Liverpool will be behind United in terms of revenue when the FFP comes in. Erm no they won't. Let me explain it to you in simple terms.
Manchester United make £250 million in revenue, their wage bill is £120 million, their interest repayments are £75 million, the Glazers currently pay themselves £20 million.Thats before tax of 12.5% of turnover. If my calculations are correct, United will have a surplus of no more than £10 million to work with.
Liverpool on the otherhand, when the stadium is refurbished, they will make approximately £220 million in revenue, they spend £100 approximately on wages, they have zero debt. so they will have a surplus of £72.5 million. FSG don't pay themselves dividends.
I can see the thinking behind FSGs plan. They have made the correct appointment in BR and done some good work with expanding the profile of the club in the USA.
But unless the Academy produce a golden age we will never get back to the CL. Their investment in players is nowhere near what's required. Also their belief in the FFP rules is completely misguided. Clubs like Chelsea and Man City will always find a way around the rules.
Once this reality has set in I'm sure we will be sold on albeit on a better financial footing than we were under H&G.
comment by 8bit` (U2653)
posted 5 minutes ago
I have no problem at all with how we're run, in fact I'm very happy with it. If you want to learn something about Arsenal's ownership then I can educate you if you want, I just thought this article was about FSG. So again, why so defensive? Do you not know how to have a reasoned debate? Or are people only allowed to say posititive things about Liverpool?
-----------------------------------
You can't educate me as somebody who is happy with an ownership who are at war, has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Somebody who comes and goes through articles posting negative one-liners then doing the old hands up and whine trick saying, "sniff sniff, I was only giving my opinion MR, why so defensive, sniff sniff" seems to me like their trying to hide the wrongs of their own club and thus come to make fun of another. Have crap strikers? Make fun of Liverpool's striking transfer targets, have crap owners? Make fun of Liverpool's owners.
Give it a rest you clown.
Aggers right elbow.
We're already in a better financial footing than we were under H+G. We've decreased wages and increased commercial growth, plus there is no debt with the exception of the £40 million that John Henry and Tom Werner loaned themselves.
Ozzie... United's revenue is actually £320 at the last published figures so you were quite a way off. United are a cash cow, commercially they are just miles ahead of anyone else in the country.
TOOR, there is only one owner of Arsenal so I'm not quite sure how our owners could be at war. You seem rather angry, I don't want to antagonise you further. I'm not sure why saying three strikers (who don't play for Liverpool) are average would upset you but anyway, my opinions on FSG are genuine and have stated them before. I wasn't aware saying anything negative about FSG is deemed a WUM, seems quite hypocritical given the torrent of abuse they received at the end of the transfer window.
Oh well at least I know now.
Ozzie,
As much as I hope you're right, when you say "When the FFP rules come in to play", that should be 'if'.
It's also depends on these rules having teeth. If they aren't enforceable or contain loopholes, then smart accountants will find ways around them.
It appears that our owners have pinned their hopes on FFP rules being a workable and enforceable. I hope I'm wrong, but I have my doubts about whether they will be.
Only time will tell I guess.
comment by 8bit` (U2653)
posted 53 seconds ago
Ozzie... United's revenue is actually £320 at the last published figures so you were quite a way off. United are a cash cow, commercially they are just miles ahead of anyone else in the country.
TOOR, there is only one owner of Arsenal so I'm not quite sure how our owners could be at war. You seem rather angry, I don't want to antagonise you further. I'm not sure why saying three strikers (who don't play for Liverpool) are average would upset you but anyway, my opinions on FSG are genuine and have stated them before. I wasn't aware saying anything negative about FSG is deemed a WUM, seems quite hypocritical given the torrent of abuse they received at the end of the transfer window.
Oh well at least I know now.
--------------------------
Good, now you can twaddle back to the Arsenal board and discuss the arguing amongst your board members, the power struggle amongst your owners who want control but don't want to spend and shareholder who wants to spend but isn't allowed control and your striker who can't score and winger who wants to be a striker when he's a real boy and will leave when he doesn't get it.
8Bit.
Why have you not mentioned their crippling debt. United will not be making such revenue should they go into decline. Marketing is based on trends and what your ''face'' is, United will not be as marketable due to the fact their ''face'' is a fat bald thug that cheats on his wife with grannies.
I'm happy to stay here but thanks for the advice anyway
Ozzie there's no chance of a United decline really. Even with their debt they are still miles ahead financially than anyone else. Commercially they are so far ahead of everyone else, revenue wise they're in a league of their own with Barca and Real.
Aggers right elbow.
We're already in a better financial footing than we were under H+G. We've decreased wages and increased commercial growth, plus there is no debt with the exception of the £40 million that John Henry and Tom Werner loaned themselves.
-----
We do also need to bear in mind our position in the league. We are miles away from a top four spot. Much further way than when we were owned by H&G. That has a direct influence on the clubs development. I think the currant owners are being far too conservative with their financial plans.
Well an average of 4.1 as i write this means, on the whole, the people on this site are fully behind FSG which is very good to hear.
Sounds like BR and FSG will get time
Got_Better
I'm all for giving people a proper chance to prove themselves and I hope FSG do. But the fact is they've had two years already and we're currently lower in the league than we ever were under H&G and we only have one fit striker.
Sooner or later they're going to have to stop hiding behind their PR wall and stand up to be counted.
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 3 minutes ago
Got_Better
I'm all for giving people a proper chance to prove themselves
---------------------------------
Then why haven't you?
TOOR.
They've had two years. We're currently 14th.
Why didn't you give Kenny a proper chance? Some of your criticisms of him (eg Suarez isolated) are now being repeated by Rodgers.
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR.
They've had two years. We're currently 14th.
Why didn't you give Kenny a proper chance? Some of your criticisms of him (eg Suarez isolated) are now being repeated by Rodgers.
-----------------------------------------
We've played a handful of games. Arsenal and Spurs started last season off similar to us this season and they finished third and forth by the end. Things changed at the club after they had to sack Kenny and it has taken time for these changes to click but the signs are there that they have and I expect a massive improvement going forward.
No. Suarez is not playing as a loan striker, he's being played centrally, with two forwards wide of him. It's not the same. Watch our games last season then this season, it's a massive improvement tactically and only a matter of time before results prove that.
TOOR.
I don't agree that tactically we've made a massive improvement from last season. It may be very pretty to watch but the reality is we have no variation and we're not winning matches. BR's tiki tactics work superbly for Barca and Spain but they just so happen to have the best players in the world at their disposal. We, on the other hand, don't.
Our current position is definitely false, but I'd feel a lot more confident if we still had Carroll in the squad and would be prepared to play to his strengths when plan A isn't working.
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 54 minutes ago
TOOR.
I don't agree that tactically we've made a massive improvement from last season. It may be very pretty to watch but the reality is we have no variation and we're not winning matches. BR's tiki tactics work superbly for Barca and Spain but they just so happen to have the best players in the world at their disposal. We, on the other hand, don't.
Our current position is definitely false, but I'd feel a lot more confident if we still had Carroll in the squad and would be prepared to play to his strengths when plan A isn't working.
----------------------------------------
I'm not a huge fan of this either but I know it can work. I know it will be a longer process than other tactics would require and there'll have to be a few tweaks to the squad but I think it is a modern approach and one we've needed for a while now.
I also agree about Carroll and the next to mix it up when we need to.
Aggers right elbow.
Yet another fickle supporter with a short-term atitude. I'm more of a realist that can see the long term is bright. We're not leveraged like we were under H+G.
There was needless spending done by Hicks and Gillett that needed time to be corrected and this has been done. Spurs overall pay better wages than we do, the same could not be said 2 years ago. However we're paying better wages to a better quality of player.
Should the new stadium be completed, we won't have to worry about competing, City and Chelsea will both be restricted, we're a far superior brand than Arsenal, and we don't have the financial problems Manchester United do, and they have got financial problems.
Ozzie: FFP will have no real impact, as the sanctions won't be applied. If you think that UEFA will ban any of the top clubs from the CL then you're dreaming, as their multi million dollar sponsors won't allow it.Can you image them banning Real Madrid from the competition? haha, never going to happen mate.
Haha anybody who doesnt blow bubbles up FSG's hoops is a non supporter,fairweather etc,
We'll see.
They won't be banned from Europe, thinking that would be ludicrous. However, their spending will be restricted. If they make £140 million in revenue, they won't be able to spend £100 million on players.
However, if said clubs decide to find loop-holes to increase sponsorship, the bigger brand clubs obviously will do likewise.
However FSG are correct in their theory, zero debt, maximise the brand potential and increase commercial growth. Its a 3 step process.
Arsenal have two of the above, they don't have the brand, they haven't earnt the right to have the brand. Manchester United have two of the above, they don't have the 3rd as they have crippling debts.
Benefactors clubs don't have any of the above. Liverpool have all three. They can commercially blow Manchester United out of the water, United are a cash cow, but Liverpool are an un-milked cash cow. Its all new, there is new money, and they can exploit that.
Money money money,in a rich mans world.
Why do people think Barca and Real would have problems with FFP? They both made profits in their last accounts, they are the 2 richest clubs in the world, their revenues are miles ahead of anyone else
1. Real Madrid: 479.5m euros
2. Barcelona: 450.7m euros
3. Man Utd: 367m euros
4. Bayern Munich: 321.4m euros
5. Arsenal: 251.1m euros
6. Chelsea: 249.8m euros
7. AC Milan: 235.1.m euros
8. Internazionale: 211.4m euros
9. Liverpool: 203.3m euros
10. Schalke: 202.4m euros
Real and Barca will be desperately hoping FFP is enforced.
They won't be banned from Europe, thinking that would be ludicrous. However, their spending will be restricted
............................
The only sanction UEFA have got is to ban them from their competitions, if you agree that they won't enforce it, then why will their spending be restricted? Chelsea spent £80M this summer & this years accounts will be included in the FFP, they couldn't care less it seems.
Will they be able to do so if the FFP is introduced. The FFP relates to ''Capital gearing'' Supposing Chelsea pay 80% of the revenue in wages and then attempt to spend 50% of revenue on players, then they are breaking the rules. Therefore they will be restricted.
Think logically before posting, you cannot spend £100 million on players if you only make £240 million and your wage bill is £180 million.
Sign in if you want to comment
FSG..believe no believe?
Page 2 of 3
posted on 14/10/12
Liverpool will be behind United in terms of revenue when the FFP comes in. Erm no they won't. Let me explain it to you in simple terms.
Manchester United make £250 million in revenue, their wage bill is £120 million, their interest repayments are £75 million, the Glazers currently pay themselves £20 million.Thats before tax of 12.5% of turnover. If my calculations are correct, United will have a surplus of no more than £10 million to work with.
Liverpool on the otherhand, when the stadium is refurbished, they will make approximately £220 million in revenue, they spend £100 approximately on wages, they have zero debt. so they will have a surplus of £72.5 million. FSG don't pay themselves dividends.
posted on 14/10/12
I can see the thinking behind FSGs plan. They have made the correct appointment in BR and done some good work with expanding the profile of the club in the USA.
But unless the Academy produce a golden age we will never get back to the CL. Their investment in players is nowhere near what's required. Also their belief in the FFP rules is completely misguided. Clubs like Chelsea and Man City will always find a way around the rules.
Once this reality has set in I'm sure we will be sold on albeit on a better financial footing than we were under H&G.
posted on 14/10/12
comment by 8bit` (U2653)
posted 5 minutes ago
I have no problem at all with how we're run, in fact I'm very happy with it. If you want to learn something about Arsenal's ownership then I can educate you if you want, I just thought this article was about FSG. So again, why so defensive? Do you not know how to have a reasoned debate? Or are people only allowed to say posititive things about Liverpool?
-----------------------------------
You can't educate me as somebody who is happy with an ownership who are at war, has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Somebody who comes and goes through articles posting negative one-liners then doing the old hands up and whine trick saying, "sniff sniff, I was only giving my opinion MR, why so defensive, sniff sniff" seems to me like their trying to hide the wrongs of their own club and thus come to make fun of another. Have crap strikers? Make fun of Liverpool's striking transfer targets, have crap owners? Make fun of Liverpool's owners.
Give it a rest you clown.
posted on 14/10/12
Aggers right elbow.
We're already in a better financial footing than we were under H+G. We've decreased wages and increased commercial growth, plus there is no debt with the exception of the £40 million that John Henry and Tom Werner loaned themselves.
posted on 14/10/12
Ozzie... United's revenue is actually £320 at the last published figures so you were quite a way off. United are a cash cow, commercially they are just miles ahead of anyone else in the country.
TOOR, there is only one owner of Arsenal so I'm not quite sure how our owners could be at war. You seem rather angry, I don't want to antagonise you further. I'm not sure why saying three strikers (who don't play for Liverpool) are average would upset you but anyway, my opinions on FSG are genuine and have stated them before. I wasn't aware saying anything negative about FSG is deemed a WUM, seems quite hypocritical given the torrent of abuse they received at the end of the transfer window.
Oh well at least I know now.
posted on 14/10/12
Ozzie,
As much as I hope you're right, when you say "When the FFP rules come in to play", that should be 'if'.
It's also depends on these rules having teeth. If they aren't enforceable or contain loopholes, then smart accountants will find ways around them.
It appears that our owners have pinned their hopes on FFP rules being a workable and enforceable. I hope I'm wrong, but I have my doubts about whether they will be.
Only time will tell I guess.
posted on 14/10/12
comment by 8bit` (U2653)
posted 53 seconds ago
Ozzie... United's revenue is actually £320 at the last published figures so you were quite a way off. United are a cash cow, commercially they are just miles ahead of anyone else in the country.
TOOR, there is only one owner of Arsenal so I'm not quite sure how our owners could be at war. You seem rather angry, I don't want to antagonise you further. I'm not sure why saying three strikers (who don't play for Liverpool) are average would upset you but anyway, my opinions on FSG are genuine and have stated them before. I wasn't aware saying anything negative about FSG is deemed a WUM, seems quite hypocritical given the torrent of abuse they received at the end of the transfer window.
Oh well at least I know now.
--------------------------
Good, now you can twaddle back to the Arsenal board and discuss the arguing amongst your board members, the power struggle amongst your owners who want control but don't want to spend and shareholder who wants to spend but isn't allowed control and your striker who can't score and winger who wants to be a striker when he's a real boy and will leave when he doesn't get it.
posted on 14/10/12
8Bit.
Why have you not mentioned their crippling debt. United will not be making such revenue should they go into decline. Marketing is based on trends and what your ''face'' is, United will not be as marketable due to the fact their ''face'' is a fat bald thug that cheats on his wife with grannies.
posted on 14/10/12
I'm happy to stay here but thanks for the advice anyway
Ozzie there's no chance of a United decline really. Even with their debt they are still miles ahead financially than anyone else. Commercially they are so far ahead of everyone else, revenue wise they're in a league of their own with Barca and Real.
posted on 14/10/12
Aggers right elbow.
We're already in a better financial footing than we were under H+G. We've decreased wages and increased commercial growth, plus there is no debt with the exception of the £40 million that John Henry and Tom Werner loaned themselves.
-----
We do also need to bear in mind our position in the league. We are miles away from a top four spot. Much further way than when we were owned by H&G. That has a direct influence on the clubs development. I think the currant owners are being far too conservative with their financial plans.
posted on 14/10/12
Well an average of 4.1 as i write this means, on the whole, the people on this site are fully behind FSG which is very good to hear.
Sounds like BR and FSG will get time
posted on 14/10/12
Got_Better
I'm all for giving people a proper chance to prove themselves and I hope FSG do. But the fact is they've had two years already and we're currently lower in the league than we ever were under H&G and we only have one fit striker.
Sooner or later they're going to have to stop hiding behind their PR wall and stand up to be counted.
posted on 14/10/12
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 3 minutes ago
Got_Better
I'm all for giving people a proper chance to prove themselves
---------------------------------
Then why haven't you?
posted on 14/10/12
TOOR.
They've had two years. We're currently 14th.
Why didn't you give Kenny a proper chance? Some of your criticisms of him (eg Suarez isolated) are now being repeated by Rodgers.
posted on 14/10/12
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR.
They've had two years. We're currently 14th.
Why didn't you give Kenny a proper chance? Some of your criticisms of him (eg Suarez isolated) are now being repeated by Rodgers.
-----------------------------------------
We've played a handful of games. Arsenal and Spurs started last season off similar to us this season and they finished third and forth by the end. Things changed at the club after they had to sack Kenny and it has taken time for these changes to click but the signs are there that they have and I expect a massive improvement going forward.
No. Suarez is not playing as a loan striker, he's being played centrally, with two forwards wide of him. It's not the same. Watch our games last season then this season, it's a massive improvement tactically and only a matter of time before results prove that.
posted on 14/10/12
TOOR.
I don't agree that tactically we've made a massive improvement from last season. It may be very pretty to watch but the reality is we have no variation and we're not winning matches. BR's tiki tactics work superbly for Barca and Spain but they just so happen to have the best players in the world at their disposal. We, on the other hand, don't.
Our current position is definitely false, but I'd feel a lot more confident if we still had Carroll in the squad and would be prepared to play to his strengths when plan A isn't working.
posted on 14/10/12
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 54 minutes ago
TOOR.
I don't agree that tactically we've made a massive improvement from last season. It may be very pretty to watch but the reality is we have no variation and we're not winning matches. BR's tiki tactics work superbly for Barca and Spain but they just so happen to have the best players in the world at their disposal. We, on the other hand, don't.
Our current position is definitely false, but I'd feel a lot more confident if we still had Carroll in the squad and would be prepared to play to his strengths when plan A isn't working.
----------------------------------------
I'm not a huge fan of this either but I know it can work. I know it will be a longer process than other tactics would require and there'll have to be a few tweaks to the squad but I think it is a modern approach and one we've needed for a while now.
I also agree about Carroll and the next to mix it up when we need to.
posted on 15/10/12
Aggers right elbow.
Yet another fickle supporter with a short-term atitude. I'm more of a realist that can see the long term is bright. We're not leveraged like we were under H+G.
There was needless spending done by Hicks and Gillett that needed time to be corrected and this has been done. Spurs overall pay better wages than we do, the same could not be said 2 years ago. However we're paying better wages to a better quality of player.
Should the new stadium be completed, we won't have to worry about competing, City and Chelsea will both be restricted, we're a far superior brand than Arsenal, and we don't have the financial problems Manchester United do, and they have got financial problems.
posted on 15/10/12
Ozzie: FFP will have no real impact, as the sanctions won't be applied. If you think that UEFA will ban any of the top clubs from the CL then you're dreaming, as their multi million dollar sponsors won't allow it.Can you image them banning Real Madrid from the competition? haha, never going to happen mate.
posted on 15/10/12
Haha anybody who doesnt blow bubbles up FSG's hoops is a non supporter,fairweather etc,
We'll see.
posted on 15/10/12
They won't be banned from Europe, thinking that would be ludicrous. However, their spending will be restricted. If they make £140 million in revenue, they won't be able to spend £100 million on players.
However, if said clubs decide to find loop-holes to increase sponsorship, the bigger brand clubs obviously will do likewise.
However FSG are correct in their theory, zero debt, maximise the brand potential and increase commercial growth. Its a 3 step process.
Arsenal have two of the above, they don't have the brand, they haven't earnt the right to have the brand. Manchester United have two of the above, they don't have the 3rd as they have crippling debts.
Benefactors clubs don't have any of the above. Liverpool have all three. They can commercially blow Manchester United out of the water, United are a cash cow, but Liverpool are an un-milked cash cow. Its all new, there is new money, and they can exploit that.
posted on 15/10/12
Money money money,in a rich mans world.
posted on 15/10/12
Why do people think Barca and Real would have problems with FFP? They both made profits in their last accounts, they are the 2 richest clubs in the world, their revenues are miles ahead of anyone else
1. Real Madrid: 479.5m euros
2. Barcelona: 450.7m euros
3. Man Utd: 367m euros
4. Bayern Munich: 321.4m euros
5. Arsenal: 251.1m euros
6. Chelsea: 249.8m euros
7. AC Milan: 235.1.m euros
8. Internazionale: 211.4m euros
9. Liverpool: 203.3m euros
10. Schalke: 202.4m euros
Real and Barca will be desperately hoping FFP is enforced.
posted on 15/10/12
They won't be banned from Europe, thinking that would be ludicrous. However, their spending will be restricted
............................
The only sanction UEFA have got is to ban them from their competitions, if you agree that they won't enforce it, then why will their spending be restricted? Chelsea spent £80M this summer & this years accounts will be included in the FFP, they couldn't care less it seems.
posted on 15/10/12
Will they be able to do so if the FFP is introduced. The FFP relates to ''Capital gearing'' Supposing Chelsea pay 80% of the revenue in wages and then attempt to spend 50% of revenue on players, then they are breaking the rules. Therefore they will be restricted.
Think logically before posting, you cannot spend £100 million on players if you only make £240 million and your wage bill is £180 million.
Page 2 of 3