:

How new Champions League format would work as FA warns against changes

UEFA are planning adjustments to their qualification requirements which would see teams who regularly compete in the Champions League protected and make it harder for outsiders

www.mirror.co.uk

The powerful clubs will do anything to maintain the status quo

 

[Zidane98]

You said there are plenty of ways to compete for trophies without big spending. Can you list the clubs that have consistently competed for trophies without big spending?

Spurs have been right up there. Chelsea have won titles. Liverpool as well.

 

[moomba]

Your sounding like that net spend guy again.

I guess the concept is still a bit difficult for you. Oh well.

 

[Cruyff14]

Spurs have been right up there. Chelsea have won titles. Liverpool as well.

Chelsea have won titles from spending a lot of money.

Liverpool haven't exactly been shy with their spending either.

Terrible, terrible examples.

 

[Bulldog1954]

Spurs have been right up there. Chelsea have won titles. Liverpool as well.

So just to clarify, you don't consider Chelsea or Liverpool big spenders?

Gees, if Chelsea and Liverpool can do it on such a shoestring budget, it should be just as easy for Watford and Bournemouth.

 

[chef]

Spurs have been right up there. Chelsea have won titles. Liverpool as well.

Spurs didnt win anything as they didnt strengthen while in their 'window'. Failed to spend.

Chelsea and Liverpool are both what I'd call big spenders, they are in the top half a dozen teams in the league wage wise too.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Spurs have been right up there. Chelsea have won titles. Liverpool as well.

Some real backs against the walls fairytales there I'm starting to think little old PSG could shock the world and win the French league

 

[Cruyff14]

I can't wait for the bullshit justification we are gonna get.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Ha ha net effect of zero on transfers. I thought you didnt believe in that, lol.

It’s basic economics and accounting.

Team A buys player for 50m. Team B receives 50m. Net debt increase of 0m.

The only increases in debt due to player transfers across all clubs combined should only be done to clubs going bust.

 

[moomba]

I'd even argue that increases in transfers actually help profit/loss figures at a particular point in time.

Because the loss part of the transfer (the buying club) is amortised over the length of the contract, while the profit part of the transfer (the selling club) goes on the books straight away.

So in the TAA example, the overall effect of the transfer in the year the transfer took place would be a profit of £80m (£20m loss for City and £100m profit for Liverpool). The rest of £80m would be accounted for over the next four years.

So bigger transfers means bigger immediate profits.

 

[Zidane98]

Spurs didnt win anything as they didnt strengthen while in their 'window'. Failed to spend.

Chelsea and Liverpool are both what I'd call big spenders, they are in the top half a dozen teams in the league wage wise too.

The question was which sides consistently competed for trophies. Spurs did that from 2015 to 2019.

 

[Zidane98]

Some real backs against the walls fairytales there I'm starting to think little old PSG could shock the world and win the French league

Just like PSG & Man City outspendung everyone has helped them win the CL.

 

[Zidane98]

Premier League Club Netspend 5 Season - Transfer League

This Transfer League Table is a record of the amount of money spent in transfer fees by English Premier League Football Clubs over the last five seasons. The table also shows new investment which club owners have made available to their

www.transferleague.co.uk

Spending more doesnt gguarantee trophies. Everton a good example of recent times.

 

[chef]

The question was which sides consistently competed for trophies. Spurs did that from 2015 to 2019.

Question was.....

Plenty of ways to challenge for trophies other than being big spenders.

Which you havent answered.

Spurs going empty handed shows why you do need to spend, they didnt win anything in their window that now looks shut. And Spurs still have a wage bill thats in the top 6 highest in the league, they arent some plucky little poor club. Just got a tight owner.

 

[Cruyff14]

Now comes the part where the question doesn't ever get answered.

 

[Zidane98]

Question was.....

Plenty of ways to challenge for trophies other than being big spenders.

Which you havent answered.

Spurs going empty handed shows why you do need to spend, they didnt win anything in their window that now looks shut. And Spurs still have a wage bill thats in the top 6 highest in the league, they arent some plucky little poor club. Just got a tight owner.

What the hell? Spurs challenged for trophies between 2015/19. Runnes up to you guys in 2017, runners up in the CL final in 2019. Came very close to winning the league in 2016.

Spurs absolutely did challenge for trophies without being big spenders.

Leicester won the titlle.