Skrevet av Emne: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?  (Lest 151743 ganger)

0 medlemmer og 3 gjester leser dette emnet.

Jon R

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #210 på: Mars 26, 2018, 23:09:05 »
Jon R gav deg jo noen alternative løsninger, noen klubber som har gjort det på en bærekraftig måte. Løsningen kan være å bruke MYE penger, men trenger ikke å være det.
«Halve» Championship har PL fallskjerm neste sesong. Vi har ikke nubbesjans til å konkurre med dem økonomisk på kort sikt, slik PH forklarte i det siste intervjuet. Synd men sant.

Jeg tror Underwoods beskrivelse av den ambesiøse visjonen og strukturen i akademiet vårt kan være nøkkelen! Drive lurere enn de andre.  Satse på at minst 2-3 spillere tar steget opp og blir regulære førstelagspillere hver sesong, samtidig som vi bruker et «mid table budget» på nye A lags spillere. Forrige sesong viste dessuten at det er fullt mulig å gjøre scoop på lånemarkedet! Skal vi lykkes må vi treffe bedre på de to sistnevnte kategoriene enn vi har gjort denne sesongen!
Jon R.

leedslife

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #211 på: Mars 26, 2018, 23:31:30 »
y, when Paul Heckingbottom says we'll have a mid-table budget, he's right, because depending on who goes up and who comes down, there will be around seven clubs in the division next season benefiting from parachute payments, five of whom are allowed, because of the way FFP rules were rewritten at the start of last season, to make bigger losses than Leeds under FFP. So, financially, the top seven budgets are already set.

 
Can't Radrizzani just stick loads of cash into compete with them? No, again because FFP. I'm going to assume the Premier League season finishes now and West Brom are relegated, and compare them to us.

 
First, it's important to know that FFP is now calculated across three seasons, and if you were in the Premier League for any of those seasons, you're allowed to make bigger losses. West Brom's profits before tax have stayed steady for years; in the last accounts, 2015/16, they made £1.2m. Assume they kept making the same profit in 2016/17 and again this season, then their first two calculations for FFP in the Championship gives them +£2.4m.

 
From that starting point of +£2.4m, they'll have to add the projected profit/loss from their first season in the Championship, to show they're within a three season limit of £83m. Leeds, for the same three seasons, have to stay within a limit of £39m.

 
Add to that West Brom's 'prize' money for finishing bottom of the Premier League — £99.8m — and their first of three parachute payments — approximately £40m — and you've got a club that could in theory find £100m to thrown at promotion next season. It's not that easy — if they fail, FFP's three season calculations start to bite, as in season two they'll 'only' be allowed to show £61m losses over the three seasons, while parachute payments drop to approximately £30m (FFP will be level and PP will be £15m if they're down here for a third year) — and their costs from the Premier League will need to be modified for the Championship. (They've consistently made around £10m profit before player trading though, so seem stable.)

 
But their parachute payments are larger than Leeds United's turnover. Their PL prize money is more than twice our turnover. Their FFP limit, next season at least, will be three times our limit. The other two teams coming down will have the same deal. There will be three more of those every season.

 
So, what of Leeds? Why doesn't Radrizzani just stick his hand in his pocket?

 
Our last accounts, for 2015/16, showed a £9m loss. Assume that has carried on not getting any better or worse. The three season £39m is an average of £13m, so unless LUFC reduces losses or — gasp — makes a profit, Radrizzani is not allowed to put in any more than £4m a season. Even if he wanted to sink every last penny he has into the club, FFP rules mean he can't.

 
The West Brom comparison gives us two scenarios for next season — this is unlikely, but it's technically possible. If West Brom wanted to bet everything on promotion next season, they could turn a £2.4m two-year profit into an £85.4m one-year loss, and still be within the FFP rules. And they've got £99m prize money and £40m parachute payments to help them get started.

 
That's basically it. Even if Radrizzani has £85.4m to take on West Brom, FFP rules won't let him use it. The rules of the competition mean we are not allowed to outspend the seven richest clubs. So by definition all we can have is a mid-table budget.

Saksa fra squreball

Dette vil kanskje hjelpe noen her inne til å få et bilde av situasjonen.
Og at det ikke bare er å bruke masse penger på eksklusiv vare for oss
« Siste redigering: Mars 26, 2018, 23:33:54 av leedslife »

DenHviteYeboah

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #212 på: Mars 27, 2018, 09:05:02 »
y, when Paul Heckingbottom says we'll have a mid-table budget, he's right, because depending on who goes up and who comes down, there will be around seven clubs in the division next season benefiting from parachute payments, five of whom are allowed, because of the way FFP rules were rewritten at the start of last season, to make bigger losses than Leeds under FFP. So, financially, the top seven budgets are already set.

 
Can't Radrizzani just stick loads of cash into compete with them? No, again because FFP. I'm going to assume the Premier League season finishes now and West Brom are relegated, and compare them to us.

 
First, it's important to know that FFP is now calculated across three seasons, and if you were in the Premier League for any of those seasons, you're allowed to make bigger losses. West Brom's profits before tax have stayed steady for years; in the last accounts, 2015/16, they made £1.2m. Assume they kept making the same profit in 2016/17 and again this season, then their first two calculations for FFP in the Championship gives them +£2.4m.

 
From that starting point of +£2.4m, they'll have to add the projected profit/loss from their first season in the Championship, to show they're within a three season limit of £83m. Leeds, for the same three seasons, have to stay within a limit of £39m.

 
Add to that West Brom's 'prize' money for finishing bottom of the Premier League — £99.8m — and their first of three parachute payments — approximately £40m — and you've got a club that could in theory find £100m to thrown at promotion next season. It's not that easy — if they fail, FFP's three season calculations start to bite, as in season two they'll 'only' be allowed to show £61m losses over the three seasons, while parachute payments drop to approximately £30m (FFP will be level and PP will be £15m if they're down here for a third year) — and their costs from the Premier League will need to be modified for the Championship. (They've consistently made around £10m profit before player trading though, so seem stable.)

 
But their parachute payments are larger than Leeds United's turnover. Their PL prize money is more than twice our turnover. Their FFP limit, next season at least, will be three times our limit. The other two teams coming down will have the same deal. There will be three more of those every season.

 
So, what of Leeds? Why doesn't Radrizzani just stick his hand in his pocket?

 
Our last accounts, for 2015/16, showed a £9m loss. Assume that has carried on not getting any better or worse. The three season £39m is an average of £13m, so unless LUFC reduces losses or — gasp — makes a profit, Radrizzani is not allowed to put in any more than £4m a season. Even if he wanted to sink every last penny he has into the club, FFP rules mean he can't.

 
The West Brom comparison gives us two scenarios for next season — this is unlikely, but it's technically possible. If West Brom wanted to bet everything on promotion next season, they could turn a £2.4m two-year profit into an £85.4m one-year loss, and still be within the FFP rules. And they've got £99m prize money and £40m parachute payments to help them get started.

 
That's basically it. Even if Radrizzani has £85.4m to take on West Brom, FFP rules won't let him use it. The rules of the competition mean we are not allowed to outspend the seven richest clubs. So by definition all we can have is a mid-table budget.

Saksa fra squreball

Dette vil kanskje hjelpe noen her inne til å få et bilde av situasjonen.
Og at det ikke bare er å bruke masse penger på eksklusiv vare for oss

Som sagt 100 ganger tidligere. det er ingen som mener vi skal utfordre FFP slik at det gir oss problemer. Men det er fullt mulig å kjøpe 2-3 klassespillere innenfor FFP. Har det blitt gjort? Er vi helt på grensen nå? Siden regler for FFP, fallskjermer og forskjellen mellom PL og championship er som den er så er vi helt overlatt til den som kjøper spillere og trener. Har vi PL materiale her? Ikke etter min mening >:( Derfor er nok resultatet av neste sesong allerede gitt....

Annesj

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #213 på: Mars 27, 2018, 09:23:41 »
y, when Paul Heckingbottom says we'll have a mid-table budget, he's right, because depending on who goes up and who comes down, there will be around seven clubs in the division next season benefiting from parachute payments, five of whom are allowed, because of the way FFP rules were rewritten at the start of last season, to make bigger losses than Leeds under FFP. So, financially, the top seven budgets are already set.

 
Can't Radrizzani just stick loads of cash into compete with them? No, again because FFP. I'm going to assume the Premier League season finishes now and West Brom are relegated, and compare them to us.

 
First, it's important to know that FFP is now calculated across three seasons, and if you were in the Premier League for any of those seasons, you're allowed to make bigger losses. West Brom's profits before tax have stayed steady for years; in the last accounts, 2015/16, they made £1.2m. Assume they kept making the same profit in 2016/17 and again this season, then their first two calculations for FFP in the Championship gives them +£2.4m.

 
From that starting point of +£2.4m, they'll have to add the projected profit/loss from their first season in the Championship, to show they're within a three season limit of £83m. Leeds, for the same three seasons, have to stay within a limit of £39m.

 
Add to that West Brom's 'prize' money for finishing bottom of the Premier League — £99.8m — and their first of three parachute payments — approximately £40m — and you've got a club that could in theory find £100m to thrown at promotion next season. It's not that easy — if they fail, FFP's three season calculations start to bite, as in season two they'll 'only' be allowed to show £61m losses over the three seasons, while parachute payments drop to approximately £30m (FFP will be level and PP will be £15m if they're down here for a third year) — and their costs from the Premier League will need to be modified for the Championship. (They've consistently made around £10m profit before player trading though, so seem stable.)

 
But their parachute payments are larger than Leeds United's turnover. Their PL prize money is more than twice our turnover. Their FFP limit, next season at least, will be three times our limit. The other two teams coming down will have the same deal. There will be three more of those every season.

 
So, what of Leeds? Why doesn't Radrizzani just stick his hand in his pocket?

 
Our last accounts, for 2015/16, showed a £9m loss. Assume that has carried on not getting any better or worse. The three season £39m is an average of £13m, so unless LUFC reduces losses or — gasp — makes a profit, Radrizzani is not allowed to put in any more than £4m a season. Even if he wanted to sink every last penny he has into the club, FFP rules mean he can't.

 
The West Brom comparison gives us two scenarios for next season — this is unlikely, but it's technically possible. If West Brom wanted to bet everything on promotion next season, they could turn a £2.4m two-year profit into an £85.4m one-year loss, and still be within the FFP rules. And they've got £99m prize money and £40m parachute payments to help them get started.

 
That's basically it. Even if Radrizzani has £85.4m to take on West Brom, FFP rules won't let him use it. The rules of the competition mean we are not allowed to outspend the seven richest clubs. So by definition all we can have is a mid-table budget.

Saksa fra squreball

Dette vil kanskje hjelpe noen her inne til å få et bilde av situasjonen.
Og at det ikke bare er å bruke masse penger på eksklusiv vare for oss

Som sagt 100 ganger tidligere. det er ingen som mener vi skal utfordre FFP slik at det gir oss problemer. Men det er fullt mulig å kjøpe 2-3 klassespillere innenfor FFP. Har det blitt gjort? Er vi helt på grensen nå? Siden regler for FFP, fallskjermer og forskjellen mellom PL og championship er som den er så er vi helt overlatt til den som kjøper spillere og trener. Har vi PL materiale her? Ikke etter min mening >:( Derfor er nok resultatet av neste sesong allerede gitt....


Med de summene jeg mener jeg har sett slengt ut her fra tid til annen(uten at jeg har leita etter de) så vil jeg tro vi utfordrer FFP ganske kraftig.
Marching on together
We're gonna see you win (na, na, na, na, na, na)
We are so proud
We shout it out loud
We love you Leeds - Leeds - Leeds

leedslife

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #214 på: Mars 27, 2018, 10:19:31 »
y, when Paul Heckingbottom says we'll have a mid-table budget, he's right, because depending on who goes up and who comes down, there will be around seven clubs in the division next season benefiting from parachute payments, five of whom are allowed, because of the way FFP rules were rewritten at the start of last season, to make bigger losses than Leeds under FFP. So, financially, the top seven budgets are already set.

 
Can't Radrizzani just stick loads of cash into compete with them? No, again because FFP. I'm going to assume the Premier League season finishes now and West Brom are relegated, and compare them to us.

 
First, it's important to know that FFP is now calculated across three seasons, and if you were in the Premier League for any of those seasons, you're allowed to make bigger losses. West Brom's profits before tax have stayed steady for years; in the last accounts, 2015/16, they made £1.2m. Assume they kept making the same profit in 2016/17 and again this season, then their first two calculations for FFP in the Championship gives them +£2.4m.

 
From that starting point of +£2.4m, they'll have to add the projected profit/loss from their first season in the Championship, to show they're within a three season limit of £83m. Leeds, for the same three seasons, have to stay within a limit of £39m.

 
Add to that West Brom's 'prize' money for finishing bottom of the Premier League — £99.8m — and their first of three parachute payments — approximately £40m — and you've got a club that could in theory find £100m to thrown at promotion next season. It's not that easy — if they fail, FFP's three season calculations start to bite, as in season two they'll 'only' be allowed to show £61m losses over the three seasons, while parachute payments drop to approximately £30m (FFP will be level and PP will be £15m if they're down here for a third year) — and their costs from the Premier League will need to be modified for the Championship. (They've consistently made around £10m profit before player trading though, so seem stable.)

 
But their parachute payments are larger than Leeds United's turnover. Their PL prize money is more than twice our turnover. Their FFP limit, next season at least, will be three times our limit. The other two teams coming down will have the same deal. There will be three more of those every season.

 
So, what of Leeds? Why doesn't Radrizzani just stick his hand in his pocket?

 
Our last accounts, for 2015/16, showed a £9m loss. Assume that has carried on not getting any better or worse. The three season £39m is an average of £13m, so unless LUFC reduces losses or — gasp — makes a profit, Radrizzani is not allowed to put in any more than £4m a season. Even if he wanted to sink every last penny he has into the club, FFP rules mean he can't.

 
The West Brom comparison gives us two scenarios for next season — this is unlikely, but it's technically possible. If West Brom wanted to bet everything on promotion next season, they could turn a £2.4m two-year profit into an £85.4m one-year loss, and still be within the FFP rules. And they've got £99m prize money and £40m parachute payments to help them get started.

 
That's basically it. Even if Radrizzani has £85.4m to take on West Brom, FFP rules won't let him use it. The rules of the competition mean we are not allowed to outspend the seven richest clubs. So by definition all we can have is a mid-table budget.

Saksa fra squreball

Dette vil kanskje hjelpe noen her inne til å få et bilde av situasjonen.
Og at det ikke bare er å bruke masse penger på eksklusiv vare for oss

Som sagt 100 ganger tidligere. det er ingen som mener vi skal utfordre FFP slik at det gir oss problemer. Men det er fullt mulig å kjøpe 2-3 klassespillere innenfor FFP. Har det blitt gjort? Er vi helt på grensen nå? Siden regler for FFP, fallskjermer og forskjellen mellom PL og championship er som den er så er vi helt overlatt til den som kjøper spillere og trener. Har vi PL materiale her? Ikke etter min mening >:( Derfor er nok resultatet av neste sesong allerede gitt....

Jo men problemet er jo at dette manipulerer markedet. SkL du ha en midtbanespiller eller spiss med erfaring fra pl eller det beste fra cc så må du opp i summer som gjør st vi ikke kan være med.
Er jo ikke vi som klubb som bestemmer markedet. Se feks på summene som boro brukte. 17 mill euro på assabalonga. 12 mål.
Ingen tvil om vi må forsterke stallen og gjøre den bedre, men det tar tid. Som Jon sier, vi må være smartere enn de andre for vi konkurrere ikke med like prinsipper

leedslife

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #215 på: Mars 27, 2018, 10:26:37 »
Resultatet for neste sesong allerede gitt?

Fulham og Cardiff har jo ikke brukt noe særlig penger denne sesongen.
Fham har jo solgt unna som oss.
Lagene like under playoff bruker også lite penger.
Ã… bruke masse er jo ikke synonymt med å rykke opp. Darkhorse millwall er vel de med et av de laveste lønns og overgangsbudsjettene i divisjonen.
Så er jo absolutt ingebting som er avgjort 4 måneder før sesongen sparkes i gang.

Men at vi må treffe bedre er jeg enig med deg i.
Personlig mener jeg vi bør fortsette der vi slapp i januar med foreshaw,Roberts.
Foreshaw har jo vist seg som en bra pl spiller. Bra alder, kjenner divisjonene og kommer her pga klubben. Vanskelig å finne, men absolutt mulig.
« Siste redigering: Mars 27, 2018, 10:43:40 av leedslife »

Runar

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #216 på: Mars 27, 2018, 13:53:31 »
Resultatet for neste sesong allerede gitt?

Fulham og Cardiff har jo ikke brukt noe særlig penger denne sesongen.
Fham har jo solgt unna som oss.
Lagene like under playoff bruker også lite penger.
Ã… bruke masse er jo ikke synonymt med å rykke opp. Darkhorse millwall er vel de med et av de laveste lønns og overgangsbudsjettene i divisjonen.
Så er jo absolutt ingebting som er avgjort 4 måneder før sesongen sparkes i gang.

Men at vi må treffe bedre er jeg enig med deg i.
Personlig mener jeg vi bør fortsette der vi slapp i januar med foreshaw,Roberts.
Foreshaw har jo vist seg som en bra pl spiller. Bra alder, kjenner divisjonene og kommer her pga klubben. Vanskelig å finne, men absolutt mulig.

Har han vist seg som en bra PL spiller?

Du er klar over at han ikke har vunnet en kamp siden han kom  :) :)
 

Annesj

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #217 på: Mars 27, 2018, 13:58:06 »
Resultatet for neste sesong allerede gitt?

Fulham og Cardiff har jo ikke brukt noe særlig penger denne sesongen.
Fham har jo solgt unna som oss.
Lagene like under playoff bruker også lite penger.
Ã… bruke masse er jo ikke synonymt med å rykke opp. Darkhorse millwall er vel de med et av de laveste lønns og overgangsbudsjettene i divisjonen.
Så er jo absolutt ingebting som er avgjort 4 måneder før sesongen sparkes i gang.

Men at vi må treffe bedre er jeg enig med deg i.
Personlig mener jeg vi bør fortsette der vi slapp i januar med foreshaw,Roberts.
Foreshaw har jo vist seg som en bra pl spiller. Bra alder, kjenner divisjonene og kommer her pga klubben. Vanskelig å finne, men absolutt mulig.

Har han vist seg som en bra PL spiller?

Du er klar over at han ikke har vunnet en kamp siden han kom  :) :)

Skal han vinne dem alene?
Marching on together
We're gonna see you win (na, na, na, na, na, na)
We are so proud
We shout it out loud
We love you Leeds - Leeds - Leeds

Sydhagen

Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #218 på: Mars 27, 2018, 14:40:07 »
Eirik Aase:

Sesongen går mot slutten i Premier League og Championship. Akkurat nå ligger samtlige tre lag som rykket opp fra Championship i fjor på trygg plass i Premier League. Av de tre lagene som rykket ned fra Premier League ligger ett lag på play-off, ett i bunnen og ett på jumboplass.

Dette er spesielt interessant med tanke på hvor enorm økonomisk forskjell det er mellom Premier League og Championship. Nivåforskjellen er ikke så stor mellom nedre halvdel i Premier League og Championship. Likevel bruker mange PL-klubber mer penger enn de tjener på lønninger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
"Paynter, a striker whose danger factor is akin to a blind sniper, who has no fingers, or a gun."

leedslife

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #219 på: Mars 27, 2018, 15:25:47 »
Det jeg mente var at han spilte så og si fast for Boro i PL og vare ganske nær England troppen på et tidspunkt.
Det er spillere opp mot dette nivået vi bør signere.
Synes personlig han har vært vår beste spiller siden han kom. I noen kamper i egen liga.
Forsetter vi med slike signeringer tror jeg vi er nærmere en opprykks plass enn å drive å signere for mye spillere utenfra.
Av erfaring tar det lengre tid å tilpasse seg nytt land, ny kultur, nytt språk, ny type fotball etc etc. enn hjemlige spillere som har noen få sesonger på baken.

Runar

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #220 på: Mars 27, 2018, 19:58:44 »
Resultatet for neste sesong allerede gitt?

Fulham og Cardiff har jo ikke brukt noe særlig penger denne sesongen.
Fham har jo solgt unna som oss.
Lagene like under playoff bruker også lite penger.
Ã… bruke masse er jo ikke synonymt med å rykke opp. Darkhorse millwall er vel de med et av de laveste lønns og overgangsbudsjettene i divisjonen.
Så er jo absolutt ingebting som er avgjort 4 måneder før sesongen sparkes i gang.

Men at vi må treffe bedre er jeg enig med deg i.
Personlig mener jeg vi bør fortsette der vi slapp i januar med foreshaw,Roberts.
Foreshaw har jo vist seg som en bra pl spiller. Bra alder, kjenner divisjonene og kommer her pga klubben. Vanskelig å finne, men absolutt mulig.

Har han vist seg som en bra PL spiller?

Du er klar over at han ikke har vunnet en kamp siden han kom  :) :)

Skal han vinne dem alene?

Nei, fotball er et lagspill så det har jeg ikke forventet.

Men der mange ser en skikkelig god spiller, med et helt annet nivå enn de vi har i dag. Så ser jeg (klok av skade) en ny Murphy/Bridcutt/O´Ḱane. En brukbar spiller, men ikke en ekstraordinær spiller slik flere omtaler han som.

En spiller som er god nok til flere topp ti lag i denne divisjon, men som ved formsvikt eller lignende faller igjennom og blir fansens neste frustrasjonspunkt.

Jeg har ikke blitt imponert slik som mange andre, og med tanke på posisjonen hans og hvor dårlig laget har vært også etter han kom, så ser jeg ikke noen grunn til å skryte veldig av han...
 

Annesj

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #221 på: Mars 27, 2018, 20:21:35 »
Resultatet for neste sesong allerede gitt?

Fulham og Cardiff har jo ikke brukt noe særlig penger denne sesongen.
Fham har jo solgt unna som oss.
Lagene like under playoff bruker også lite penger.
Ã… bruke masse er jo ikke synonymt med å rykke opp. Darkhorse millwall er vel de med et av de laveste lønns og overgangsbudsjettene i divisjonen.
Så er jo absolutt ingebting som er avgjort 4 måneder før sesongen sparkes i gang.

Men at vi må treffe bedre er jeg enig med deg i.
Personlig mener jeg vi bør fortsette der vi slapp i januar med foreshaw,Roberts.
Foreshaw har jo vist seg som en bra pl spiller. Bra alder, kjenner divisjonene og kommer her pga klubben. Vanskelig å finne, men absolutt mulig.

Har han vist seg som en bra PL spiller?

Du er klar over at han ikke har vunnet en kamp siden han kom  :) :)

Skal han vinne dem alene?

Nei, fotball er et lagspill så det har jeg ikke forventet.

Men der mange ser en skikkelig god spiller, med et helt annet nivå enn de vi har i dag. Så ser jeg (klok av skade) en ny Murphy/Bridcutt/O´Ḱane. En brukbar spiller, men ikke en ekstraordinær spiller slik flere omtaler han som.

En spiller som er god nok til flere topp ti lag i denne divisjon, men som ved formsvikt eller lignende faller igjennom og blir fansens neste frustrasjonspunkt.

Jeg har ikke blitt imponert slik som mange andre, og med tanke på posisjonen hans og hvor dårlig laget har vært også etter han kom, så ser jeg ikke noen grunn til å skryte veldig av han...

På langt nær vært stor. Men vår bestemann i nesten hver kamp etter han kom i ett fryktelig dårlig lag. Selvskreven på laget.
Marching on together
We're gonna see you win (na, na, na, na, na, na)
We are so proud
We shout it out loud
We love you Leeds - Leeds - Leeds

Runar

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #222 på: Mars 27, 2018, 22:06:02 »
du med flere sier beste mann, mens jeg tenker dere ser det dere vil se. Påvirkningen hans på de andre 10 har i hvertfall ikke vært spesielt stor. Siden lagsprestasjonen ikke har vært noe å samle på...
 

leedslife

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #223 på: Mars 27, 2018, 22:22:28 »
Kan vel si uten å virke som et orakel at pontus er den beste av de 4 bak. Foreshaw er den beste sentrale vi har og saiz den beste offensive. Budskapet her er jo at vi trenger flere på dems nivå.
Uten å ha sjekket veldig mye stats - taler vel det og i dens favør. Problemet er slik jeg ser det at vi sliter som et kollektiv og med riktig balanse, eller mangel på balanse.
For mye bytter på keeperplass, backene, venstre ving og på topp. Og såklart ingen opplagt partner til foreshaw for øyeblikket. Her blir det en stor jobb for orta/pH.

Igjen for å backe foreshaw. I de kampene jeg har sett med han er han en av få som står frem og prøver å dra med seg resten. Om det er godt nok er jo en annen sak.
Kunne satt gode gamle redondo sentralt der og vi ville ikke fått noe bedring.virker jo helt nedbrutt mentalt.
Første seier og mestringsfølelse kan ikke komme fort nok
« Siste redigering: Mars 27, 2018, 22:25:41 av leedslife »

Promotion 2010

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #224 på: April 09, 2018, 08:14:04 »
Min første Leeds-kamp:
Strømsgodset vs Leeds, 19.september 1973

Promotion 2010

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #225 på: April 11, 2018, 19:54:13 »

http://priceoffootball.com/leeds-united-2017-cardboard-box-you-were-lucky/


Utdrag her:

Leeds United 2017: Cardboard box? You were lucky…

Posted by The Baron   11th April 2018
It may seem an unusual thing to say, but we feel a bit sorry for many Leeds fans. They’ve been shafted more times than Linda Lovelace in Deep Throat and were once so desperate for an owner they even cheered when Ken Bates took over the club.

2016/17 proved to Massimo Cellino’s reign of jaw dropping entertainment at Elland Road, as the colourful (crooked) Italian sold initially 50%, then the whole of the club to fellow Italian Andrea Radrizziani.

Fans were initially excited about the change of control, as Cellino had been tight with the cash (something that most Yorkshire folk would usually approve of) during his time at the club.

Summary of key figures

Income £34.1 million (up 13%)

Broadcasting income £7.6 million (up 45%)

Wages £20.7 million (up 14%)

Loss before player sales £8.8 million (up 26%)

Player purchases £6.8 million

Player sales £9.0 million

Borrowings £25.1 million

Income

In the Championship the amount of total income is effectively split between those clubs that do and do not receive parachute payments.



Leeds generated the highest earnings of the non-parachute payment receiving clubs, but this was not enough to get the club into a playoff position, although Brighton and Huddersfield, both of whom were not in receipt of parachute payments, were promoted, and Sheffield Wednesday made the playoffs.

Only Newcastle (surely Mike Ashley has nothing to hide?) and recently sold Barnsley have yet to announce their results for 2016/17. Most clubs are showing higher income than in the previous season. The average income of the 22 clubs that have reported to date is £28.6 million. This compares to an average of £22.9 million the previous season.

The main reason for the increase in overall income is due to a combination of higher parachute payments, a new TV deal in the Premier League, which drips down to the Championship in what are called ‘Solidarity Payments. Championship clubs earn about £4.3 million a year from solidarity payments, plus their earnings from the Football League TV deal which are worth a minimum of a further £2 million. Championship clubs also pick up £100,000 for each home game broadcast on Sky, and £10,000 for each away game.

The English Football League (EFL) negotiated a flat percentage of all future TV deals with the Premier League (PL) a couple of years ago. This at the time seemed to be a great deal, but subsequently the PL sold its domestic rights for 10% less in 2019-22 than the current three-year arrangement generates.

Like all clubs Leeds earn their income from three sources, matchday, broadcasting and commercial/sponsorship.



Leeds have shown growth in the all three income areas, but to give some context, their income of £34.1 million is still nearly £8 million less than their final season in the Premier League in 2003/4, when income was £41.9 million.

Matchday income in 2016/17 was up 24%, as the average attendance increased by 6,000 to 27,698 as the club just failed to reach the Championship playoffs. Cellino’s promise of a 25% reduction in season ticket prices for the following season if the club failed to reach the playoffs also contributed to this increase. This could have a knock-on effect on matchday income for 2017/18.

The club have kept prices relatively static for a few years and generated £367 per fan from matchday sales.



Leeds therefore had the third largest matchday income total in the division, although we anticipate this falling to fourth when Newcashley United finally publish their results.



Broadcast income was up 45% to £7.6 million. The baseline figure for clubs in the Championship is about £6.3 million, plus an additional £100,000 for every home, and £10,000 for every away game that is broadcast live on Sky. Leeds are always popular with Sky as they generate decent viewing figures.

The impact of parachute payments for the top six clubs in the chart is very evident. Recently relegated Norwich earned £7.50 from broadcasting for every £1 earned by non-parachute payment clubs.



Leeds commercial income fell slightly but is still an impressive £16.4 million. This figure is distorted to a degree since 2015, when Massimo Cellino threw one of his hissy fits and took the catering income in house (it had previously been outsourced), which was responsible for nearly all of the increase from 2015 to 2016 in this area.

Costs

The main costs at a football club are player related, wages and transfer fee amortisation.



Leeds wages increased by 14% in 2016/17, as new contracts for existing players plus some fresh signings increased the costs.



Leeds wage bill places it in the bottom third of clubs in the Championship in 2016/17. Whilst it won’t surprise fans that clubs in receipt of parachute payments are paying out big money still in player wages, we suspect a few Yorkshire eyebrows will be raised when they see their club behind the likes of Sheffield Wednesday, Bristol City and Birmingham (although with ‘Triffic’ Harry Redknapp in charge of the latter for a while in 2016/17, perhaps not so surprised by that club paying out more money to players).

For a club in the Championship to be paying wages that are effectively the same as five seasons previously is unusual. Most clubs get sucked into the vortex of trying to attract new players with more money and this becomes self-perpetuating.



Leeds paid out £61 in wages for every £100 in income. This was the second lowest ratio in the Championship, and Reading’s would have been far higher had they not been in receipt of parachute payments. This figure has fallen significantly under Cellino, partly due to the increase in catering income figure but also because he was clearly keen on keeping costs as low as possible with a view to selling the club to a new owner.

Over half the clubs in the Championship pay out more money in wages than they generate in income. This is under the auspices of Financial Fair Play (FFP). It is scary to think what would happen if FFP didn’t exist.



Amortisation is how clubs deal with transfer fees in the profit and loss account. When a player signs for a club the transfer fee is spread over the life of the contract. Therefore, when Leeds signed Kemar Roofe from Oxford United for £3 million on a four year contract the amortisation charge was £750,000 a year for four years (£3m/4). The amortisation fee in the profit and loss account therefore includes all players who have been signed for a fee (assuming they are still in their initial contract).



Leeds’s total amortisation charge has risen steadily in recent years, reflecting the brakes slowly being removed from the transfer budget. They are in the top half of the division in relation to this cost, but some way behind clubs with parachute payments.



If the amortisation costs are added to wages, then total player costs for Leeds in 2016/17 were £76 for every £100 of income. This again suggests the club is relatively tight (no doubt Leeds fans will say ‘careful’ rather than ‘tight’ in terms of spending whatever it takes in terms of player investment to get back into the Premier League. There are many clubs who are spending £140 plus on this area.

One cost that Leeds have which is not common to all clubs is rent. The club paid £2.1 million in rent during 2016/17 for Elland Road and other facilities. The club did say that they had repurchased Elland Road on 28 June 2017, but there is no sign of this in the accounts or the strategic review of the year which was signed off by Radrizzani on 2nd March 2018.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40433193

Min første Leeds-kamp:
Strømsgodset vs Leeds, 19.september 1973

Promotion 2010

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #226 på: April 11, 2018, 19:57:22 »
Fortsetter....

A further look at the club website reveals that Greenfield Investment Pte Ltd, also owned by Radrizzani, are the actual owners of Elland Road, so it’s not quite as transparent as it initially seems. How much rent is being charged by this company to Leeds United Football Club Limited has not been revealed, however a note to the account suggests that rent will fall from over £2.1 million a year to about £760,000, which could mean extra money for the manager to spend on players and wages.



Profits and losses

Profits (or more commonly for non-Premier League football clubs losses) are income less costs. The bad news for Leeds is that the club lost a lot of money last season from day to day trading.

The good news is that they managed to sell Lewis Cook to Bournemouth, which brought in a profit of nearly £9 million, which offset the operating losses.

Operating losses are income less the running costs of the club (wages, maintenance, insurance, amortisation etc. and they are before deducting interest costs and player sale profits. In 2016/17 this worked out as £8.8 million, or £169,000 a week. This is slightly higher than the previous season, but still a lot of money to find on a regular basis. These losses are before taking into consideration the one-off cost player write down of £332,000, for someone who was signed for a fee but subsequently turned out to be a bit shite Christian Benteke. We don’t know enough about Leeds to know who the player(s) might be, but Leeds fans will no doubt have a few suggestions.

The previous season Leeds had one-off costs of nearly £4 million in legal and other fees as Cellino fell out with kit suppliers Kappa, previous employees, Sky TV, the Football League and anyone else who didn’t share the enlightened views of the Italian tax evader.

Being in the Championship is tough financially, and this is reflected in Leeds losses over the past few years.



Their total losses for the last five seasons are nearly £56 million, and this excludes one off costs of £6.4 million during that period too.

Fortunately for Leeds the club have managed to sell players on a regular basis at a profit of £25 million during this period, but it still leaves a substantial loss.

Under FFP rules, Championship clubs can make a maximum FFP loss of £39 million over three years in the Championship. Leeds have a pre-tax loss of just £10.2 million over the three-year period, helped by profits on player sales of £21.5 million over that period.

Additionally, some costs, such as infrastructure, academy and community schemes, are excluded from the FFP calculations. Leeds have a category two academy, which costs about £1.5 million a year to run according to our sources, so this, combined with other allowable costs, means that Leeds easily are within the FFP limit for the three years ending June 2017.

Assuming that Leeds have not gone crazy in terms of higher wage deals in 2017/18, they should be in a much stronger position than most clubs in the division in the forthcoming transfer windows.

This is because many clubs have spent big and gambled on promotion this season (2017/18) and will have to scale back investment in the next few windows to ensure FFP compliance. There is a caveat here, this will all depend on the extent to which the owner is willing to back the Leeds manager in the transfer market during the next couple of windows.

Player trading

The accountants treat player trading in a weird way in the financials. We’ve already shown that when a player is signed, his transfer fee is spread over the life of the contract. When the player is sold, the profit is shown immediately, and it based on the player’s accounting value, not the original transfer fee.

This creates erratic and volatile figures in the profit and loss account.

If we instead focus on the actual purchase and sales, the following arises



Over the last five years Leeds have bought players for £26.3 million and generated sales of £27.1 million. This is before the sale of Chris Wood to Burnley in summer 2017.

If Leeds are promoted to the Premier League there are additional transfer fees of £6.3 million payable, as well as player bonuses of over £16 million.



Debts to and from the club

Trying to make out the extent of Leeds debts is tricky. The easy bit is player transfers, where the club is owed £7.8 million (likely to be Bournemouth for Cook) and owe other clubs about £3.9 million.

The club is owed a mysterious £2.3 million in the form of ‘other debtors’ that the club is pursuing through the courts. Who this party is we don’t know, although Leeds fans will no doubt be able to point the finger at the party involved, and that finger is mainly being pointed at former owners GFH, who apparently have some contested debts. Whilst the outcome of the dispute is uncertain, one this is guaranteed, the lawyers will make plenty of brass from the dispute.

The club borrowed £16.5 million in the year, mainly from the owner, although £5 million of this was converted into shares. Total borrowings look to be about £25 million of which £14.5 million is to the owner.

Summary

The Cellino regime of chaos ending was a positive for Leeds in 2016/17. New owner Andrea Radrizzani had a huge amount of initial goodwill which has evaporated to a degree as the club has dropped from top of the table to nowhere in the past few months. This, coupled with the new club crest which turned the club into a laughing stock has meant that the upcoming summer is an opportunity to rebuild bridges with the fan base.

The good news is that the club is in an excellent position to invest heavily in the player market due to being significantly under the FFP loss limit. The big question is whether the owner will be prepared to dig deep and spend to bring in the calibre of player required for Leeds to be promotion contenders in 2018/19.

Data Set



Tabeller finner du når du følger lenken i forrige innlegg!!!


Min første Leeds-kamp:
Strømsgodset vs Leeds, 19.september 1973

DenHviteYeboah

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #227 på: April 11, 2018, 22:13:01 »
Fortsetter....

A further look at the club website reveals that Greenfield Investment Pte Ltd, also owned by Radrizzani, are the actual owners of Elland Road, so it’s not quite as transparent as it initially seems. How much rent is being charged by this company to Leeds United Football Club Limited has not been revealed, however a note to the account suggests that rent will fall from over £2.1 million a year to about £760,000, which could mean extra money for the manager to spend on players and wages.



Profits and losses

Profits (or more commonly for non-Premier League football clubs losses) are income less costs. The bad news for Leeds is that the club lost a lot of money last season from day to day trading.

The good news is that they managed to sell Lewis Cook to Bournemouth, which brought in a profit of nearly £9 million, which offset the operating losses.

Operating losses are income less the running costs of the club (wages, maintenance, insurance, amortisation etc. and they are before deducting interest costs and player sale profits. In 2016/17 this worked out as £8.8 million, or £169,000 a week. This is slightly higher than the previous season, but still a lot of money to find on a regular basis. These losses are before taking into consideration the one-off cost player write down of £332,000, for someone who was signed for a fee but subsequently turned out to be a bit shite Christian Benteke. We don’t know enough about Leeds to know who the player(s) might be, but Leeds fans will no doubt have a few suggestions.

The previous season Leeds had one-off costs of nearly £4 million in legal and other fees as Cellino fell out with kit suppliers Kappa, previous employees, Sky TV, the Football League and anyone else who didn’t share the enlightened views of the Italian tax evader.

Being in the Championship is tough financially, and this is reflected in Leeds losses over the past few years.



Their total losses for the last five seasons are nearly £56 million, and this excludes one off costs of £6.4 million during that period too.

Fortunately for Leeds the club have managed to sell players on a regular basis at a profit of £25 million during this period, but it still leaves a substantial loss.

Under FFP rules, Championship clubs can make a maximum FFP loss of £39 million over three years in the Championship. Leeds have a pre-tax loss of just £10.2 million over the three-year period, helped by profits on player sales of £21.5 million over that period.

Additionally, some costs, such as infrastructure, academy and community schemes, are excluded from the FFP calculations. Leeds have a category two academy, which costs about £1.5 million a year to run according to our sources, so this, combined with other allowable costs, means that Leeds easily are within the FFP limit for the three years ending June 2017.

Assuming that Leeds have not gone crazy in terms of higher wage deals in 2017/18, they should be in a much stronger position than most clubs in the division in the forthcoming transfer windows.

This is because many clubs have spent big and gambled on promotion this season (2017/18) and will have to scale back investment in the next few windows to ensure FFP compliance. There is a caveat here, this will all depend on the extent to which the owner is willing to back the Leeds manager in the transfer market during the next couple of windows.

Player trading

The accountants treat player trading in a weird way in the financials. We’ve already shown that when a player is signed, his transfer fee is spread over the life of the contract. When the player is sold, the profit is shown immediately, and it based on the player’s accounting value, not the original transfer fee.

This creates erratic and volatile figures in the profit and loss account.

If we instead focus on the actual purchase and sales, the following arises



Over the last five years Leeds have bought players for £26.3 million and generated sales of £27.1 million. This is before the sale of Chris Wood to Burnley in summer 2017.

If Leeds are promoted to the Premier League there are additional transfer fees of £6.3 million payable, as well as player bonuses of over £16 million.



Debts to and from the club

Trying to make out the extent of Leeds debts is tricky. The easy bit is player transfers, where the club is owed £7.8 million (likely to be Bournemouth for Cook) and owe other clubs about £3.9 million.

The club is owed a mysterious £2.3 million in the form of ‘other debtors’ that the club is pursuing through the courts. Who this party is we don’t know, although Leeds fans will no doubt be able to point the finger at the party involved, and that finger is mainly being pointed at former owners GFH, who apparently have some contested debts. Whilst the outcome of the dispute is uncertain, one this is guaranteed, the lawyers will make plenty of brass from the dispute.

The club borrowed £16.5 million in the year, mainly from the owner, although £5 million of this was converted into shares. Total borrowings look to be about £25 million of which £14.5 million is to the owner.

Summary

The Cellino regime of chaos ending was a positive for Leeds in 2016/17. New owner Andrea Radrizzani had a huge amount of initial goodwill which has evaporated to a degree as the club has dropped from top of the table to nowhere in the past few months. This, coupled with the new club crest which turned the club into a laughing stock has meant that the upcoming summer is an opportunity to rebuild bridges with the fan base.

The good news is that the club is in an excellent position to invest heavily in the player market due to being significantly under the FFP loss limit. The big question is whether the owner will be prepared to dig deep and spend to bring in the calibre of player required for Leeds to be promotion contenders in 2018/19.

Data Set



Tabeller finner du når du følger lenken i forrige innlegg!!!

da synes jeg flere på dette forumet kan tenke seg litt om hva de har skrevet når folk har etterlyst å kjøpe spillere på en høyere hylle. det har blitt bryskt avvist som brudd på FFP og en ny start på Ridsdale tilstander....
Så får vi se hva Rad gjør da.....

DON REVIE

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #228 på: April 11, 2018, 22:26:41 »
 :-[ :-[
Hva gjør Millwall ``feil``15 kamper ubeseiret med profilerte Neil Harris som manager og eminente Steve Morrison som leder linja der fremme, andre ``profilerte``? Hva gjør cardiff feil med Neil Warnock....ja Neil Warnock...husker han?? Og med Sol Bamba som bauta på laget!!! Hva gjør Bristol City feil med profilerte Gary Johnson som manager, hva gjør Brentford feil med profilerte Dean Smith som manager??
Innsats å passion?? Give me a f******* break.!!

Ehh....forresten hva skjedde med Wolves å bruk av 3 part agentvirksomhet?? Neddyssing? Shan Harvey anybody?? Ville det samme skjedd med Leeds?......
« Siste redigering: April 11, 2018, 22:35:24 av DON REVIE »

ibster

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #229 på: April 13, 2018, 09:12:57 »
Fortsetter....

A further look at the club website reveals that Greenfield Investment Pte Ltd, also owned by Radrizzani, are the actual owners of Elland Road, so it’s not quite as transparent as it initially seems. How much rent is being charged by this company to Leeds United Football Club Limited has not been revealed, however a note to the account suggests that rent will fall from over £2.1 million a year to about £760,000, which could mean extra money for the manager to spend on players and wages.



Profits and losses

Profits (or more commonly for non-Premier League football clubs losses) are income less costs. The bad news for Leeds is that the club lost a lot of money last season from day to day trading.

The good news is that they managed to sell Lewis Cook to Bournemouth, which brought in a profit of nearly £9 million, which offset the operating losses.

Operating losses are income less the running costs of the club (wages, maintenance, insurance, amortisation etc. and they are before deducting interest costs and player sale profits. In 2016/17 this worked out as £8.8 million, or £169,000 a week. This is slightly higher than the previous season, but still a lot of money to find on a regular basis. These losses are before taking into consideration the one-off cost player write down of £332,000, for someone who was signed for a fee but subsequently turned out to be a bit shite Christian Benteke. We don’t know enough about Leeds to know who the player(s) might be, but Leeds fans will no doubt have a few suggestions.

The previous season Leeds had one-off costs of nearly £4 million in legal and other fees as Cellino fell out with kit suppliers Kappa, previous employees, Sky TV, the Football League and anyone else who didn’t share the enlightened views of the Italian tax evader.

Being in the Championship is tough financially, and this is reflected in Leeds losses over the past few years.



Their total losses for the last five seasons are nearly £56 million, and this excludes one off costs of £6.4 million during that period too.

Fortunately for Leeds the club have managed to sell players on a regular basis at a profit of £25 million during this period, but it still leaves a substantial loss.

Under FFP rules, Championship clubs can make a maximum FFP loss of £39 million over three years in the Championship. Leeds have a pre-tax loss of just £10.2 million over the three-year period, helped by profits on player sales of £21.5 million over that period.

Additionally, some costs, such as infrastructure, academy and community schemes, are excluded from the FFP calculations. Leeds have a category two academy, which costs about £1.5 million a year to run according to our sources, so this, combined with other allowable costs, means that Leeds easily are within the FFP limit for the three years ending June 2017.

Assuming that Leeds have not gone crazy in terms of higher wage deals in 2017/18, they should be in a much stronger position than most clubs in the division in the forthcoming transfer windows.

This is because many clubs have spent big and gambled on promotion this season (2017/18) and will have to scale back investment in the next few windows to ensure FFP compliance. There is a caveat here, this will all depend on the extent to which the owner is willing to back the Leeds manager in the transfer market during the next couple of windows.

Player trading

The accountants treat player trading in a weird way in the financials. We’ve already shown that when a player is signed, his transfer fee is spread over the life of the contract. When the player is sold, the profit is shown immediately, and it based on the player’s accounting value, not the original transfer fee.

This creates erratic and volatile figures in the profit and loss account.

If we instead focus on the actual purchase and sales, the following arises



Over the last five years Leeds have bought players for £26.3 million and generated sales of £27.1 million. This is before the sale of Chris Wood to Burnley in summer 2017.

If Leeds are promoted to the Premier League there are additional transfer fees of £6.3 million payable, as well as player bonuses of over £16 million.



Debts to and from the club

Trying to make out the extent of Leeds debts is tricky. The easy bit is player transfers, where the club is owed £7.8 million (likely to be Bournemouth for Cook) and owe other clubs about £3.9 million.

The club is owed a mysterious £2.3 million in the form of ‘other debtors’ that the club is pursuing through the courts. Who this party is we don’t know, although Leeds fans will no doubt be able to point the finger at the party involved, and that finger is mainly being pointed at former owners GFH, who apparently have some contested debts. Whilst the outcome of the dispute is uncertain, one this is guaranteed, the lawyers will make plenty of brass from the dispute.

The club borrowed £16.5 million in the year, mainly from the owner, although £5 million of this was converted into shares. Total borrowings look to be about £25 million of which £14.5 million is to the owner.

Summary

The Cellino regime of chaos ending was a positive for Leeds in 2016/17. New owner Andrea Radrizzani had a huge amount of initial goodwill which has evaporated to a degree as the club has dropped from top of the table to nowhere in the past few months. This, coupled with the new club crest which turned the club into a laughing stock has meant that the upcoming summer is an opportunity to rebuild bridges with the fan base.

The good news is that the club is in an excellent position to invest heavily in the player market due to being significantly under the FFP loss limit. The big question is whether the owner will be prepared to dig deep and spend to bring in the calibre of player required for Leeds to be promotion contenders in 2018/19.

Data Set



Tabeller finner du når du følger lenken i forrige innlegg!!!

da synes jeg flere på dette forumet kan tenke seg litt om hva de har skrevet når folk har etterlyst å kjøpe spillere på en høyere hylle. det har blitt bryskt avvist som brudd på FFP og en ny start på Ridsdale tilstander....
Så får vi se hva Rad gjør da.....

Jeg klarer ikke dy meg. Med de summene du snakket om en stund ville det ligget an til Ridsdale II og ffp straff.


DenHviteYeboah

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #230 på: April 13, 2018, 10:58:32 »
Fortsetter....

A further look at the club website reveals that Greenfield Investment Pte Ltd, also owned by Radrizzani, are the actual owners of Elland Road, so it’s not quite as transparent as it initially seems. How much rent is being charged by this company to Leeds United Football Club Limited has not been revealed, however a note to the account suggests that rent will fall from over £2.1 million a year to about £760,000, which could mean extra money for the manager to spend on players and wages.



Profits and losses

Profits (or more commonly for non-Premier League football clubs losses) are income less costs. The bad news for Leeds is that the club lost a lot of money last season from day to day trading.

The good news is that they managed to sell Lewis Cook to Bournemouth, which brought in a profit of nearly £9 million, which offset the operating losses.

Operating losses are income less the running costs of the club (wages, maintenance, insurance, amortisation etc. and they are before deducting interest costs and player sale profits. In 2016/17 this worked out as £8.8 million, or £169,000 a week. This is slightly higher than the previous season, but still a lot of money to find on a regular basis. These losses are before taking into consideration the one-off cost player write down of £332,000, for someone who was signed for a fee but subsequently turned out to be a bit shite Christian Benteke. We don’t know enough about Leeds to know who the player(s) might be, but Leeds fans will no doubt have a few suggestions.

The previous season Leeds had one-off costs of nearly £4 million in legal and other fees as Cellino fell out with kit suppliers Kappa, previous employees, Sky TV, the Football League and anyone else who didn’t share the enlightened views of the Italian tax evader.

Being in the Championship is tough financially, and this is reflected in Leeds losses over the past few years.



Their total losses for the last five seasons are nearly £56 million, and this excludes one off costs of £6.4 million during that period too.

Fortunately for Leeds the club have managed to sell players on a regular basis at a profit of £25 million during this period, but it still leaves a substantial loss.

Under FFP rules, Championship clubs can make a maximum FFP loss of £39 million over three years in the Championship. Leeds have a pre-tax loss of just £10.2 million over the three-year period, helped by profits on player sales of £21.5 million over that period.

Additionally, some costs, such as infrastructure, academy and community schemes, are excluded from the FFP calculations. Leeds have a category two academy, which costs about £1.5 million a year to run according to our sources, so this, combined with other allowable costs, means that Leeds easily are within the FFP limit for the three years ending June 2017.

Assuming that Leeds have not gone crazy in terms of higher wage deals in 2017/18, they should be in a much stronger position than most clubs in the division in the forthcoming transfer windows.

This is because many clubs have spent big and gambled on promotion this season (2017/18) and will have to scale back investment in the next few windows to ensure FFP compliance. There is a caveat here, this will all depend on the extent to which the owner is willing to back the Leeds manager in the transfer market during the next couple of windows.

Player trading

The accountants treat player trading in a weird way in the financials. We’ve already shown that when a player is signed, his transfer fee is spread over the life of the contract. When the player is sold, the profit is shown immediately, and it based on the player’s accounting value, not the original transfer fee.

This creates erratic and volatile figures in the profit and loss account.

If we instead focus on the actual purchase and sales, the following arises



Over the last five years Leeds have bought players for £26.3 million and generated sales of £27.1 million. This is before the sale of Chris Wood to Burnley in summer 2017.

If Leeds are promoted to the Premier League there are additional transfer fees of £6.3 million payable, as well as player bonuses of over £16 million.



Debts to and from the club

Trying to make out the extent of Leeds debts is tricky. The easy bit is player transfers, where the club is owed £7.8 million (likely to be Bournemouth for Cook) and owe other clubs about £3.9 million.

The club is owed a mysterious £2.3 million in the form of ‘other debtors’ that the club is pursuing through the courts. Who this party is we don’t know, although Leeds fans will no doubt be able to point the finger at the party involved, and that finger is mainly being pointed at former owners GFH, who apparently have some contested debts. Whilst the outcome of the dispute is uncertain, one this is guaranteed, the lawyers will make plenty of brass from the dispute.

The club borrowed £16.5 million in the year, mainly from the owner, although £5 million of this was converted into shares. Total borrowings look to be about £25 million of which £14.5 million is to the owner.

Summary

The Cellino regime of chaos ending was a positive for Leeds in 2016/17. New owner Andrea Radrizzani had a huge amount of initial goodwill which has evaporated to a degree as the club has dropped from top of the table to nowhere in the past few months. This, coupled with the new club crest which turned the club into a laughing stock has meant that the upcoming summer is an opportunity to rebuild bridges with the fan base.

The good news is that the club is in an excellent position to invest heavily in the player market due to being significantly under the FFP loss limit. The big question is whether the owner will be prepared to dig deep and spend to bring in the calibre of player required for Leeds to be promotion contenders in 2018/19.

Data Set



Tabeller finner du når du følger lenken i forrige innlegg!!!

da synes jeg flere på dette forumet kan tenke seg litt om hva de har skrevet når folk har etterlyst å kjøpe spillere på en høyere hylle. det har blitt bryskt avvist som brudd på FFP og en ny start på Ridsdale tilstander....
Så får vi se hva Rad gjør da.....

Jeg klarer ikke dy meg. Med de summene du snakket om en stund ville det ligget an til Ridsdale II og ffp straff.
Så £20-30 mill vil føre til brudd på FFP og videre til Ridsdale tilstander? Det er i hvert fall disse summene jeg har skrevet om her på forumet, og som jeg er overbevist om at vi dessverre må opp i for å få en stall med sjanse for opprykk.

leedslife

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #231 på: April 13, 2018, 11:21:01 »
Fortsetter....

A further look at the club website reveals that Greenfield Investment Pte Ltd, also owned by Radrizzani, are the actual owners of Elland Road, so it’s not quite as transparent as it initially seems. How much rent is being charged by this company to Leeds United Football Club Limited has not been revealed, however a note to the account suggests that rent will fall from over £2.1 million a year to about £760,000, which could mean extra money for the manager to spend on players and wages.



Profits and losses

Profits (or more commonly for non-Premier League football clubs losses) are income less costs. The bad news for Leeds is that the club lost a lot of money last season from day to day trading.

The good news is that they managed to sell Lewis Cook to Bournemouth, which brought in a profit of nearly £9 million, which offset the operating losses.

Operating losses are income less the running costs of the club (wages, maintenance, insurance, amortisation etc. and they are before deducting interest costs and player sale profits. In 2016/17 this worked out as £8.8 million, or £169,000 a week. This is slightly higher than the previous season, but still a lot of money to find on a regular basis. These losses are before taking into consideration the one-off cost player write down of £332,000, for someone who was signed for a fee but subsequently turned out to be a bit shite Christian Benteke. We don’t know enough about Leeds to know who the player(s) might be, but Leeds fans will no doubt have a few suggestions.

The previous season Leeds had one-off costs of nearly £4 million in legal and other fees as Cellino fell out with kit suppliers Kappa, previous employees, Sky TV, the Football League and anyone else who didn’t share the enlightened views of the Italian tax evader.

Being in the Championship is tough financially, and this is reflected in Leeds losses over the past few years.



Their total losses for the last five seasons are nearly £56 million, and this excludes one off costs of £6.4 million during that period too.

Fortunately for Leeds the club have managed to sell players on a regular basis at a profit of £25 million during this period, but it still leaves a substantial loss.

Under FFP rules, Championship clubs can make a maximum FFP loss of £39 million over three years in the Championship. Leeds have a pre-tax loss of just £10.2 million over the three-year period, helped by profits on player sales of £21.5 million over that period.

Additionally, some costs, such as infrastructure, academy and community schemes, are excluded from the FFP calculations. Leeds have a category two academy, which costs about £1.5 million a year to run according to our sources, so this, combined with other allowable costs, means that Leeds easily are within the FFP limit for the three years ending June 2017.

Assuming that Leeds have not gone crazy in terms of higher wage deals in 2017/18, they should be in a much stronger position than most clubs in the division in the forthcoming transfer windows.

This is because many clubs have spent big and gambled on promotion this season (2017/18) and will have to scale back investment in the next few windows to ensure FFP compliance. There is a caveat here, this will all depend on the extent to which the owner is willing to back the Leeds manager in the transfer market during the next couple of windows.

Player trading

The accountants treat player trading in a weird way in the financials. We’ve already shown that when a player is signed, his transfer fee is spread over the life of the contract. When the player is sold, the profit is shown immediately, and it based on the player’s accounting value, not the original transfer fee.

This creates erratic and volatile figures in the profit and loss account.

If we instead focus on the actual purchase and sales, the following arises



Over the last five years Leeds have bought players for £26.3 million and generated sales of £27.1 million. This is before the sale of Chris Wood to Burnley in summer 2017.

If Leeds are promoted to the Premier League there are additional transfer fees of £6.3 million payable, as well as player bonuses of over £16 million.



Debts to and from the club

Trying to make out the extent of Leeds debts is tricky. The easy bit is player transfers, where the club is owed £7.8 million (likely to be Bournemouth for Cook) and owe other clubs about £3.9 million.

The club is owed a mysterious £2.3 million in the form of ‘other debtors’ that the club is pursuing through the courts. Who this party is we don’t know, although Leeds fans will no doubt be able to point the finger at the party involved, and that finger is mainly being pointed at former owners GFH, who apparently have some contested debts. Whilst the outcome of the dispute is uncertain, one this is guaranteed, the lawyers will make plenty of brass from the dispute.

The club borrowed £16.5 million in the year, mainly from the owner, although £5 million of this was converted into shares. Total borrowings look to be about £25 million of which £14.5 million is to the owner.

Summary

The Cellino regime of chaos ending was a positive for Leeds in 2016/17. New owner Andrea Radrizzani had a huge amount of initial goodwill which has evaporated to a degree as the club has dropped from top of the table to nowhere in the past few months. This, coupled with the new club crest which turned the club into a laughing stock has meant that the upcoming summer is an opportunity to rebuild bridges with the fan base.

The good news is that the club is in an excellent position to invest heavily in the player market due to being significantly under the FFP loss limit. The big question is whether the owner will be prepared to dig deep and spend to bring in the calibre of player required for Leeds to be promotion contenders in 2018/19.

Data Set



Tabeller finner du når du følger lenken i forrige innlegg!!!

da synes jeg flere på dette forumet kan tenke seg litt om hva de har skrevet når folk har etterlyst å kjøpe spillere på en høyere hylle. det har blitt bryskt avvist som brudd på FFP og en ny start på Ridsdale tilstander....
Så får vi se hva Rad gjør da.....

Jeg klarer ikke dy meg. Med de summene du snakket om en stund ville det ligget an til Ridsdale II og ffp straff.
Så £20-30 mill vil føre til brudd på FFP og videre til Ridsdale tilstander? Det er i hvert fall disse summene jeg har skrevet om her på forumet, og som jeg er overbevist om at vi dessverre må opp i for å få en stall med sjanse for opprykk.

Du har nok helt rett min venn.
Tror nok fort 20 mill blir brukt skal vi kunne være der oppe. Kommer helt ann på hvor mye vi bruker lånemarkedet.
Håper bare det ikke er noe i han serie b spissen som vi visstnok har gjort en `gentleman agreement´.
Vi har ikke tid i sommer og hente inn en ny pulje med spillere som ikke er vant til land, liga, kultur osv.

ibster

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #232 på: April 15, 2018, 20:13:15 »
Fortsetter....

A further look at the club website reveals that Greenfield Investment Pte Ltd, also owned by Radrizzani, are the actual owners of Elland Road, so it’s not quite as transparent as it initially seems. How much rent is being charged by this company to Leeds United Football Club Limited has not been revealed, however a note to the account suggests that rent will fall from over £2.1 million a year to about £760,000, which could mean extra money for the manager to spend on players and wages.



Profits and losses

Profits (or more commonly for non-Premier League football clubs losses) are income less costs. The bad news for Leeds is that the club lost a lot of money last season from day to day trading.

The good news is that they managed to sell Lewis Cook to Bournemouth, which brought in a profit of nearly £9 million, which offset the operating losses.

Operating losses are income less the running costs of the club (wages, maintenance, insurance, amortisation etc. and they are before deducting interest costs and player sale profits. In 2016/17 this worked out as £8.8 million, or £169,000 a week. This is slightly higher than the previous season, but still a lot of money to find on a regular basis. These losses are before taking into consideration the one-off cost player write down of £332,000, for someone who was signed for a fee but subsequently turned out to be a bit shite Christian Benteke. We don’t know enough about Leeds to know who the player(s) might be, but Leeds fans will no doubt have a few suggestions.

The previous season Leeds had one-off costs of nearly £4 million in legal and other fees as Cellino fell out with kit suppliers Kappa, previous employees, Sky TV, the Football League and anyone else who didn’t share the enlightened views of the Italian tax evader.

Being in the Championship is tough financially, and this is reflected in Leeds losses over the past few years.



Their total losses for the last five seasons are nearly £56 million, and this excludes one off costs of £6.4 million during that period too.

Fortunately for Leeds the club have managed to sell players on a regular basis at a profit of £25 million during this period, but it still leaves a substantial loss.

Under FFP rules, Championship clubs can make a maximum FFP loss of £39 million over three years in the Championship. Leeds have a pre-tax loss of just £10.2 million over the three-year period, helped by profits on player sales of £21.5 million over that period.

Additionally, some costs, such as infrastructure, academy and community schemes, are excluded from the FFP calculations. Leeds have a category two academy, which costs about £1.5 million a year to run according to our sources, so this, combined with other allowable costs, means that Leeds easily are within the FFP limit for the three years ending June 2017.

Assuming that Leeds have not gone crazy in terms of higher wage deals in 2017/18, they should be in a much stronger position than most clubs in the division in the forthcoming transfer windows.

This is because many clubs have spent big and gambled on promotion this season (2017/18) and will have to scale back investment in the next few windows to ensure FFP compliance. There is a caveat here, this will all depend on the extent to which the owner is willing to back the Leeds manager in the transfer market during the next couple of windows.

Player trading

The accountants treat player trading in a weird way in the financials. We’ve already shown that when a player is signed, his transfer fee is spread over the life of the contract. When the player is sold, the profit is shown immediately, and it based on the player’s accounting value, not the original transfer fee.

This creates erratic and volatile figures in the profit and loss account.

If we instead focus on the actual purchase and sales, the following arises



Over the last five years Leeds have bought players for £26.3 million and generated sales of £27.1 million. This is before the sale of Chris Wood to Burnley in summer 2017.

If Leeds are promoted to the Premier League there are additional transfer fees of £6.3 million payable, as well as player bonuses of over £16 million.



Debts to and from the club

Trying to make out the extent of Leeds debts is tricky. The easy bit is player transfers, where the club is owed £7.8 million (likely to be Bournemouth for Cook) and owe other clubs about £3.9 million.

The club is owed a mysterious £2.3 million in the form of ‘other debtors’ that the club is pursuing through the courts. Who this party is we don’t know, although Leeds fans will no doubt be able to point the finger at the party involved, and that finger is mainly being pointed at former owners GFH, who apparently have some contested debts. Whilst the outcome of the dispute is uncertain, one this is guaranteed, the lawyers will make plenty of brass from the dispute.

The club borrowed £16.5 million in the year, mainly from the owner, although £5 million of this was converted into shares. Total borrowings look to be about £25 million of which £14.5 million is to the owner.

Summary

The Cellino regime of chaos ending was a positive for Leeds in 2016/17. New owner Andrea Radrizzani had a huge amount of initial goodwill which has evaporated to a degree as the club has dropped from top of the table to nowhere in the past few months. This, coupled with the new club crest which turned the club into a laughing stock has meant that the upcoming summer is an opportunity to rebuild bridges with the fan base.

The good news is that the club is in an excellent position to invest heavily in the player market due to being significantly under the FFP loss limit. The big question is whether the owner will be prepared to dig deep and spend to bring in the calibre of player required for Leeds to be promotion contenders in 2018/19.

Data Set



Tabeller finner du når du følger lenken i forrige innlegg!!!

da synes jeg flere på dette forumet kan tenke seg litt om hva de har skrevet når folk har etterlyst å kjøpe spillere på en høyere hylle. det har blitt bryskt avvist som brudd på FFP og en ny start på Ridsdale tilstander....
Så får vi se hva Rad gjør da.....

Jeg klarer ikke dy meg. Med de summene du snakket om en stund ville det ligget an til Ridsdale II og ffp straff.
Så £20-30 mill vil føre til brudd på FFP og videre til Ridsdale tilstander? Det er i hvert fall disse summene jeg har skrevet om her på forumet, og som jeg er overbevist om at vi dessverre må opp i for å få en stall med sjanse for opprykk.

Med Ridsdaletilstander så mener jeg at vi spiller med kniven på strupen og må lykkes sportslig i inneværende sesong for ikke å implodere som klubb.

20-30 mp for mye brukt til neste år vil ikke ta oss dit men 30 mp i overgangspenger i sommer er å strekke strikken. Selv om vi er godt posisjonert for pengebruk nå syns jeg det er for tidlig å satse stort nå som vi kaver med trener og selvtillit. Skulle gjerne hatt en stamme i laget på 4-5 spillere og  bygge på heller enn å måtte kjøpe inn nytt reisverk og alt. I tillegg til det sportslige blir regnskapet penere neste år pga. Wood og Taylor salgene så sannsynligvis man kan satse litt mer.

Jeg har skrevet at jeg tror på det beste overgangsvinduet på lenge nå til sommeren.

Synd vi har lange kontrakter på mange spillere som underpresterer, det ødelegger transferbalansen vår. Men det er for dyrt å ha daukjøtt i stallen så det bør bli loppemarked før neste sesong.


Promotion 2010

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #233 på: April 21, 2018, 08:19:41 »
Leeds handed stunning £7.6m windfall – report

Football Insider2 days ago
an image

By Richard Parks

Leeds United’s participation in this season’s Championship has earned them £7.6million, according to a report.

Trinity Mirror site Leeds Live have crunched the numbers for the Yorkshire giants as well as each of England’s 24 second-tier side as a result of their Championship participation in 2017-18.

It is said that United’s total earnings will be one of the highest in the division even though they are 14th in the table and destined for a mid-table finish.

Snack Media Network In Article

Leeds have earned a £2.3million basic award from the Sky Sports TV deal, a further £4.5million solidarity payment from the Premier League and a supplementary £760,000 of TV cash.

The total amount is £7.56million.

Intriguingly, United will earn more TV cash than leaders Wolves, who will have picked up £690,000 by the end of the season.

Football Insider verdict:

Leeds’ windfall is a tidy sum, and is a sizeable element of their total revenue, but it only serves to illustrate the gap between the riches of the Premier League and the Championship. Last season, bottom club Sunderland earned £99million of TV cash from competing in the English top flight, a sum that it would take Leeds 13 years to earn from participating in the second tier. That is a sobering thought for owner Andrea Radrizzani as he prepares to make a series of key decisions over management and players following a wretched campaign that has failed massively to live up to expectations.


Min første Leeds-kamp:
Strømsgodset vs Leeds, 19.september 1973

Kato

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #234 på: April 27, 2018, 22:18:51 »
For de som vil øse ut på spillerkontrakter; les historien om Jack Rodwell i Sunderland. Ett år igjen av 5-årskontrakt. Går ned i league one med 70 000 pund i uka. Og har ikke spilt fotball siden september.
 

samadhi

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #235 på: April 27, 2018, 22:32:23 »
For de som vil øse ut på spillerkontrakter; les historien om Jack Rodwell i Sunderland. Ett år igjen av 5-årskontrakt. Går ned i league one med 70 000 pund i uka. Og har ikke spilt fotball siden september.

Tvunget til 40% kutt når de rykker ned, så er bare på 42000 til neste år  ;D
I tillegg til dette nekter han å spille for klubben og manager Coleman vet ikke en gang hvor han er!
marching on together,
derudaf forever...

leedslife

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #236 på: April 27, 2018, 22:35:06 »
Rodwell, Oshea, Cattermole og fengselsfuglen.. kommer til å synke som et lodd nedover systemet.

Kato

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #237 på: April 28, 2018, 08:35:33 »
Spillere som Rodwell og Lasogga er jo mareritt for klubbene. Rodwell koster ihvertfall 200 millioner kroner for Sunderland over 5 sesonger. På 4 sesonger har han spilt 67 kamper. Denne sesongen er han en lønnsutgift på 40 millioner kroner, uten å bidra i det hele tatt.

Disse lønningene tar omtrent livet av klubber. Spillerne har knallsterke rettigheter etter bosman.

Vi må aldri gå på akkord med en lønnsstruktur. Om limiten havner på 15k eller 25k i uka avgjør jo økonomien. Men å kaste 40-50000 pund i uka etter enkeltspillere når man er i championship er jo helt krise.

Nå ser jeg Wenger får tilbud fra Kina på 260 millioner kroner i året. Skal vi ha han går hele klubbens budsjett, lurt isåfall.
 

ibster

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #238 på: April 28, 2018, 09:55:26 »
Spillere som Rodwell og Lasogga er jo mareritt for klubbene. Rodwell koster ihvertfall 200 millioner kroner for Sunderland over 5 sesonger. På 4 sesonger har han spilt 67 kamper. Denne sesongen er han en lønnsutgift på 40 millioner kroner, uten å bidra i det hele tatt.

Disse lønningene tar omtrent livet av klubber. Spillerne har knallsterke rettigheter etter bosman.

Vi må aldri gå på akkord med en lønnsstruktur. Om limiten havner på 15k eller 25k i uka avgjør jo økonomien. Men å kaste 40-50000 pund i uka etter enkeltspillere når man er i championship er jo helt krise.

Nå ser jeg Wenger får tilbud fra Kina på 260 millioner kroner i året. Skal vi ha han går hele klubbens budsjett, lurt isåfall.

Sanne ord!

leedslife

Sv: Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?
« Svar #239 på: April 28, 2018, 11:44:34 »
Spillere som Rodwell og Lasogga er jo mareritt for klubbene. Rodwell koster ihvertfall 200 millioner kroner for Sunderland over 5 sesonger. På 4 sesonger har han spilt 67 kamper. Denne sesongen er han en lønnsutgift på 40 millioner kroner, uten å bidra i det hele tatt.

Disse lønningene tar omtrent livet av klubber. Spillerne har knallsterke rettigheter etter bosman.

Vi må aldri gå på akkord med en lønnsstruktur. Om limiten havner på 15k eller 25k i uka avgjør jo økonomien. Men å kaste 40-50000 pund i uka etter enkeltspillere når man er i championship er jo helt krise.

Nå ser jeg Wenger får tilbud fra Kina på 260 millioner kroner i året. Skal vi ha han går hele klubbens budsjett, lurt isåfall.
Enig. Er jo sinnsykt. Enda mer sinnsykt når man får sånne summer kastet på frokostbordet en nydelig Lørdag formiddag.
Spesielt også når vi har vært i samme båt før.
Det er det som overrasket meg mest.
Mange klubber i denne divisjonen som vil våkne opp med en kraftig hangover de neste årene.
Takk å lov for at vi bygger fundament!!