Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

'The Big Four' - Merely stumbling, re-aligning or finished altogether?

124»

Comments

  • #92
    therecklessone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,213 ✭✭✭✭therecklessone


    PHB wrote: »
    You missed the point I was making. Chelsea's expenditure is much higher than their revenue. They need to be continuously maintained by Ambrovomich. If he leaves, they'll need to undergo a massive, massive re-structuring.

    I sort of covered that, seriously dude, have a read...;)
    PHB wrote: »
    As for the issue of the loans. If Ambrovomich wants to get his money back, is there no way for him to do it?

    There's ways for him to take money out of the business. he could pay himself a dividend for example, or sell off assets. As to whetehr he can just announce "right, you all owe me £700m again", I'd imagine companies law might have a thing or two to say about that, but I'm no expert and am open to correction.


  • #93
    Pepe LeFrits
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 15,001 ✭✭✭✭Pepe LeFrits


    Interesting new article on Premiership Finances on the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/jan/17/premier-league-owners
    Roman Abramovich, at Chelsea, has also invested hugely, £700m, converted into shares too, but even City and Chelsea face the looming halt being called by Uefa and their "fair play initiative". The European governing body, putting detail into the gut instinct of Michel Platini, their president, that all the debt and sugar daddy investment is not sustainable or good for the game, have dictated that from 2012-13 no club who run consistently at a loss, or rely on benefactor investment, will be allowed to compete in the Champions or Europa Leagues.
    I haven't heard of this before. Is it official or just in the talkshop stage?

    If I understand it right, that'd mean that Man United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Man City would be banned from European football in two years time? Or would they be able to sell star players (as United did last year), bringing their yearly results into the black to gain access?


  • #94
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    Pepe LeFrits wrote: »
    I haven't heard of this before. Is it official or just in the talkshop stage?

    Talkshop, although it's not new. Platini's made plenty of noises in the past about this, but he seems to have stepped it up a gear recently. It's definitely on the agenda although they are going to face stiff opposition to it, and they will have to be very careful not to encroach on EU fair trade laws and that.
    Pepe LeFrits wrote: »
    If I understand it right, that'd mean that Man United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Man City would be banned from European football in two years time? Or would they be able to sell star players (as United did last year), bringing their yearly results into the black to gain access?

    The Times ran with it today too (I think that's where the original story came from actually). They suggested a time scale of 3 years before this can be approved and enacted. And it wont be possible to enact it retrospectively so clubs will have a bit of warning to sort their houses out.

    It has to be very carefully enacted though not to restrict clubs either. The actual size of debt is irrelevant, it's the ability to repay that's what matters. For example Arsenal's debt is greater than Liverpools yet it does not impact the running of the club to the same extent as the majority of it is in the form of a long term loan with easily manageable repayments.

    And it's not just English clubs who will fall foul of this, Roma, Real Madrid and Milan I believe are struggling with debt, and even Bayern, in a league famous for it's fiscal responsibility, are struggling to balance the books. Almost all the big teams could be wiped out in one fell swoop if this were enacted irresponsibly.


  • #95
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    The weekend results suggest that the pretenders really need to get their acts together.

    Draw, draw, loss. Brums game was posponed so we'll have to see about them! :pac:


  • #96
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    mike65 wrote: »
    The season's results suggest that the pretenders really need to get their acts together.

    FYP. Its like no one wants 4th, has been all season. Its crazy with how badly things have gone for Liverpool they'll be within a point of 4th if they beat Spurs Weds.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Dont be at yourself
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,609 ✭✭✭✭Dont be at yourself


    In fairness, it's not like the big three ( :o ) are running away with either at the moment!


  • #98
    Columbia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭Columbia


    Stumbling, is my guess.

    And I'd say one of them will fall before it's all over. At the moment, Liverpool seem the likely candidates, but that would all easily change if City splash out stupid money for Torres, as they were rumoured to be thinking of last year.

    Villa, Spurs, City and Everton (my team) all seem too damn incompetent to really take advantage of the stumble. The way they've played, there should be pressure now heaped on all four of the Sky clubs, yet three of them are exactly where you'd expect them to be, miles clear in the top three places.


  • #99
    L'prof
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,050 ✭✭✭✭L'prof


    Columbia wrote: »
    Stumbling, is my guess.

    And I'd say one of them will fall before it's all over. At the moment, Liverpool seem the likely candidates, but that would all easily change if City splash out stupid money for Torres, as they were rumoured to be thinking of last year.

    Villa, Spurs, City and Everton (my team) all seem too damn incompetent to really take advantage of the stumble. The way they've played, there should be pressure now heaped on all four of the Sky clubs, yet three of them are exactly where you'd expect them to be, miles clear in the top three places.

    Are they really stumbling though? I don't thin so, maybe they don't appear to be as consistent as usual but, if you take Arsenal for example, they have only had more points on the board at this stage of the season twice!


  • #100
    Columbia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭Columbia


    jasonorr wrote: »
    Are they really stumbling though? I don't thin so, maybe they don't appear to be as consistent as usual but, if you take Arsenal for example, they have only had more points on the board at this stage of the season twice!

    Aye, perhaps you're right, I was just looking at the League table and thinking about it :p

    Nevertheless, United have already lost 5 games in the league (almost quarter of all the ones they played) and Arsenal have lost 4.

    Some of the mid-table teams have closed the gap I think, which has lead to some inconsistency amongst the top few but a great deal of it amongst the second tier teams, allowing the top few to pull away, despite misfiring regularly.


  • #101
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    Here's a slightly different take on the current top 3's performance. If the top 3 continue to amass points at the rate they have so far this season, the table at the end will look like:

    Chelsea 87
    Arsenal 81
    Man Utd 81

    Which makes for a total points haul of 249. So how does this compare?

    2008-2009: 259
    2007-2008: 255
    2006-2007: 240
    2005-2006: 256
    2004-2005: 265
    Average : 255

    Slightly below the 5 year average, but not by much. And I think it's generally the case that the top teams lose more points in the first half of the season than they do in the second if I'm not mistaken? So I don't think the top 3 are doing significantly different.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement