Southampton must be well in profit - excellent academy of course. The aim shouldn't be to stay in the championship forever but I see success would be sustainable in the champ with forays into the prem when we have a good crop of youngsters / make good buys but we aren't wholly geared up to stay there - to me, the best place we can be, and the best times we had was when we were yo yo ing. Once your established in the prem there seems to be (apart from the freak season we've just had), a level you cannot break into and so it then just becomes a case of trying to stay up, which gets boring. If we are honest, most fans would agree with and be happy with that, wouldn't they?
Yet we are nowhere near that point so at the moment it's a pipe dream. I have no faith that this regime even wants to get us to that point let alone be able to implement what is required to get us there. It's taken relegation to the third tier before they've realised they need to make changes in the way they operate. But, even now, there are massive short-comings.
We are a few weeks away from the season kicking off and we still have half a squad of players that are absolutely useless, and there are players (including TWO goalkeepers) that are yet to leave. Even if we managed to get enough quality players to compete in this division tomorrow, it's a tough ask for Slade to get them ready as we are running out of time. It's highly likely that when the start of the season comes, we will be in exactly the same position as last season and the one before, i.e lacking a squad that is fit for purpose, or at the very least, a squad that is unprepared due to the players coming in at the last minute.
I wouldn't be so quick to pronounce that the worm has turned, because from my point of view, it looks like they've given a little, but ultimately haven't changed very much.
Who is saying the worm has turned? It hasn't but it has changed direction to try to get out of the shit it is in
Southampton must be well in profit - excellent academy of course. The aim shouldn't be to stay in the championship forever but I see success would be sustainable in the champ with forays into the prem when we have a good crop of youngsters / make good buys but we aren't wholly geared up to stay there - to me, the best place we can be, and the best times we had was when we were yo yo ing. Once your established in the prem there seems to be (apart from the freak season we've just had), a level you cannot break into and so it then just becomes a case of trying to stay up, which gets boring. If we are honest, most fans would agree with and be happy with that, wouldn't they?
Southampton made a loss every season before reaching The Premiership.
League 1 10/11 they appear to have lost £11M.
Championship 11/12 they appear to have lost £12M.
I don't disagree with what you say here, but you are AVOIDING the question.
You said under RD we could be a sustainable club ie break even. So where's the evidence.
Which other Championship club has successfully achieved this ?
I have never said under rd - I'm talking about the concept of being sustainable - do we really all think it's impossible? If so, the future for English football is pretty bleak
This was a good article on the BBC website. I'm sure RD just bought us for some sort of tax avoidance reasons. So there are no plans and he's probably quite happy for us to be in Division One. He doesn't care about us as a club at all, hence the number of games he's been to watch.
I kinda wish that was the case, because then Roland wouldn't actually care too much about losses - and probably wouldn't be gambling the club away on this deluded plan. He would simply write the losses off and enjoy his tax money going in to something that he still owned.
I'm open to being corrected, but I seem to recall that when he purchased the club someone remarked that in Belgium, a company may write off the losses of another company in the same group even if those companies aren't related in business activities. (Whereas in the UK I believe the companies have to have a relationship that goes beyond ownership; so an electronics company writing tax off against a football club wouldn't be allowed here, but an electronics company writing tax off against a software company might be for instance.)
Hang on - I'm no stato but where are Southampton, burnley and norwich's stats from the last 4 years?
This was a good article on the BBC website. I'm sure RD just bought us for some sort of tax avoidance reasons. So there are no plans and he's probably quite happy for us to be in Division One. He doesn't care about us as a club at all, hence the number of games he's been to watch.
I kinda wish that was the case, because then Roland wouldn't actually care too much about losses - and probably wouldn't be gambling the club away on this deluded plan. He would simply write the losses off and enjoy his tax money going in to something that he still owned.
I'm open to being corrected, but I seem to recall that when he purchased the club someone remarked that in Belgium, a company may write off the losses of another company in the same group even if those companies aren't related in business activities. (Whereas in the UK I believe the companies have to have a relationship that goes beyond ownership; so an electronics company writing tax off against a football club wouldn't be allowed here, but an electronics company writing tax off against a software company might be for instance.)
This isn't correct, in the UK all you need is 75% common voting and economic ownership between two companies and they can offset uk losses in one against uk profits in the other.
What is commonly forgotten is that if it is a true loss (rather than a manufactured one like Roland's loan interest) is although your £5m loss has only cost you £4m because of saved taxes, you have still lost £4m.
Roland's tax wheeze is more likely to be the interest on his debt which creates a loss in the uk and the income can probably be sheltered in Belgium. So he gets a loss for nothing basically which reduces his other UK profits for tax purposes.
this can work even if, as in our case, the interest is not ever paid and just rolls into the loan.
This was a good article on the BBC website. I'm sure RD just bought us for some sort of tax avoidance reasons. So there are no plans and he's probably quite happy for us to be in Division One. He doesn't care about us as a club at all, hence the number of games he's been to watch.
I kinda wish that was the case, because then Roland wouldn't actually care too much about losses - and probably wouldn't be gambling the club away on this deluded plan. He would simply write the losses off and enjoy his tax money going in to something that he still owned.
I'm open to being corrected, but I seem to recall that when he purchased the club someone remarked that in Belgium, a company may write off the losses of another company in the same group even if those companies aren't related in business activities. (Whereas in the UK I believe the companies have to have a relationship that goes beyond ownership; so an electronics company writing tax off against a football club wouldn't be allowed here, but an electronics company writing tax off against a software company might be for instance.)
This isn't correct, in the UK all you need is 75% common voting and economic ownership between two companies and they can offset uk losses in one against uk profits in the other.
What is commonly forgotten is that if it is a true loss (rather than a manufactured one like Roland's loan interest) is although your £5m loss has only cost you £4m because of saved taxes, you have still lost £4m.
Roland's tax wheeze is more likely to be the interest on his debt which creates a loss in the uk and the income can probably be sheltered in Belgium. So he gets a loss for nothing basically which reduces his other UK profits for tax purposes.
this can work even if, as in our case, the interest is not ever paid and just rolls into the loan.
Oh wow, I had figured the businesses must've had some form of relationship above the ownership - i.e in an almost complimentary way. In some ways it seems a bit open to abuse from the view of a company being an independent entity - although it makes sense in other ways I guess.
How does this work out of interest? It sounds a bit like it's treated as though A transferred the funds to B to cover the losses? So I'm guessing if Company A ends with £10M profit (so say, approx £2M due in Corp Tax), and Company B ends with a £5M loss - Company A can claim it was in actual fact a £5M profit due to the losses in Company B? (Thereby, approx £1M due in Corp Tax?)
I don't think the Staprix "experience" tests the boundaries on how to run a football club economically. It's an absolute failure of a test of that hypothesis.
Everything they do contradicts the aim to run a club prudently.
We waste money on players and then take a massive hair cut on shipping them out. We have the worst operator in the football pyramid negotiating transfers.
We alienate the supporter Base so that the magic intangible, fan power, is negated.
We cut costs but in a random and haphazard way so u lose the wheat and keep the chaff.
We have no idea how to empower managers to manage, from first team to admin.
It might be possible to run a more economical model and live within your means but to do that you need expert knowledge. Staprix has none all of their network clubs are failing.
If you sell Batshuayi for 4.5 million with no sell on clause then how can you ever think of making profit from youth. None of them know anything about real football ability, they would swap a Michy for a Noby because their scouts can't judge talent
Southampton must be well in profit - excellent academy of course. The aim shouldn't be to stay in the championship forever but I see success would be sustainable in the champ with forays into the prem when we have a good crop of youngsters / make good buys but we aren't wholly geared up to stay there - to me, the best place we can be, and the best times we had was when we were yo yo ing. Once your established in the prem there seems to be (apart from the freak season we've just had), a level you cannot break into and so it then just becomes a case of trying to stay up, which gets boring. If we are honest, most fans would agree with and be happy with that, wouldn't they?
Southampton made a loss every season before reaching The Premiership.
League 1 10/11 they appear to have lost £11M.
Championship 11/12 they appear to have lost £12M.
I don't disagree with what you say here, but you are AVOIDING the question.
You said under RD we could be a sustainable club ie break even. So where's the evidence.
Which other Championship club has successfully achieved this ?
I have never said under rd - I'm talking about the concept of being sustainable - do we really all think it's impossible? If so, the future for English football is pretty bleak
Football outside The Premiership is unsustainable if you wish to mount a challenge in The Championship.
The only clubs that realistically can mount a challenge are those that have parachute money or are funded by wealthy owners. FFP now permit a £45/£46M loss over 3 Championship seasons.
A club cannot compete against that or parachute money by planning to break even !
Break even planning will almost certainly lead to relegation. We told RD/KM this, they didn't listen & got us relegated. Effectively, they planned for relegation.
Southampton must be well in profit - excellent academy of course. The aim shouldn't be to stay in the championship forever but I see success would be sustainable in the champ with forays into the prem when we have a good crop of youngsters / make good buys but we aren't wholly geared up to stay there - to me, the best place we can be, and the best times we had was when we were yo yo ing. Once your established in the prem there seems to be (apart from the freak season we've just had), a level you cannot break into and so it then just becomes a case of trying to stay up, which gets boring. If we are honest, most fans would agree with and be happy with that, wouldn't they?
Yet we are nowhere near that point so at the moment it's a pipe dream. I have no faith that this regime even wants to get us to that point let alone be able to implement what is required to get us there. It's taken relegation to the third tier before they've realised they need to make changes in the way they operate. But, even now, there are massive short-comings.
We are a few weeks away from the season kicking off and we still have half a squad of players that are absolutely useless, and there are players (including TWO goalkeepers) that are yet to leave. Even if we managed to get enough quality players to compete in this division tomorrow, it's a tough ask for Slade to get them ready as we are running out of time. It's highly likely that when the start of the season comes, we will be in exactly the same position as last season and the one before, i.e lacking a squad that is fit for purpose, or at the very least, a squad that is unprepared due to the players coming in at the last minute.
I wouldn't be so quick to pronounce that the worm has turned, because from my point of view, it looks like they've given a little, but ultimately haven't changed very much.
Who is saying the worm has turned? It hasn't but it has changed direction to try to get out of the shit it is in
I disagree. It feels more like they've thrown us a bone than made a full change of direction.
This was a good article on the BBC website. I'm sure RD just bought us for some sort of tax avoidance reasons. So there are no plans and he's probably quite happy for us to be in Division One. He doesn't care about us as a club at all, hence the number of games he's been to watch.
I kinda wish that was the case, because then Roland wouldn't actually care too much about losses - and probably wouldn't be gambling the club away on this deluded plan. He would simply write the losses off and enjoy his tax money going in to something that he still owned.
I'm open to being corrected, but I seem to recall that when he purchased the club someone remarked that in Belgium, a company may write off the losses of another company in the same group even if those companies aren't related in business activities. (Whereas in the UK I believe the companies have to have a relationship that goes beyond ownership; so an electronics company writing tax off against a football club wouldn't be allowed here, but an electronics company writing tax off against a software company might be for instance.)
Hang on - I'm no stato but where are Southampton, burnley and norwich's stats from the last 4 years?
Would that be the Southampton that was taken over by a sugar daddy??? I don't think the Liebherr family are short of a bob or two.
This was a good article on the BBC website. I'm sure RD just bought us for some sort of tax avoidance reasons. So there are no plans and he's probably quite happy for us to be in Division One. He doesn't care about us as a club at all, hence the number of games he's been to watch.
I kinda wish that was the case, because then Roland wouldn't actually care too much about losses - and probably wouldn't be gambling the club away on this deluded plan. He would simply write the losses off and enjoy his tax money going in to something that he still owned.
I'm open to being corrected, but I seem to recall that when he purchased the club someone remarked that in Belgium, a company may write off the losses of another company in the same group even if those companies aren't related in business activities. (Whereas in the UK I believe the companies have to have a relationship that goes beyond ownership; so an electronics company writing tax off against a football club wouldn't be allowed here, but an electronics company writing tax off against a software company might be for instance.)
This isn't correct, in the UK all you need is 75% common voting and economic ownership between two companies and they can offset uk losses in one against uk profits in the other.
What is commonly forgotten is that if it is a true loss (rather than a manufactured one like Roland's loan interest) is although your £5m loss has only cost you £4m because of saved taxes, you have still lost £4m.
Roland's tax wheeze is more likely to be the interest on his debt which creates a loss in the uk and the income can probably be sheltered in Belgium. So he gets a loss for nothing basically which reduces his other UK profits for tax purposes.
this can work even if, as in our case, the interest is not ever paid and just rolls into the loan.
Oh wow, I had figured the businesses must've had some form of relationship above the ownership - i.e in an almost complimentary way. In some ways it seems a bit open to abuse from the view of a company being an independent entity - although it makes sense in other ways I guess.
How does this work out of interest? It sounds a bit like it's treated as though A transferred the funds to B to cover the losses? So I'm guessing if Company A ends with £10M profit (so say, approx £2M due in Corp Tax), and Company B ends with a £5M loss - Company A can claim it was in actual fact a £5M profit due to the losses in Company B? (Thereby, approx £1M due in Corp Tax?)
In the UK company A makes a profit of £5m and has tax to pay of £1m. Conpany B which is 75% owned in common with A makes a £5m loss. Company B makes an election to take group relief from company A and this means there is no tax to pay to HMRC.
Usually, company A pays company B £1m for the losses but this is not a requirement and no payment needs to take place.
I don't think the Staprix "experience" tests the boundaries on how to run a football club economically. It's an absolute failure of a test of that hypothesis.
Everything they do contradicts the aim to run a club prudently.
We waste money on players and then take a massive hair cut on shipping them out. We have the worst operator in the football pyramid negotiating transfers.
We alienate the supporter Base so that the magic intangible, fan power, is negated.
We cut costs but in a random and haphazard way so u lose the wheat and keep the chaff.
We have no idea how to empower managers to manage, from first team to admin.
It might be possible to run a more economical model and live within your means but to do that you need expert knowledge. Staprix has none all of their network clubs are failing.
If you sell Batshuayi for 4.5 million with no sell on clause then how can you ever think of making profit from youth. None of them know anything about real football ability, they would swap a Michy for a Noby because their scouts can't judge talent
totally agree - the idea that it is impossible to be sustainable is wrong but has obviously become a fact to some on here - just hope the queue of billionaires waiting to gamble 20 mill a year to reach the prem doesn't go elsewhere before roly sells up
I think the only plan now is to cash in and get out. Today has told us that. Katrien Meire also has sales targets and doesn't care how she reaches them.
I too agree with calydon. They have &*%$*% up big time.
However, even if they had run the club perfectly, it is not sustainable to be successful and break even when most other clubs are spending £15M per season more.
Doucher, you have not provided ONE example of a sustainable Championship club over the last 10 years.
ONE club that has run in profit and not been relegated.
I am totally convinced there is no 'plan' , RD bought Charlton because of wanting to get inside KM's knickers - so he thought lets buy a little play thing for her to muck about with- and then he might be 'in' there.After all, he doesn't really care about the losses, coz he can just lump it on our debt mountain. Once she goes, then I am convinced we will immediately be put up for sale - that's why its so important to try to undermine her, and irritate her, and get under her skin as much as possible. On our first jaunt to St Truiden last season, we happened to have a lengthy conversation with the CEO of another Belgian Pro League team who knows RD well, and he told us that he doesn't care about football.
Duchatelet buying the club on that basis, I think not.
I too agree with calydon. They have &*%$*% up big time.
However, even if they had run the club perfectly, it is not sustainable to be successful and break even when most other clubs are spending £15M per season more.
Doucher, you have not provided ONE example of a sustainable Championship club over the last 10 years.
ONE club that has run in profit and not been relegated.
where would i get that info from? and does that mean it is impossible if i don't have it?
I don't think the Staprix "experience" tests the boundaries on how to run a football club economically. It's an absolute failure of a test of that hypothesis.
Everything they do contradicts the aim to run a club prudently.
We waste money on players and then take a massive hair cut on shipping them out. We have the worst operator in the football pyramid negotiating transfers.
We alienate the supporter Base so that the magic intangible, fan power, is negated.
We cut costs but in a random and haphazard way so u lose the wheat and keep the chaff.
We have no idea how to empower managers to manage, from first team to admin.
It might be possible to run a more economical model and live within your means but to do that you need expert knowledge. Staprix has none all of their network clubs are failing.
If you sell Batshuayi for 4.5 million with no sell on clause then how can you ever think of making profit from youth. None of them know anything about real football ability, they would swap a Michy for a Noby because their scouts can't judge talent
totally agree - the idea that it is impossible to be sustainable is wrong but has obviously become a fact to some on here - just hope the queue of billionaires waiting to gamble 20 mill a year to reach the prem doesn't go elsewhere before roly sells up
It was a fact to two previous chief execs too, one of whom is an accountant. But maybe you know better.
The only way to be successful outside the premiership and not take large losses is by having the right kind of manager at the top of his game. (Profits are impossible unless you sell a player for mega money) A manager who can build a team on very little money, who is respected by players and loved by the fans so everybody is pushing in the same direction. The owner may have inherited one of these, but quickly undermined and sacked him!
I too agree with calydon. They have &*%$*% up big time.
However, even if they had run the club perfectly, it is not sustainable to be successful and break even when most other clubs are spending £15M per season more.
Doucher, you have not provided ONE example of a sustainable Championship club over the last 10 years.
ONE club that has run in profit and not been relegated.
where would i get that info from? and does that mean it is impossible if i don't have it?
Before the current clowns turned up banging on about breaking even virtually all the time, it is accepted by nearly all in football that the only way to make ongoing profits in the Championship is too revive parachute payments.
Well virtually everyone, Richard Murray would often claim during our last stay at the 3rd tier that once we got promoted back to the Championship with an impending improved TV deal we could break even.
What happened, we went up, TV deal went up, same loss occurred. Simple reason more money in the game leads to more going out. And too think Murray is still involved
I don't think the Staprix "experience" tests the boundaries on how to run a football club economically. It's an absolute failure of a test of that hypothesis.
Everything they do contradicts the aim to run a club prudently.
We waste money on players and then take a massive hair cut on shipping them out. We have the worst operator in the football pyramid negotiating transfers.
We alienate the supporter Base so that the magic intangible, fan power, is negated.
We cut costs but in a random and haphazard way so u lose the wheat and keep the chaff.
We have no idea how to empower managers to manage, from first team to admin.
It might be possible to run a more economical model and live within your means but to do that you need expert knowledge. Staprix has none all of their network clubs are failing.
If you sell Batshuayi for 4.5 million with no sell on clause then how can you ever think of making profit from youth. None of them know anything about real football ability, they would swap a Michy for a Noby because their scouts can't judge talent
totally agree - the idea that it is impossible to be sustainable is wrong but has obviously become a fact to some on here - just hope the queue of billionaires waiting to gamble 20 mill a year to reach the prem doesn't go elsewhere before roly sells up
It was a fact to two previous chief execs too, one of whom is an accountant. But maybe you know better.
What even if we sold an ex academy player each year? Nothing's impossible surely? And I don't claim to know better, just wondering the merits of having a strong academy - must be a factor?
The only way to be successful outside the premiership and not take large losses is by having the right kind of manager at the top of his game. (Profits are impossible unless you sell a player for mega money) A manager who can build a team on very little money, who is respected by players and loved by the fans so everybody is pushing in the same direction. The owner may have inherited one of these, but quickly undermined and sacked him!
I too agree with calydon. They have &*%$*% up big time.
However, even if they had run the club perfectly, it is not sustainable to be successful and break even when most other clubs are spending £15M per season more.
Doucher, you have not provided ONE example of a sustainable Championship club over the last 10 years.
ONE club that has run in profit and not been relegated.
where would i get that info from? and does that mean it is impossible if i don't have it?
Before the current clowns turned up banging on about breaking even virtually all the time, it is accepted by nearly all in football that the only way to make ongoing profits in the Championship is too revive parachute payments.
Well virtually everyone, Richard Murray would often claim during our last stay at the 3rd tier that once we got promoted back to the Championship with an impending improved TV deal we could break even.
What happened, we went up, TV deal went up, same loss occurred. Simple reason more money in the game leads to more going out. And too think Murray is still involved
They have screwed up yes but I don't remember then banging on about that - I remember the evil master plan being banged on about on here so hopefully the cavalry make themselves known soon and save us from this impossible nightmare
I'm not sure how a CEO who insults fans on a regular basis contributes to the conditions needed. But the fact she still has a job, tells us all we need to know about our owner!
I'm not sure how a CEO who insults fans on a regular basis contributes to the conditions needed. But the fact she still has a job, tells us all we need to know about our owner!
She doesn't, she needs to go just as the networkmanagers scouts and players needed to and the owner needs to -as I've repeatedly stated - I am not debating that and that will and is happening I'm sure but I'm talking about what comes next and will the academy plans be scrapped?
I too agree with calydon. They have &*%$*% up big time.
However, even if they had run the club perfectly, it is not sustainable to be successful and break even when most other clubs are spending £15M per season more.
Doucher, you have not provided ONE example of a sustainable Championship club over the last 10 years.
ONE club that has run in profit and not been relegated.
where would i get that info from? and does that mean it is impossible if i don't have it?
Before the current clowns turned up banging on about breaking even virtually all the time, it is accepted by nearly all in football that the only way to make ongoing profits in the Championship is too revive parachute payments.
Well virtually everyone, Richard Murray would often claim during our last stay at the 3rd tier that once we got promoted back to the Championship with an impending improved TV deal we could break even.
What happened, we went up, TV deal went up, same loss occurred. Simple reason more money in the game leads to more going out. And too think Murray is still involved
They have screwed up yes but I don't remember then banging on about that - I remember the evil master plan being banged on about on here so hopefully the cavalry make themselves known soon and save us from this impossible nightmare
Why do people keep on with this 'who else will buy us', 'where's the cavalry', 'anyone else with 20m going spare' line?
When Douchatelet bought us, there were at least two other parties taking a look. Since he's owned us there are at least two more parties keen to make an approach. At least one is supposedly not even put off by our relegation.
I don't think the Staprix "experience" tests the boundaries on how to run a football club economically. It's an absolute failure of a test of that hypothesis.
Everything they do contradicts the aim to run a club prudently.
We waste money on players and then take a massive hair cut on shipping them out. We have the worst operator in the football pyramid negotiating transfers.
We alienate the supporter Base so that the magic intangible, fan power, is negated.
We cut costs but in a random and haphazard way so u lose the wheat and keep the chaff.
We have no idea how to empower managers to manage, from first team to admin.
It might be possible to run a more economical model and live within your means but to do that you need expert knowledge. Staprix has none all of their network clubs are failing.
If you sell Batshuayi for 4.5 million with no sell on clause then how can you ever think of making profit from youth. None of them know anything about real football ability, they would swap a Michy for a Noby because their scouts can't judge talent
totally agree - the idea that it is impossible to be sustainable is wrong but has obviously become a fact to some on here - just hope the queue of billionaires waiting to gamble 20 mill a year to reach the prem doesn't go elsewhere before roly sells up
It was a fact to two previous chief execs too, one of whom is an accountant. But maybe you know better.
What even if we sold an ex academy player each year? Nothing's impossible surely? And I don't claim to know better, just wondering the merits of having a strong academy - must be a factor?
At minimum that would require a £5m profit on transfers every season. Good luck with that.
I don't think the Staprix "experience" tests the boundaries on how to run a football club economically. It's an absolute failure of a test of that hypothesis.
Everything they do contradicts the aim to run a club prudently.
We waste money on players and then take a massive hair cut on shipping them out. We have the worst operator in the football pyramid negotiating transfers.
We alienate the supporter Base so that the magic intangible, fan power, is negated.
We cut costs but in a random and haphazard way so u lose the wheat and keep the chaff.
We have no idea how to empower managers to manage, from first team to admin.
It might be possible to run a more economical model and live within your means but to do that you need expert knowledge. Staprix has none all of their network clubs are failing.
If you sell Batshuayi for 4.5 million with no sell on clause then how can you ever think of making profit from youth. None of them know anything about real football ability, they would swap a Michy for a Noby because their scouts can't judge talent
totally agree - the idea that it is impossible to be sustainable is wrong but has obviously become a fact to some on here - just hope the queue of billionaires waiting to gamble 20 mill a year to reach the prem doesn't go elsewhere before roly sells up
It was a fact to two previous chief execs too, one of whom is an accountant. But maybe you know better.
What even if we sold an ex academy player each year? Nothing's impossible surely? And I don't claim to know better, just wondering the merits of having a strong academy - must be a factor?
At minimum that would require a £5m profit on transfers every season. Good luck with that.
and if it was as easy as that, then why aren't every club doing the same..??
Comments
What is commonly forgotten is that if it is a true loss (rather than a manufactured one like Roland's loan interest) is although your £5m loss has only cost you £4m because of saved taxes, you have still lost £4m.
Roland's tax wheeze is more likely to be the interest on his debt which creates a loss in the uk and the income can probably be sheltered in Belgium. So he gets a loss for nothing basically which reduces his other UK profits for tax purposes.
this can work even if, as in our case, the interest is not ever paid and just rolls into the loan.
How does this work out of interest? It sounds a bit like it's treated as though A transferred the funds to B to cover the losses? So I'm guessing if Company A ends with £10M profit (so say, approx £2M due in Corp Tax), and Company B ends with a £5M loss - Company A can claim it was in actual fact a £5M profit due to the losses in Company B? (Thereby, approx £1M due in Corp Tax?)
Everything they do contradicts the aim to run a club prudently.
We waste money on players and then take a massive hair cut on shipping them out. We have the worst operator in the football pyramid negotiating transfers.
We alienate the supporter Base so that the magic intangible, fan power, is negated.
We cut costs but in a random and haphazard way so u lose the wheat and keep the chaff.
We have no idea how to empower managers to manage, from first team to admin.
It might be possible to run a more economical model and live within your means but to do that you need expert knowledge. Staprix has none all of their network clubs are failing.
If you sell Batshuayi for 4.5 million with no sell on clause then how can you ever think of making profit from youth. None of them know anything about real football ability, they would swap a Michy for a Noby because their scouts can't judge talent
The only clubs that realistically can mount a challenge are those that have parachute money or are funded by wealthy owners. FFP now permit a £45/£46M loss over 3 Championship seasons.
A club cannot compete against that or parachute money by planning to break even !
Break even planning will almost certainly lead to relegation. We told RD/KM this, they didn't listen & got us relegated. Effectively, they planned for relegation.
Usually, company A pays company B £1m for the losses but this is not a requirement and no payment needs to take place.
However, even if they had run the club perfectly, it is not sustainable to be successful and break even when most other clubs are spending £15M per season more.
Doucher, you have not provided ONE example of a sustainable Championship club over the last 10 years.
ONE club that has run in profit and not been relegated.
The only clubs I can recall that have made a profit in recent times were Blackpool & Yeovil.
They have both been relegated twice and are now both in League 2.
Sustainable technically maybe, but heading towards non league. Yeovil just about survived a 3rd relegation last season.
Well virtually everyone, Richard Murray would often claim during our last stay at the 3rd tier that once we got promoted back to the Championship with an impending improved TV deal we could break even.
What happened, we went up, TV deal went up, same loss occurred. Simple reason more money in the game leads to more going out. And too think Murray is still involved
When Douchatelet bought us, there were at least two other parties taking a look. Since he's owned us there are at least two more parties keen to make an approach. At least one is supposedly not even put off by our relegation.
He won't sell. He won't even speak to them.