They’re coming for us (fa cup edition)

comment by Cinciwolf-Wolves, passing the ball since 2017 (U11551)
posted 3 hours, 17 minutes ago
Bend it and shape it any way we want but it is quite obvious we are filthy rich and have owners that will happily spend big and intend to establish us as a top half premier league side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really?! So far our owner has spent more than yours. Please, please explain why it is obvious that you are filthy rich. Last I saw you were worth £30 million

Your owners haven't spent a penny, they have spent Premiership money ours spent 50m of their own on players imo.
We do not get 100m-150m a season.

And the reason a rich company bought us was because we were only 30m and had zero debt which is the best thing SM did for us.

And if they have spent 50m in the Championship then what will they spend in the prem? At the mo most players bar 5-6 are on good wages so we have a lot of room to work with.

Here's a couple of truth bombs for all the Dingles out there.

The current top 6 teams in the country just happen to be the 6 clubs with the highest turnovers. They don't have the 6 richest owners.

Man United's owners have less money than Wolves' owner (In fact their wealth is very close to Albion's). However United's turnover is 20 times that of Wolves.

Turnover means spending power and not the wealth of your owner.

Soz!

comment by Pulisaurus (U1363)

Turnover means spending power and not the wealth of your owner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually you're completely wrong - turnover doesn't mean "spending power". Carillion had "turnover".

Turnover is vanity.

Profit is sanity.

Financial Fair Play rules stipulate that money spent on transfers has to come out of the money a club generates so you're wrong.

As for this supposed "£50 million". You do know that if you sign a player for £15 million, for example, only a fraction of that money will be paid upfront?!

Regarding our owner. on day one he paid circa £150 million for our club. Your's spend lose change by comparison.

Like I said. Our owner has spent more.

comment by Isle of Bute (U16473)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by Pulisaurus (U1363)

Turnover means spending power and not the wealth of your owner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually you're completely wrong - turnover doesn't mean "spending power". Carillion had "turnover".

Turnover is vanity.

Profit is sanity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carillion had massive cash flow issues. It's not even comparable to football finance. I know. My son works for one of the 'big 4' accountants and works with one of the top 6 Prem clubs.

The overwhelming majority of turnover generated by all Premiership clubs is ploughed into player recruitment (wages, transfer fees, bonuses, etc). That's spending power.

Another little fact for you (going off on a tangent).

Premiership clubs use Fifa as part of their player identification!

comment by Pulisaurus (U1363)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Isle of Bute (U16473)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by Pulisaurus (U1363)

Turnover means spending power and not the wealth of your owner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually you're completely wrong - turnover doesn't mean "spending power". Carillion had "turnover".

Turnover is vanity.

Profit is sanity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

My son works for one of the 'big 4' accountants and works with one of the top 6 Prem clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Turnover is quite separate from profit. I do have an understanding being MD of several UK companies.

🎤👋

comment by Isle of Bute (U16473)
posted 14 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Pulisaurus (U1363)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Isle of Bute (U16473)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by Pulisaurus (U1363)

Turnover means spending power and not the wealth of your owner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually you're completely wrong - turnover doesn't mean "spending power". Carillion had "turnover".

Turnover is vanity.

Profit is sanity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

My son works for one of the 'big 4' accountants and works with one of the top 6 Prem clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Turnover is quite separate from profit. I do have an understanding being MD of several UK companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never brought up the topic of profit but, seeing as you did, please explain to me why Zenit St Petersburg, FC Shalke and Borrussia Munchengladbach (3 of the top 10 most profitable clubs in Europe) aren't outspending their European counterparts?

My point is simple. In football, the highest turnover generally provides the most success and all the evidence is on my side. The wealth of your owner and/or the profit your club makes is far less relevant.

I see profit merely as a failure to invest in players.