|
|
"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass.........and I'm all out of bubblegum."
The piece was meant to give an overview of player amortisation and illustrate why net spend isn't a super useful metric.
Yes, exactly!
But does it list the cost of player amortisation during that timeframe? Since "net spend" apparently isn't really an all that meaningful metric (I mean it's more meaningful than just "spend", but still falls a ways short of telling a full story)? That seems to be the big factor along with wages.
It doesn't matter how much they're paid individually, does it? As you said, we still pay 60-ish (iirc) % for wages. Think that's really the important metric here.
But has it though? According to the chart that's not been the case in the three seasons, since the operating profit has remained basically the same.
We don't have the numbers to confirm if that's the case compared to the previous period you mentioned. At least not easily accessible.
The way I see it is that since we've made those large signings they are on higher wages (let's say the total wage bill has remained at exactly the same level as it was in the previous period you mention) so the "remaining" cash should be greater, since the turnover has increased. I would guess that that "remaining" cash gets eaten up by the higher player amortisation caused by the exact expensive transfers you mention. Does that make sense? I'm a bit confused tbh, finances aren't my strong suit.
That is a very interesting question. I'd love to see some numbers on it, perhaps something by SR. Anything else would at this point be pure guesswork. Unfortunately I don't have the numbers in an understandable for a layman like me format. Or any format for that matter.
What I think the thread demonstrates, along with the video I posted the other day, is that FSG are investing everything the club is currently making back into it. It'd be very surprising if they were being much less prudent prior to 2015, though even that is possible as they were very much learning on the job.
Etiam si omnes, ego non
Thank you for proving exactly what I'm talking about i.e. what it said/spun is very often different to the truth.
I said:-
Which was on top of me saying that the truth would only be know for absolute certain if we (including myself) had access to all our books/financial information.Unless we suddenly go into administration and have a mass fire sale, nothing will convince me I'm wrong, which I'm not. I mean FFS Bali, If we are broke now, how much money did we have a few years back before our recent succeses when FSG decided to build a new stand and training ground? Think about it.
You then then spun all that into:-
You are the one that is steadfastly sticking to a nonsensical position, not me, nor anyone else who actually has some common sense and can see the situation for what it actually is. I've put your position down to your age, but it's possible that you're an FSG shill.Nothing will convince me that I'm wrong
Bookmarks