Jump to content
Neil G

Go fuck yourselves FSG

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Daisy said:

No I havent posted them wrong read it again. We have 40 million extra costs on top of wages and player amortisation. 

Okay let’s do it properly. We spent £118m higher than Arsenal which £91m can be explained by higher rem costs. Is your concern the rem costs being too high to be realistic or that we incurred £27m higher costs again outside of rem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aRdja said:

Okay let’s do it properly. We spent £118m higher than Arsenal which £91m can be explained by higher rem costs. Is your concern the rem costs being too high to be realistic or that we incurred £27m higher costs again outside of rem?

See now that's a classic way of twisting figures to suit an argument. 

 

I clearly said if you remove wages and amortisation from the picture then our like for like costs are £40 million higher. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daisy said:

See now that's a classic way of twisting figures to suit an argument. 

 

I clearly said if you remove wages and amortisation from the picture then our like for like costs are £40 million higher. 

 

I have no position in this. I’m trying to confirm what yours is. So you’re okay with their amortisation costs being bigger than ours, and you’re fine with salary costs being significantly higher than theirs, but you’re annoyed that when you ringfence salary and amortisation (not sure why you would), outside of that we incurred £40m higher costs than Arsenal? What’s your hypothesis there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aRdja said:

I have no position in this. I’m trying to confirm what yours is. So you’re okay with their amortisation costs being bigger than ours, and you’re fine with salary costs being significantly higher than theirs, but you’re annoyed that when you put salary and amortisation aside, we incurred £40m higher costs than Arsenal?

You a management accountant mate? You seem very keen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aRdja said:

I have no position in this. I’m trying to confirm what yours is. So you’re okay with their amortisation costs being bigger than ours, and you’re fine with salary costs being significantly higher than theirs, but you’re annoyed that when you ringfence salary and amortisation (not sure why you would), outside of that we incurred £40m higher costs than Arsenal? What’s your hypothesis there?

It's not a hypothesis, they are plain numbers easy to see. 

 

We are a similar size club to arsenal, we should have similar operating expenses outside of paying staff and transfers. Yet ours are considerably more 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daisy said:

It's not a hypothesis, they are plain numbers easy to see. 

 

We are a similar size club to arsenal, we should have similar operating expenses outside of paying staff and transfers. Yet ours are considerably more 

But that’s not the case right? Looks like we pay higher salaries than them. They probably have higher D&As because of their newer and larger stadium. They probably earn higher income per game as a result, but we probably earn higher overall turnover due to more game playing more total games, more CL games, and higher prize money, etc. There are loads of different factors. What was Arsenal’s bottom line I’m the same period out of interest? 

 

Just humour me for a minute, but what’s your theory behind this mysterious £40m higher costs Daisy?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, aRdja said:

I’m just trying work it out with you. You mentioned turnover was £500m and salary was £326m, and you don’t think the there isn’t enough clarity to explain the £174m gap. My hypothesis is depreciation and amortisation would explain a fair chunk. Do you know how much that is? Even from the previous year would be ok as a placeholder.

But depreciation and amortisation are just accounting practices. The don't literally suck up money. They can explain loss. For example we have 100m excess from trading over a year. Vvd at the start of the year may have been valued at 50m and at the end of the year his asset value would be maybe 35m or whatever and we can record a 15m loss against him. There'd still from a cashflow perspective 100m excess from trading.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

But depreciation and amortisation are just accounting practices. The don't literally suck up money. They can explain loss. For example we have 100m excess from trading over a year. Vvd at the start of the year may have been valued at 50m and at the end of the year his asset value would be maybe 35m or whatever and we can record a 15m loss against him. There'd still from a cashflow perspective 100m excess from trading.  

But that $100m profit would exclude any cash movements that has no P&L impact e.g., cash instalments from purchases made in prior years, or cash outgoings from transfers in the current year. The reason accrual basis accounting where player costs get recognised over of the life of the contract is to show the fairest representation of financial performance of the current year, so that it couldn’t be manipulated with various payment terms. All the previous results yourself have mentioned in this thread refer to P&L statements, and as Daisy showed player amortisation is one of the largest costs. To now dismiss it as irrelevant would be at best misguided or at worst disingenuous IMO, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aRdja said:

But that’s not the case right? Looks like we pay higher salaries than them. They probably have higher D&As because of their newer and larger stadium. They probably earn higher income per game as a result, but we probably earn higher overall turnover due to more game playing more total games, more CL games, and higher prize money, etc. There are loads of different factors. What was Arsenal’s bottom line I’m the same period out of interest? 

 

Just humour me for a minute, but what’s your theory behind this mysterious £40m higher costs Daisy?

 

 

I showed it clearly in the first post with the cost breakdown, it really wasn't very difficult to understand - it's not a theory or hypothesis, you just can't read numbers it seems. 

 

I will break it down for you again. 

 

We have £63m cost of sales and 56 million other operating expenses. 

 

Total of 119 million other major costs. 

 

Arsenal have zero cost of sales and 78 million other operating costs. 

 

That's a total of 78 for arsenal as nothing to add up. 

 

119 - 78 = 41 million difference in operating costs between the clubs outside of wages and transfers. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Liverpool Boardroom 

Evil Agent - ' So your players Allison. Trent, Virg, Thiago, Mo and Saidio would like you to pay my Fees as part of this new deal

 FSG Minion - Er Ok

 

In the Arsenal Boardroom

Evil Agents London Mate - So your Players Leno, Bellerin, Tierney,Partey, Eleney and Willock would like you to pay my Fees as part of this new deal

Kronke Minion - Fuck off

 

Hope this clears things up

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Daisy said:

I showed it clearly in the first post with the cost breakdown, it really wasn't very difficult to understand - it's not a theory or hypothesis, you just can't read numbers it seems. 

 

I will break it down for you again. 

 

We have £63m cost of sales and 56 million other operating expenses. 

 

Total of 119 million other major costs. 

 

Arsenal have zero cost of sales and 78 million other operating costs. 

 

That's a total of 78 for arsenal as nothing to add up. 

 

119 - 78 = 41 million difference in operating costs between the clubs outside of wages and transfers. 

 

 

I was calling out your theory that “we are the same size as Arsenal so our financials should be in-line”. I tried to show you the many instances that they’re different. We reportedly pay higher agent fees than most clubs, and we pay agents fees not just for transfers but for new contracts too so that could be one of the factors. We pay higher salary than them because our players are better and they won the CL. Their depreciation is higher because of their new shiny stadium. So no, I don’t see any reason as to why our finances should be in-line with Arsenal’s. What is their bottom line (Profit or loss) compared to ours out of interest? What’s your theory regarding the £41m?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, aRdja said:

I was calling out your theory that “we are the same size as Arsenal so our financials should be in-line”. I tried to show you the many instances that they’re different. We reportedly pay higher agent fees than most clubs, and we pay agents fees not just for transfers but for new contracts too so that could be one of the factors. We pay higher salary than them because our players are better and they won the CL. Their depreciation is higher because of their new shiny stadium. So no, I don’t see any reason as to why our finances should be in-line with Arsenal’s. What is their bottom line (Profit or loss) compared to ours out of interest? What’s your theory regarding the £41m?

 

Not sure what your issue is in understanding the difference between clear figures and a theory. 

 

All I have shown is that our like for like operating costs are 40 million higher. 

 

This excludes transfers and depreciation. 

 

These costs may include agent fees but arsenal spent considerably more on players in the period so would think their agent fees would be similar or higher to ours. 

 

Everything else you have written is not applicable. These costs I have highlighted exclude everything else you are talking about and I have made that quite clear several times now you are just being obtuse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Daisy said:

 

Not sure what your issue is in understanding the difference between clear figures and a theory. 

 

All I have shown is that our like for like operating costs are 40 million higher. 

 

This excludes transfers and depreciation. 

 

These costs may include agent fees but arsenal spent considerably more on players in the period so would think their agent fees would be similar or higher to ours. 

 

Everything else you have written is not applicable. These costs I have highlighted exclude everything else you are talking about and I have made that quite clear several times now you are just being obtuse. 

I’ve highlighted that your theory that Arsenal’s finances and ours should be in-line is based on fallacy. There are plenty of differences between the two clubs. Clubs pay agent fees for contract extensions as well no? So that could be one of the drivers. If I’m honest I haven’t looked the the accounts. Since you have it in front of you, what’s Arsenal’s their bottom line and how does it compare to ours in the same period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×