Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clocks ticking Amit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Martinmalta View Post
    I am not an economist. Just read elsewhere that the total layout for players salaries is 10 million. Read many times that the board is pumping 2 million a month to keep the club running. So that amounts to 24 million a year. I am sure that the club do have other expenses apart from players salaries. Granted. However, the club do have other income as well. Television rights, home game revenues etc etc. Where exactly are these two million a month being spent on?
    8.5m of last seasons loss of 24m was the cost of training ground.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by MINCER View Post

      8.5m of last seasons loss of 24m was the cost of training ground.
      That's an investment, right? If the club manage to get rid of some of the high earners, we will not be in a position to loose all that money. We move three high earners and our outlay on players will be 7 - 8 million. If the board are paying 24 million a year to pay the 42 million fine from the FFP, that's another story. It makes logic in a way!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Martinmalta View Post

        That's an investment, right? If the club manage to get rid of some of the high earners, we will not be in a position to loose all that money. We move three high earners and our outlay on players will be 7 - 8 million. If the board are paying 24 million a year to pay the 42 million fine from the FFP, that's another story. It makes logic in a way!
        Don’t really understand what your trying to say Martin?

        The FFP fine was negotiated to a total of 30m inc court costs and is being paid off in 1m instalments every season.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MINCER View Post

          Don’t really understand what your trying to say Martin?

          The FFP fine was negotiated to a total of 30m inc court costs and is being paid off in 1m instalments every season.
          My point is why the owners are paying 2 million a month to keep the club flowing when logically the expenses and income can balance each other. As for the fine, do you mean that the club will take thirty years to pay it?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Martinmalta View Post

            My point is why the owners are paying 2 million a month to keep the club flowing when logically the expenses and income can balance each other. As for the fine, do you mean that the club will take thirty years to pay it?
            The owers said they would pay it personally and would not be a debt on the club.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by SheepRanger View Post

              The owers said they would pay it personally and would not be a debt on the club.
              If they said so I agree. After all, it was their doing.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by SheepRanger View Post

                The owers said they would pay it personally and would not be a debt on the club.
                Yes, they said they'd pay it over 10 years.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sleeping Giants View Post

                  Yes, they said they'd pay it over 10 years.
                  1.7m per year for ten years

                  We had to cover 3m cost - Smithies was sold for that price at that time?!?

                  And circa 20m of Director loan debts were written off by converting it into shares which diluted the value per share as a result.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by SheepRanger View Post

                    1.7m per year for ten years

                    We had to cover 3m cost - Smithies was sold for that price at that time?!?

                    And circa 20m of Director loan debts were written off by converting it into shares which diluted the value per share as a result.
                    And, of course, the Directors can get no money back for their loans -they've been repaid by shares in a venture they already owned.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Undecided View Post

                      And, of course, the Directors can get no money back for their loans -they've been repaid by shares in a venture they already owned.
                      If we ever sneaked into the premiership and got a 100m cash injection they coukd take the lot in dividends to get some of their investment back. These are normally subject to UK tax, but I suspect their individual investment companies are registered in tax havens! But yeah, that debt went as have others since.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Though dividends can only be paid from profits - there's bound to be "tax efficient" structures in place for the owners, but the reality is that unless and until we make profits more than they've invested, or they sell up for more than they've put in, their money is at risk. If you look at Tony Fernandes' other "investments" he seems to do it for the flash rather than the cash - see Lotus/Caterham F1 etc. According to Tatler Asia, Ruben Gnanalingam's family "loves ports and sports" - I think he used to own part of LAFC in the MLS - maybe there's some plan to buy and build a sports franchise - who knows?

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X