Arsenal are now shown as the third richest club in the world, behind Real Madrid and M.U., with Chelsea and Barcelona behind us. We have just announced figures of pre-tax profit of £36.7m up to May 2008. (No mention of Man. City in the list. ). Stan Kroenke holds 12.4 % of shares, and has agreed not to increase beyond 29.9% unless a take over bid comes in from Usmanov, who holds 14.58%. I suppose it will interesting to watch Kroenke's input in whatever capacity now that he is on the board.
Man City dont generate anywhere the amount that the rich clubs do... they just got money... thats like saying, where is QPR
i really hope espn dont get the premier league rights that would be bad, watching fox soccer streams sucks hard enough i hope they dont use american hosts of they get it they cant even say defence and premier right
It is a school of thought that says you should try to pronounce the player's name as it is pronounced in his language and country. It annoys most people because half of the time it sounds terrible.
If I recall correctly, Man City were a top 20 club in the world by revenue in 06/07. Half of the top 20 were British teams. There is a huge gap between the top and City, but they are right up there with the lower CL sides in Spain, Italy, Germany, and France.
ESPN would use the existing announcers. If they stole the rights from one of the existing companies, that would free up a stable of announcers to use. As well, they showed a willingness to splash the cash for big name announcers this summer for Euro 08 coverage in the USA. (Big offer for Martin Tyler, got Andy Gray.) If they were going to put 8-10 billion dollars into getting some TV rights, I'd bet they would write blank checks to every single high profile announcer in England to make sure that theirs was the most unrivaled coverage in the world. They want to be a force in the UK/European market.
couple of things, as the previous poster wrote there was a 21m+ exceptional expense the previous year thats why it was lower.. secondly what with the tax effectiveness of any player purchase any actual cost would be subject to a 30% (now 28%) discount so to speak as this would be written off over the term of the contract..
agreed mate and I'd go even further and question whether this resource had actually been allocated efficiently.. lets see what Uniteds was but last year including a prem title and the bonuese attributable theirs was only 92m.. lets see what theres is with a prem/CL double..
Saw this in the Times the other day, i think it's fitting especially with West Ham's sugar daddy going bust, Portsmouth's hanging the for sale sign, and Sinawatra selling up. I'm glad our club's problem is having too much money and not too little. http://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame/2008/10/lets-hear-it-fo.html
If we have "too much" money then why is everyone at our club so opposed to spending a little more of it - especially given that could bring in even more money?
I think we all would like - and ought - to know. And that's where the issue of the Club's communications comes in. There can be absolutely legitimate reasons behind the non-spending but no one is telling us if that's the case. Indeed everything we are being told when contrasted with what we are doing only raises more confusion and doubt.
I was being sarcastic Martin. We know your views all too well. As BITG pointed out, you have been provided with a place to discuss them. The fact that no one seems to be interested in discussing these issues with you should tell you something. As you have pointed out numerous times, if people don't want to hear it, they can avoid your thread. And most have. But they can't do that if you're posting the same stuff here and everywhere else.
As I say Anti, I was told that it was perfectly legitimate to post my views in threads devoted to the same issue when I originally made that agreement which this one clearly is. I have chosen since to the thread's creator stated that this was a simple look at the finances themslves to respect that and not ask the questions I have been examing in my thread. As to whehther anyone participates in my thread or when they do, that is their prerogative. I only ask, as you yourself did initially, that they actually participate in the actual discussion(unless like in the case of Smalls 123 yesterday they can still be reasonable people and see some humor in all this). So long as they do that they are free to do it or not do it when there is as they see it something to be discussed. The same holds for me. There isn't too much to discuss of immediate concern now - so why should they or I be so anxious to do so?
