Plus, as a follow-up, we will sell a player rather than let the contract run down. If we'd had RvP this season who knows he would have been injured. Liverpool kept Suarez, not entirely a similar situation but still a wantaway player they went to extreme lengths to keep on the pitch banging in the goals for them.
Not specifically related, but on the other hand - had we not sold RvP then Fergie wouldn't have won the title and Moyes might not have been hired. Funny old game.
Für eure Sicherheit
Gents Business 101. You never pay salaries from your savings. Its non sustainable. Salaries are considered recurrent expenditure and will be paid from annual income such as matchday revenue and other commercial income
HCZ s proposal that we saved up 120m over 5 years just to pay Ozils wages is not the way businesses are run. Yes you could buy a player from your savings as that could be considered an investment but again you would prefer to include it in your expenses, for accounting reasons, especially if the payments are instalments.
We have 120m and yet to hear some people on this forum it makes as a poor outfit. That is more than almost all the other EPL clubs combined, If we are in dire straits then everybody else must be functionally bankrupt. A football club does not need to make a profit, unless either it wishes to satisfy shareholders or it is investing in something...eg a stadium. We have not declared a dividend in years so no shareholder has taken a dime out of the club except maybe sitting fees for directors. In a publicly listed company you cant just do what you want even if you own 67% of the shares like Kroenke does
The facts are available. Just visit AST instead of posting hooey
Originally Posted by Globalgunner
We spend between 150million and 200 million a season on wages how is it possible for us to spend that much and still according to you be flush with cash. It's just not possible. I repeat you cannot compete and run a financially sustainable operation it is not possible.
QUOTE=Globalgunner;386662]Gents Business 101. You never pay salaries from your savings. Its non sustainable. Salaries a
re considered recurrent expenditure and will be paid from annual income such as matchday revenue and other commercial income
HCZ s proposal that we saved up 120m over 5 years just to pay Ozils wages is not the way businesses are run. Yes you could buy a player from your savings as that could be considered an investment but again you would prefer to include it in your expenses, for accounting reasons, especially if the payments are instalments.
We have 120m and yet to hear some people on this forum it makes as a poor outfit. That is more than almost all the other EPL clubs combined, If we are in dire straits then everybody else must be functionally bankrupt. A football club does not need to make a profit, unless either it wishes to satisfy shareholders or it is investing in something...eg a stadium. We have not declared a dividend in years so no shareholder has taken a dime out of the club except maybe sitting fees for directors. In a publicly listed company you cant just do what you want even if you own 67% of the shares like Kroenke does
The facts are available. Just visit AST instead of posting hooey[/QUOTE]
It's crazy talk. We've had more than £120m if we're talking about paying including wages and other fees in on transfer budget.
As a follow up. If you read the report by Swiss Ramble, we accumulated the 120m over a period of over 5 years, from our surplus. That is profits. Now if you imagine that we kept our wage bill reasonable and paid players like Djourou and bentner what they are worth 15k pw instead of 50k. we could reasonably have added maybe 40m per year as that has been the gap between us and Spurs wage bill. a team that has finished mostly right behind us. Over 6 years we would have an additional 240m in the bank. a total of almost 400m. Which player in the world could we not buy with 400m in the bank.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote