Jump to content

Abdallah Lemsagam Poll  

79 members have voted

  1. 1. Does Lemsagam owe us ka-myoo-ni-ka-shun & a Plan?



Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Blue_Guru said:

naming a stand after Big Joe...can imagine a Barry the dinosaur saying that is what will make the fans happy...all papering over the cracks 

 

Or it could just be a magnificent gesture to a great ex manager? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply
29 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

Interesting figures from Bristol Rovers showing the difference between L1, L2 and the Conference.

Can any accountants out there define what 'cleaned net profit' means? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

Interesting figures from Bristol Rovers showing the difference between L1, L2 and the Conference.

 

Ouch. Without someone throwing money in they be bust. Much like most lower league clubs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

Can any accountants out there define what 'cleaned net profit' means? 

 

 

The Cleaned EBITDA is the profit/Loss from operational activities only so for a business it doesn't include non operational income costs such as dividends and financial costs.

 

For a football club non operational income and expense will be profit or loss on player trading. So the Net loss for BRFC is 3.2 mill that includes the profit of 580k on player sales. The 3.8mill loss is the operational loss on day to day activities i.e. Match commercial income, and wages maintenance etc it does not take into account player trading. 

 

Hope that answers your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

The Cleaned EBITDA is the profit/Loss from operational activities only so for a business it doesn't include non operational income costs such as dividends and financial costs.

 

For a football club non operational income and expense will be profit or loss on player trading. So the Net loss for BRFC is 3.2 mill that includes the profit of 580k on player sales. The 3.8mill loss is the operational loss on day to day activities i.e. Match commercial income, and wages maintenance etc it does not take into account player trading. 

 

Hope that answers your question.

 

Basically, they are a mess. Must have a wealthy owner chucking money at it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Basically, they are a mess. Must have a wealthy owner chucking money at it. 

 

Well if the aim was to be self sufficient then yes. However if someone is agreeing to pick up the tab then it's not a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

The Cleaned EBITDA is the profit/Loss from operational activities only so for a business it doesn't include non operational income costs such as dividends and financial costs.

 

For a football club non operational income and expense will be profit or loss on player trading. So the Net loss for BRFC is 3.2 mill that includes the profit of 580k on player sales. The 3.8mill loss is the operational loss on day to day activities i.e. Match commercial income, and wages maintenance etc it does not take into account player trading. 

 

Hope that answers your question.

Thanks. EBITDA I get. Never seen it described in that way before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ritchierich said:

Football is basically f***ed

 

It doesn’t have to be if every L1 and L2 club had to file their accounts by June 1st each year and then penalised with a points deduction at the start of the next season if wages/operating costs exceeded 100% of matchday, broadcast, commercial income and player sales.

 

That way no club can stretch itself and I’d go as far as commercial income has to be totally transparent so you can’t have some billionaire acquire a club and pump millions into the club creating an unfair advantage.  If commercial income is linked to the owner then It can only represent a % of total income.

 

It does mean larger clubs in league have more income than smaller clubs but it will refocus clubs on growing their fanbase, becoming more innovative commercially and investing into youth/development to increase players sale income.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Midsblue said:

 

It doesn’t have to be if every L1 and L2 club had to file their accounts by June 1st each year and then penalised with a points deduction at the start of the next season if wages/operating costs exceeded 100% of matchday, broadcast, commercial income and player sales.

 

That way no club can stretch itself and I’d go as far as commercial income has to be totally transparent so you can’t have some billionaire acquire a club and pump millions into the club creating an unfair advantage.  If commercial income is linked to the owner then It can only represent a % of total income.

 

It does mean larger clubs in league have more income than smaller clubs but it will refocus clubs on growing their fanbase, becoming more innovative commercially and investing into youth/development to increase players sale income.

 

Nobody would touch most lower league clubs then. This is something Sky, prem and football league need to look at. Money needs be spread evenly and big clubs shouldn't be able to hoard youngsters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Nobody would touch most lower league clubs then. This is something Sky, prem and football league need to look at. Money needs be spread evenly and big clubs shouldn't be able to hoard youngsters

Fairly certain one of the authorities has limited the number of loans a club can send out. Think that will go some way to stopping big clubs hoarding youngsters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if their is to be a greater distribution of the Sky TV money then it should only be done if clubs fulfil certain criteria. So that clubs that are run properly are the ones that prosper. So if you could put a framework in place where clubs coukd receive extra solidarity payments based on things such as.

 

- Strength of community work and promoting football at grassroots.

- A good youth system in place.

- Sound financial house keeping, clubs issued with winding up petitions or are consistently late paying staff are disqualified from solidarity payments.

 

I also think we need to revisit that fit and proper person test. It's very difficult to predict how someone will act once they buy a club many successful business people have gone into football clubs with good intentions and failed miserably. However I do think owners should be held more personally accountable if a club gets into difficulty. How we do this is very difficult as you will also be dealing with corporate law. However if you could put a 3 strikes and you are out policy in place for clubs with 3 winding up petitions in the space of 2 seasons then it might change things and make owners more accountable. If that is to happen then football league then has the power to step in and take the shares off the owner for free then has 6 months to auction off the club to the highest bidder it might well stop a situation like at Bolton where Ken Anderson is basically holding the club hostage. It will also force owners to run football clubs within their own means as  if they don't they will lose their asset.

 

I disagree with Midsblues idea that clubs owners should be restricted in what they can invest in as that is more likely to maintain the status quo. I know it might not sit well with many seeing Salford going past us in the next 12 months doing so based on heavy investment. However that dream should always be there that a local boy done good can invest in his football club to bring them success. We wouldn't complain if it happened to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, rudemedic said:

Fairly certain one of the authorities has limited the number of loans a club can send out. Think that will go some way to stopping big clubs hoarding youngsters. 

Disagree. Too many kids would join the big clubs over a smaller one regardless of options to be loaned out further down the line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Disagree. Too many kids would join the big clubs over a smaller one regardless of options to be loaned out further down the line

True. But they are all going to have much shorter careers if they do. The loan system does work, but if a player isn't playing for Chelsea u23s or u18s then they aren't going to be kept on as frequently. League 1 and 2 clubs aren't going to pay the wages of the top PL clubs. 

 

It might take a few years but I think eventually young players will recognise that they are likely to be better off playing in Leagues 1 and 2 for a few years than barely playing in a top PL age group side for 3 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Midsblue said:

 

It doesn’t have to be if every L1 and L2 club had to file their accounts by June 1st each year and then penalised with a points deduction at the start of the next season if wages/operating costs exceeded 100% of matchday, broadcast, commercial income and player sales.

 

That way no club can stretch itself and I’d go as far as commercial income has to be totally transparent so you can’t have some billionaire acquire a club and pump millions into the club creating an unfair advantage.  If commercial income is linked to the owner then It can only represent a % of total income.

 

It does mean larger clubs in league have more income than smaller clubs but it will refocus clubs on growing their fanbase, becoming more innovative commercially and investing into youth/development to increase players sale income.

 

 

Are some unfair advantages unfairer than others? 

 

How far would you go with this? That the FA/EFL stop some clubs having better players than others? 

 

Is Utopia every game finishing 1-1?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Because it ruins lower league football. Creates a bigger gap. The bigger clubs pull further and further away.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I don't see any huge difference to most era's in the past although many of you are adamant that you do....

I'd even go so far as to argue that the standard is better in the lower leagues than it's ever been...maybe not League Two (but maybe) but certainly League One...

 

Even if you're right and I'm wrong though why do you think that the powers that be should take money from clubs who've made themselves successful via various different routes and give it to clubs who haven't? 

 

Not having a pop, genuinely interested in why you and others think that should happen and that it's somehow right and fair that that should happen...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Because it ruins lower league football. Creates a bigger gap. The bigger clubs pull further and further away.

 

I think I've said similar recently - the top half of the Championship and bottom half of the Premier League have a massively higher standard of football and facilities and, dare I say it, "matchday experience" than you probably got with the 8th placed team in the top flight in about 1990....

 

You had the so called big five back then and then pretty much every other club right down to Division 4 was playing in absolute shithole stadiums and often watching really shit football...

 

What am I missing here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2019 at 7:34 PM, HarryBosch said:

 

.....I don't see any huge difference to most era's in the past....

 

....your position on this topic is reasoned on free market economics.... and in that regard, it stands up.... however the statement above just isn’t true. Until 1992, the FL were the regulators of TV income share.... post that, the Premier League were. It’s self evident that the ‘the top 20 clubs’ therefore get proportionately more than they used to, compared to the other 72. If you think that’s ok, that’s ok.... but you can’t say today is no different to bygone era’s.

 

Long before the Premier League came into existence, gate receipts were shared equally between the 2 competing clubs. The bigger clubs moaned that they were disadvantaged & lobbied the FL for all clubs to keep home gate receipts. Maybe someone else can recall the year - I want to say it’s 1974, when Yoonited dropped into the 2nd division - but I don’t honestly know. In the late 80’s, the big 6 as they were then - Liverpool, Spurs, Yoonited, Villa, Everton & Arsenal, with the likes of David Dein, David Moores, Alan Sugar, Martin Edwards, Doug Ellis, lobbied the FL for the right to negotiate their own TV money.... and we are where we are. Throw in Salary Cap removal in 1961 and Bosman in 1995 and it’s fair to say the gap between rich and poor has widened over time / era’s....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...