Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In Sign Up
Text:  A  A  A
The Mail Bag

Money: overrated

Comments (10)

Interesting, isn't it? We are looking good for the last 16 of the Uefa Cup, at last a decent showing in a domestic cup and going well in the league too. Genuine contenders for the fourth Champions League place, probably the strongest outside the Big Four (TM) and although given their form over course and distance I'd make Liverpool favourites to get 4th, I'll tell you what: I reckon they're bricking it.

And evidently it doesn't require deep pockets to achieve this: of the top 20 richest clubs in terms of turnover, six are English and we are nowhere to be seen. What adds a deeper layer of interest is that besides the obvious four the other two are Spuds and Toon, neither of whom this season has been a model of sensible football club operation, and our three immediate competitors (Liverpool, Villa and Manchester City) have their hands in very rich mens' wallets. All of which begs the question, how good could we be if we had that sort of finance at our disposal?
Richard Pike, Birmingham     Posted 14/02/2008 at 09:57:27

back Return to the Mail Bag

Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Barry Lightfoot
1   Posted 14/02/2008 at 15:14:41

Report abuse

Everytime Brian Clough spent big he pissed it up against a wall (sometimes literally) but mostly he spent wisely with a smaller budget than those around him so whose to know if Davey will waste it big time if he’s given 20 mill every season. I’d like to find out though.
Barry Scott
2   Posted 14/02/2008 at 17:15:53

Report abuse

> And evidently it doesn’t require deep pockets to achieve this: of the top 20 richest clubs in terms of turnover, six are English and we are nowhere to be seen.

This is because we are borrowing more and more money each year to buy the players we can’t afford because we can not compete with those six clubs off the field.

We are practically doing a Leeds
Viv Sharma
3   Posted 14/02/2008 at 18:56:51

Report abuse

Doing a Leeds Barry?
Total rubbish. Leeds fell apart because they were splashing cash and not getting anywhere.
Do you really think that is us?
12m for th Yak was a lot of money, but he was hardly a bad investment.
Apart from Yak, who else has really broken the bank? We can’t just play with no players and I think everton are doing a phenominal job both in terms of investing in players and with their youth system with an eye on the future.
Do you begrudge moyes spending that ’mind-blowing’ amount of cash on Jags!?
No, a total bargain. Peanuts on loan. Great business. Arteta, Cahill, Lescott... all bargains.
Aj gets a bad press but when we bought him it was the right investment for us. he replaced Beattie ffs! maybe not doing so hot now, but still decent.
We are doing the exact opposite of Leeds, investing wisely in good players and it’s paying off. Had we not had Jag, Yak and peanuts, would we potentially get 4th and CL next year? I think not.
great business, stop whinging.
Rob Jones
4   Posted 14/02/2008 at 19:39:16

Report abuse

Nicely Said Viv.

Doing another Leeds my arse Davey spends wisely, If i’m not mistaken we’ve spent less than 10m on our Top 5 Midfielders and we have one of the best midfields in the country. less than 20m on our top 4 Strikers, less than 15m on our 4 in defense. 4m on our Goalie? now just look at Leeds prices 27m on one defender ffs
Jay Campbell
5   Posted 14/02/2008 at 21:10:21

Report abuse

Just look at the fat spaniard, 100 million on a gang of fuckin mongs!!

Money doesn?t mean anything and in the hands of a fuckin numbskull it mean?s trouble. Thank fuck Kenwright is skint then that?s all I can say.

Dick Fearon
6   Posted 14/02/2008 at 21:58:13

Report abuse

I am puzzled and I wish someone with financial nous will help me out.

New owners of Man U and Liverpool have plunged those clubs hundreds of millions into debt.
How does the accumulation of debt make you richer?
Jay Harris
7   Posted 14/02/2008 at 22:48:06

Report abuse

Dick
its the clubs they?ve plunged into debt not themselves.The cost of players will stay on the balance sheet for a few years thus shoring up the securitisation and as long as income exceeds the interest repayments they can have their cake and eat it.
Of course you have to be a the top for this to work so if the RS have 2 seasons out of the CL they will be in the shit (Please!!).
Whereas unfortunately if the reverse is true the rich will get richer and the "Brand" more widespread so putting the poorer clubs out of the running.IT is all short termism but as one of my ex bosses said if there?s no short term then there?s no long term.
The only financial security they have for the future is increasing revenues and rampant increases in the cost of players.
Dick Fearon
8   Posted 14/02/2008 at 22:59:32

Report abuse

Jay Harris Thanks for the reply yet I am still puzzled.
I cannot escape the analogy of profit and loss being similar to a set of scales. with debt and profit in the balance. The more you have of one the less you have of the other.
Here is another question for you.
If banks suddenly called in all loans, who would be richer or most in debt, the RS or the Blues?

Steve Roberts
9   Posted 15/02/2008 at 11:19:55

Report abuse

Dick - profit & loss are different to assets & liabilities, one is shown on the profit & loss account, the other on the balance sheet. It is possible for a club to making a profit but still be hugely in debt. The only part of debt that affects the profit/loss is interest payments.
Keith Glazzard
10   Posted 16/02/2008 at 01:06:57

Report abuse

I thought the headline said "Manny Overrated" and I was going to come in with me dukes up.

Thank heavens it was only an accountants’ tutorial.

© ToffeeWeb
Menu
OK

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.