Jump to content
Neil G

Go fuck yourselves FSG

Recommended Posts

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

 

We broke the British transfer record buying The King.  

Did I give a fuck about the finances at the time?

Admittedly, I was 10.

But I really haven't changed.

I don't give a fuck about the money, how much money we have or how much money other clubs have.

I just want good players here.

That used to happen with greater regularity in the old days.

Now, what has changed is the notion and "value" of money.

In other words greed.

Keegan left here for a challenge, not for money.

Compare Gini.

He could not earn a cent for the rest of his life and still be insanely insanely comfortable.

He goes to, what, second richest club on earth?

For the challenge?  Challenge, my arse.

 

Now to FSG.

They're just like anyone else.  Just like Emirati owners truth be known.

And they're just like many many many companies who last year sacked people (believe me, I know personally) during a worldwide humanitarian crisis, not to fucking make ends meet, but to maintain a 20% profit margin.

Cunts sacked people last year and took home Christmas bonuses. Christmas fucking bonuses.

Our lot FSG wanted taxpayers to foot the bill for stood-down tea ladies.

Greed.

Is all, ladies and gentlemen.

That's the big difference between now and then - rather than them and us.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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 bet you eat Mini Milk lolly ices.

Share this post


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

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, 

Honestly, I can't be arsed discussing this any more. It's a 10 year ongoing discussion and nothing in our figures make sense, which is part of my point. I think everyone is being conned by them and we're miles from skint. I could pick all kinds of holes in what you've typed there, but we're just going around in circles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dr Nowt said:

We’ve got an obtuse. Just need a thick and a disingenuous and we have the important internet debate full house.

 

The Manila croupier here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A classic “I don’t understand the accounts, but I’m right and despite the fact I always bring it up,  I’m not discussing it anymore because I’m right” post from The Wrong One there. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be disappointed if we don't add a top quality player or two by the end of the window. 

 

The mood music was similar last summer before Thiago was announced late and Jota came of out absolutely nowhere. 

 

Arguments for both positions of course, but I'd take a midfielder over an attacker if it's only one. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, El Rojo said:

I'll be disappointed if we don't add a top quality player or two by the end of the window. 

 

The mood music was similar last summer before Thiago was announced late and Jota came of out absolutely nowhere. 

 

Arguments for both positions of course, but I'd take a midfielder over an attacker if it's only one. 

I'd take an attacker first and foremost, but I suppose it would depend on the quality of the options, and I also see where you're coming from.

  • Like 1

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

×