Is this a bad joke or what?

[Prawn Sandwich]

Within 24 hours we hear that Man U topped the "richest" clubs in the world list...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3526851.stm

And then we hear that we lost Robben to Chelsea because we offered peanuts for a guy of his class....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/3527237.stm

Something stinks at Man U right now regarding our finances.

[Motterman]

I must admit that when I saw this thread title I thought it was about the PSV chairman sucking off Kenyon's rod in the media:

"I was very disappointed with Manchester United over the deal, whereas Chelsea were very different. With their chief executive Peter Kenyon, a deal really is a deal. I have always been able to do good business with him. That was the case with Jaap Stam and Ruud van Nistelrooy's transfers and also recently with Robben when Manchester United wanted to sign him. Kenyon is trustworthy and a man of honour. He does not go back on his word but that is something United have now done. They obviously believe their name is enough to attract players and make them sign. After learning of our financial problems, they halved the offer. They did not keep to their original offer - they let us down. But Kenyon was honest throughout and I was very impressed."

Two words - Boll Ox

Something fishy is going on with Kenyon if you ask me. He could have been sabotaging our transfers for the past couiple of years as well as sullying our name by throwing the monkey screws into our reglar dealings as well. That smug piece or sh1t! http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/guillotine.gif

[Prawn Sandwich]

Agreed - strange how the guy is singing Kenyons praises now and saying how well the transfers of RVN and Stam went.

That is not my recollection of PSV's whinging when those transfers first happened.....

It does make you wonder about the Ronaldinho transfer in a new light - maybe Kenyon didn't want to sign him when he saw how good he actually was....

[Achtung]

What's important is this:

The list also shows that United are the richest team of any sport in the world - next in line are baseball's New York Yankees with revenue of £170million.

Piss off, Georgie. We don't need you or your YES Network. http://www.stupid-boy.com/smilies/contrib/ed/the_finger.gif

[Acronym]

i might send kenyon some anthrax flavoured chocolates.

[Motterman]

Don't you just want to give him a kick in the teeth?

http://www.soccernet.com/images/england/mufc/Kenyon_NS.jpg

[hemariva]

Well, I found the spoiled crybabies board....

[Prawn Sandwich]

Originally posted by hemariva
Well, I found the spoiled crybabies board....

Wow - you must be happy that you have the revenues coming into the club from merchandising and ticket sales etc to be able to support yourselves and your wage bill once Abramovich leaves......
























Oh.

[nicephoras]

Originally posted by Prawn Sandwich
Within 24 hours we hear that Man U topped the "richest" clubs in the world list...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3526851.stm

And then we hear that we lost Robben to Chelsea because we offered peanuts for a guy of his class....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/3527237.stm

Something stinks at Man U right now regarding our finances.

Just a quick note - this isn't actually a list of the "richest" clubs, but rather a list of the clubs who have the most revenue. In other words, it doesn't take spending into account. You could be on this list and actually have lost money last year.

How else would you explain Leeds being in the top 20, when they're headed for administration?

P.S. Since the Yankees YES network numbers are easily underreported for revenue sharing reasons, I'd posit that they actually make far more money than anyone, including Man Utd.

[Motterman]

Originally posted by hemariva
Well, I found the spoiled crybabies board....

How much extra money did Roman pay for the PSV Chairman to slobber all over Kenyon in the papers and drag our name through the mud?

[Acronym]

Originally posted by nicephoras
Just a quick note - this isn't actually a list of the "richest" clubs, but rather a list of the clubs who have the most revenue. In other words, it doesn't take spending into account. You could be on this list and actually have lost money last year.

How else would you explain Leeds being in the top 20, when they're headed for administration?

P.S. Since the Yankees YES network numbers are easily underreported for revenue sharing reasons, I'd posit that they actually make far more money than anyone, including Man Utd.


chelski are throwing money down the drain..the wage bill is over must be 40 million a year + they sell hardly any shirts worldwide the brand is weak, the club is small with no history, when was the last time they won anything. when roman gets bored or hits the billion mark hes going to walk out

[Achtung]

Originally posted by nicephoras
P.S. Since the Yankees YES network numbers are easily underreported for revenue sharing reasons, I'd posit that they actually make far more money than anyone, including Man Utd.

I don't see why they would do that. Local television revenue in Major League Baseball hardly gets shared at all.

[hemariva]

Originally posted by Prawn Sandwich
Wow - you must be happy that you have the revenues coming into the club from merchandising and ticket sales etc to be able to support yourselves and your wage bill once Abramovich leaves......



Oh.

Originally posted by Motterman
How much extra money did Roman pay for the PSV Chairman to slobber all over Kenyon in the papers and drag our name through the mud?

You guys have a great club, sell tons of shirts and aren't relying on a single man that may end up being offed by Putin at some point. Good for you.

You are still acting like spoiled crybabies.

[nicephoras]

Originally posted by Achtung
I don't see why they would do that. Local television revenue in Major League Baseball hardly gets shared at all.

I believe 25% of it does. Why bother sharing it if you don't have to? Also, the less the Yankees make, the better it looks for them. Its the same thing with TBS and the Braves - the Braves contract is worth far more than the money the actually get paid for it.

Originally posted by Acronym
chelski are throwing money down the drain..the wage bill is over must be 40 million a year + they sell hardly any shirts worldwide the brand is weak, the club is small with no history, when was the last time they won anything. when roman gets bored or hits the billion mark hes going to walk out


You may have noticed we're 10th on this list. So we're not exactly destitute. And we don't have any debt. We'll be fine. We're both behind Arsenal at the moment, who're just above us on the list. We'll be fine - thanks for the concern.

[Achtung]

Originally posted by nicephoras
I believe 25% of it does. Why bother sharing it if you don't have to? Also, the less the Yankees make, the better it looks for them. Its the same thing with TBS and the Braves - the Braves contract is worth far more than the money the actually get paid for it.

I'm pretty sure Major League Baseball actually audits these figures, rather than just giving a smile and a nod when a team reports broadcast income.

Plus misreporting large amounts of income could royally screw over the Yankees when it comes to the IRS man. Not that you'd hear me complaining or anything. ;)

[johno]

Originally posted by hemariva
You guys have a great club, sell tons of shirts and aren't relying on a single man that may end up being offed by Putin at some point. Good for you.

You are still acting like spoiled crybabies.

yeah... and how many EPL titles do u guys have???

[Its only Ray Parlour]

Originally posted by nicephoras
I believe 25% of it does. Why bother sharing it if you don't have to? Also, the less the Yankees make, the better it looks for them. Its the same thing with TBS and the Braves - the Braves contract is worth far more than the money the actually get paid for it.




You may have noticed we're 10th on this list. So we're not exactly destitute. And we don't have any debt. We'll be fine. We're both behind Arsenal at the moment, who're just above us on the list. We'll be fine - thanks for the concern.

You are but that isn't mainly due to the football business, Chelsea Village injects a sizeable amount of revenue into your coffers. Take that away and the picture is very different. Anyway keep up the good work, it's a refreshing change to see Manc's complaining about bully-boy tactics when they've ALWAYS been the biggest spenders in British football. Take away the aberation that was Shearer to Newcastle for £16M Man U have held or been braking transfer records for eons, Fergies-fledgling with-standing.

[Motterman]

I remember us joking about "which Chelsea will show up this week?"

Now we can ask the same thing, but for obviously different reasons.

[Coach_McGuirk]

Originally posted by nicephoras
I believe 25% of it does. Why bother sharing it if you don't have to? Also, the less the Yankees make, the better it looks for them. Its the same thing with TBS and the Braves - the Braves contract is worth far more than the money the actually get paid for it.

Local TV and Radio income is not shared by MLB. The only revenue sharing that goes on in baseball is the luxury tax funds by clubs over the wage "cap". Local TV money has always been a thorn in the side of small market clubs as they will never be able to compete with the Yankees as the NY market is so huge.

And you are spot on concerning the Yankees and Braves and their TV money. The contracts are slightly devalued due to club ownership of the stations, but the value in publicity alone is astonishing. Each of those clubs (in addition to the Cubs) probably increases their income from branded clothing by 30 to 40 percent merely because their fan base is nationwide.

[Coheed&Cambria]

SPOT ON COACH! That was a brilliant explination. The Cubs, Yankees, and Braves have everyone of their games nationally televised. Does that study take that into account? How much do you think that kind of publicity cost?