Why the finances in FM don't work

While having a conversation with someone who is intimately knowledgable about the world of sports ownership I found out an interesting fact. Most clubs lose money, and it is okay. In fact, it is expected, and the owners understand this and don't have a problem with it.

The truth is that outside of the NFL and the bigger football teams, most sports teams just lose money. The owners are very wealthy people who don't mind the loss of money and instead own the team for personal enjoyment and to share in the possible glory. This applies to the major leagues in the United States (NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS). Few teams in these leagues make money, but most are just owned for fun.

This needs to be put into the game to fix the financial problems in the game. The financial model is not broken in that so many teams end up losing money and going into administration, its broken in the fact that the chairman more often than not (and more often than in the game) bails the team out. He doesn't fire the manager for losing money, he fires him for not acheiving.

Work this into the confidence model and you will have fixed a lot of the game.

While having a conversation with someone who is intimately knowledgable about the world of sports ownership I found out an interesting fact. Most clubs lose money, and it is okay. In fact, it is expected, and the owners understand this and don't have a problem with it.

The truth is that outside of the NFL and the bigger football teams, most sports teams just lose money. The owners are very wealthy people who don't mind the loss of money and instead own the team for personal enjoyment and to share in the possible glory. This applies to the major leagues in the United States (NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS). Few teams in these leagues make money, but most are just owned for fun.

This needs to be put into the game to fix the financial problems in the game. The financial model is not broken in that so many teams end up losing money and going into administration, its broken in the fact that the chairman more often than not (and more often than in the game) bails the team out. He doesn't fire the manager for losing money, he fires him for not acheiving.

Work this into the confidence model and you will have fixed a lot of the game.

most teams in FM lose money though? at least thats waht i've seen. and then you get it back with your final league finish and cup runs etc.

have you seen the figures for Arsenals profits and shareprices last season?

I would classify Arsenal as a bigger team. I am talking about the smaller teams, mostly outside the premeirship.

What stock market does Arsenal trade on, and what symbol? I can't find it anywhere.

Arsenal's shares aren't publicly traded as far as I know, therefore would not be listed on the stock exchange. If they were, it would be a lot easier for this Russian guy to buy up their shares.

Anyway, isn't the OP's point that the manager shouldn't ordinarily be blamed for the clubs financial status? I completely agree. Most clubs in the game, as in real life, do tend to lose money hand over fist.

There is another aspect to the reasons behind it - it's actually usually because nearly all clubs try to over-extend themselves on the basis they will make more if they are successful. Clearly, not all can be successful, so it simply doesn't work (see: Leeds Utd and countless other teams at lower levels).

The other aspect is as said having an owner willing to keep putting the money in for the love of it. See Gretna for what happens if that ends.

own them for fun. Thats why a number of European clubs, Including Rangers, AC MIlan and Porto have formed a Racing team to compete against eachother to make some money??

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This applies to the major leagues in the United States (NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS). Few teams in these leagues make money, but most are just owned for fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You(or your "knowledgeable" someone) couldn't be any more wrong.

Sports in the United States are pure business. Our teams are no different than a Wal-Mart being opened in a particular city; and the league is no different than the Wal-Mart Headquarters who added that store to their country-wide chain of stores.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by B. Stinson:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This applies to the major leagues in the United States (NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS). Few teams in these leagues make money, but most are just owned for fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You(or your "knowledgeable" someone) couldn't be any more wrong.

Sports in the United States are pure business. Our teams are no different than a Wal-Mart being opened in a particular city; and the league is no different than the Wal-Mart Headquarters who added that store to their country-wide chain of stores. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Qua? Can you buy tighty-whities from the NYG concessions stand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by B. Stinson:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This applies to the major leagues in the United States (NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS). Few teams in these leagues make money, but most are just owned for fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You(or your "knowledgeable" someone) couldn't be any more wrong.

Sports in the United States are pure business. Our teams are no different than a Wal-Mart being opened in a particular city; and the league is no different than the Wal-Mart Headquarters who added that store to their country-wide chain of stores. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong wrong wrong. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but the truth is these wealthy people make so much money in their other endeavors that the teams are for pride and fun.

The MLS currently has two teams that make a profit, and this is only becasue of the salary cap. Without the cap, these teams would spend more.

This goes for most professional teams in the world. I know it sounds wrong, but its true. However, these are also usually very astute business men who know that they can only put so much money into the team. Thus you rarely get a smaller team spending a massive amount. Most owners spend more then the team makes, enough that they think they should get success, but not so much that they (as in their personal businesses and income) cannot afford it.

It does seem irrational, and the teams make a lot of money, they just lose more.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wrong wrong wrong. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but the truth is these wealthy people make so much money in their other endeavors that the teams are for pride and fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not going by how it "seems" or by something some random Joe told me. I'm going by how it's been the whole 19 years I've been alive and watching sports here in the U.S. - Our leagues are businesses, and the teams are branches within that business. It's a simple and widely known fact.

Agree completely here. The Americans getting involved in English teams now aren't doing it for the love of the game, they're doing it as they have business models they know work in the US. The whole franchise system is based around making money; if the profits aren't flowing they up sticks and move to a city they think could better support the team.

The situation in the UK is entitirely different, most teams do run at a loss. It's an oversimplification to say it's just because the owner has more money than sense though, plenty of clubs who are plc's or have other widespread ownership continually do the same. See my thoughts on it above.

On the point that American teams are a business, you are correct. They are own as a business but that is not to say that the owners dont own them for the love of the game.

I am a die-hard Steeler fan, have been since I was like 4 years old and the Rooney family has owned them for many, mnay years. If you talk to people in Pittsburgh who know the story, they will all tell you the same thing that Art Rooney said in one of the books about his life.

He owed the Steelers as a business but he also did it for his love of the game.

Baseball owners all lose money, probably the greatest example of putting money into a losing business, even the Yankess dont make money.

Sport ownership done to make money is just some idiot who dont belong in the game. Once in a while, a team will make a profit, but all the owners know from the start, they will lose more money than they will ever make while the own the team.

Generally, they make up for any losses when the eventually sell the team.

Peace

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by B. Stinson:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wrong wrong wrong. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but the truth is these wealthy people make so much money in their other endeavors that the teams are for pride and fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not going by how it "seems" or by something some random Joe told me. I'm going by how it's been the whole 19 years I've been alive and watching sports here in the U.S. - Our leagues are businesses, and the teams are branches within that business. It's a simple and widely known fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are going by how it seems and clearly cannot do a bit of research into anything, thus making you look like a fool. (19 years of watching sports makes me an expert on the financial side)

better than 50% of NBA teams lose money

Article also says that baseball teams all make money only because of revenue sharing.

Baseball and hockey franchises losing money

Islanders losing money

Yankees - First sentance says it all

Predators losing money

Oh, and my random joe is a conversation with the president, vice-president, and owner of one of the teams. Their insight is probably worth more than your 19 years of watching. Do some research before posting next time buddy.

That would be the president, vice-president, and owner of one of the MLS teams. He owns more than one team, knows the other owners, and genuinely does it for the love of the game.

I don't think FM accounts for the motivation of some presidents and owners. In the game, clubs with big money gamble by signing expensive players. And this pays off when their team win the touraments.

The other factor you have to consider is whether teams lose money over a long run or they are just losing some fraction of their worth once in a while.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lonestar007:

Predators losing money

Oh, and my random joe is a conversation with the president, vice-president, and owner of one of the teams. Their insight is probably worth more than your 19 years of watching. Do some research before posting next time buddy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh lonestar, you brought up two hockey teams that have no fanbase, the Predators have NEVER had a fanbase and since the Islanders stopped winning cups no one goes and see them play. Also the Predators are in the process of selling their team. It was wise to bring up the Yanks on a personal standard, but all team do receive a profit. Most NHL teams do end up making money, the ones that don't have poor fanbases or are in crappy locations (Nashville, Florida, etc.)

But I myself majored in Sports Management and Economics with a minor in Business Administration.

Now I think 90% of college sports teams here in the US do lose money, it may even be around 95%. But Professional sports teams of the big 4 (NFL,MLB,NBA,NHL) do make a profit. But I could care less about basketball and "soccer" doesn't really count either since no one in the US can name 3 MLS players besides he people on these forums.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Konnan511:

Oh lonestar, you brought up two hockey teams that have no fanbase, the Predators have NEVER had a fanbase and since the Islanders stopped winning cups no one goes and see them play. Also the Predators are in the process of selling their team. It was wise to bring up the Yanks on a personal standard, but all team do receive a profit. Most NHL teams do end up making money, the ones that don't have poor fanbases or are in crappy locations (Nashville, Florida, etc.)

But I myself majored in Sports Management and Economics with a minor in Business Administration.

Now I think 90% of college sports teams here in the US do lose money, it may even be around 95%. But Professional sports teams of the big 4 (NFL,MLB,NBA,NHL) do make a profit. But I could care less about basketball and "soccer" doesn't really count either since no one in the US can name 3 MLS players besides he people on these forums. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, a double major and a minor all in disciplines directly related to the conversation at hand. Kudos to you for all that hard work.

That being said, your argument is contradictory and for the most part fails. You say that teams in the big four (NFL,MLB,NBA,NHL)do make a profit. I admitted that the NFL makes a profit, no argument there.

You included the NBA in this list, and then stated you could care less about it. You failed to respond to the article I posted that over 50% of NBA teams are losing money.

MLB, as stated above, only makes money because of revenue sharing. Like the NBA, taken individually, a majority of the teams lose money. As you noted, this includes the Yankees, which are arguably the most successful team in the recent history of the league.

NHL is actually similar to baseball in that there is revenue sharing. 8 teams losing money And only a few teams are making even decent money.

Excluding the MLS in your argument seems kind of silly seeing as they are most relevant to this topic.

Finally, as an economics major, this article will probably be the most useful. Basically, for those people not wanting to read it, it states that all but the most profitable of teams (top 3 or 4) make such little money on the value of the team that they are horrible horrible investments. No businessman intent on making money would invest in a sports team. If sports teams were actually thought of as companies, they would be the laughing stock of economists everywhere as the rate of return is so low.

This argument of course excludes the owners of the WNBA, minor league teams in both baseball and hockey, and the A-league in soccer. All of these lose money.

Why you brought college sports in I have no clue. They are run completely differently and have no relevance to this conversation.

So, back to my original point. Outside of the NFL and a few major teams, sports owners do not buy teams to make money. They just don't. It would be horrible business practice.

I really don't understand what's to argue about here

To me, the fact is simple:

some owners buy their team for fun: e.g. Chelsea

and some buy as investment (i.e. for money): e.g.Man Utd

and those buying for fun would care less if the team is losing money

I agree with OP that this has to be incorporated in the game (if it hasn't, I am not so sure).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lonestar007: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason I said I could care less about the NBA, is because, well, I could care less about basketball haha. But with the figures you showed, I can't argue with that.

And I know excluding the MLS is "silly", but I have no idea why someone over here would buy an MLS franchise when there is literally, no fanbase support for it. I'd equate it to a Cricket league over here, I personally love it, and maybe a few select people also over here, but it'd be a horrible venture to get into.

The one thing I would like to say about the MLB is that every team does make a profit. That includes the Yankees because of their TV contract and all the royalties they make off of memorabilia.

NHL, same as above, even if my mighty Detroit Red Wings don't break even on ticket sales, they are still top five in jersey sales, etc.

I have NO idea why I brought up college sports, sounded like a good idea at the time?

The only thing I disagree with on the article is it thinks too Microeconomics, not very Macroeconomics. They are a good investment in the sense if you break even or lose only a couple million a season, bye the end of your tenure of ownership, the stock of the franchise will always be more than what you've lost and the selling point will be a few hundred million more than what you paid for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lonestar007:

So, back to my original point. Outside of the NFL and a few major teams, sports owners do not buy teams to make money. They just don't. It would be horrible business practice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know an awful lot about business practice sports wise but surely the concept of buying a team for "personal enjoyment and to share in the possible glory" whilst making a loss is the most ridiculous business practice on earth.

I like to think of it as if they're buying an expensive real life football chairman game

whos your friend . . . .

Tom Hicks

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lonestar007:

Most clubs lose money, and it is okay. In fact, it is expected, and the owners understand this and don't have a problem with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it hard to believe this statement!?!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lonestar007:

So, back to my original point. Outside of the NFL and a few major teams, sports owners do not buy teams to make money. They just don't. It would be horrible business practice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know an awful lot about business practice sports wise but surely the concept of buying a team for "personal enjoyment and to share in the possible glory" whilst making a loss is the most ridiculous business practice on earth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

all sports teams are purchased with the idea of making money. Are you mad?

On the OP's point, yes I agree us managers shouldn't be held accoutnable for the financial position of a team and I do find it rather frustrating.

I just think a lot of this clap trap about losing money being ok and having conversations with Presidents and Vice Presidents has totally detracted from his original point and if we are totally honest is very unbelievable.

Ignore the rest of the stuff he said and all those in favour of financial systems in FM having less of an influence on our job security, give a big thumbs up.

No matter who you are, or in what financial bracket you are in, you lose money in exchange for personal fun. You bought this game, which has given you zero in financial return. What it gives you, instead, is fun.

You probably bought a car for more than you really needed to spend. Why? You wanted power windows, seats, a sporty look, etc... You spent more money then you needed, and continue to lose money in maintenence, gas, and anything else, in order to keep this car the way you want it. Don't hold your breath for a financial return.

take this thinking to the next level, to people who losing a few million on a personal venture for fun is not a big deal. We play this game because it is fun, they just play the real life version. If most of us had enough money where it would make no difference, we would find our local team and buy it, just so we could be a part and try to improve it, not for financial return. This is what these people do. They make money elsewhere; in the areas that have gotten them where they are. They own sports teams for fun.

Chelsea are the most prominent example. They are not trying to balance the books or turn a profit, the owner just wants to win.

Don't surprised if Man Utd turn out similar, though not quite to the same degree.

No matter who you are, or in what financial bracket you are in, you lose money in exchange for personal fun. You bought this game, which has given you zero in financial return. What it gives you, instead, is fun.

You probably bought a car for more than you really needed to spend. Why? You wanted power windows, seats, a sporty look, etc... You spent more money then you needed, and continue to lose money in maintenence, gas, and anything else, in order to keep this car the way you want it. Don't hold your breath for a financial return.

take this thinking to the next level, to people who losing a few million on a personal venture for fun is not a big deal. We play this game because it is fun, they just play the real life version. If most of us had enough money where it would make no difference, we would find our local team and buy it, just so we could be a part and try to improve it, not for financial return. This is what these people do. They make money elsewhere; in the areas that have gotten them where they are. They own sports teams for fun.

Chelsea are the most prominent example. They are not trying to balance the books or turn a profit, the owner just wants to win.

Don't surprised if Man Utd turn out similar, though not quite to the same degree.

IMO, abramovic owns chelsea only for "cleaning his dirty money". (not sure if that's corect english phrase). like many others in (eastern) europe.

except from that I think you're right.

Also, these owners don't just do this with sports teams. The one I spoke with also owns several small newspaper companies, which lose money. He just likes them. They don't lose so much that they actually effect his overall financial position.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lonestar007:

No matter who you are, or in what financial bracket you are in, you lose money in exchange for personal fun. You bought this game, which has given you zero in financial return. What it gives you, instead, is fun.

You probably bought a car for more than you really needed to spend. Why? You wanted power windows, seats, a sporty look, etc... You spent more money then you needed, and continue to lose money in maintenence, gas, and anything else, in order to keep this car the way you want it. Don't hold your breath for a financial return.

take this thinking to the next level, to people who losing a few million on a personal venture for fun is not a big deal. We play this game because it is fun, they just play the real life version. If most of us had enough money where it would make no difference, we would find our local team and buy it, just so we could be a part and try to improve it, not for financial return. This is what these people do. They make money elsewhere; in the areas that have gotten them where they are. They own sports teams for fun.

Chelsea are the most prominent example. They are not trying to balance the books or turn a profit, the owner just wants to win.

Don't surprised if Man Utd turn out similar, though not quite to the same degree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but it's just a totally ridiculous concept. Chelsea have not been balancing the books yes, but the fact is with continued success, and not necessarily trophy success, they will recoupe theor spending in no time. Add to this the fact that Abramovich bought the club for next to nothing yet if he were to sell it tomorrow would earn himself a considerable profit that would far outway his spending and your comparison falls flat on it's face.

You seem to be basing your argument on the fact that people spend money to improve the situation but invariably as the situation improves so does potential profit. Noone on earth buys a football club thinking, i'll put some money in and then sell it on for the price I bought it at. Of course personal triumph and glory has a mjaor impact and would account for a small percentage of the financial loss, but when it comes to it buying a club for 30 million and selling it for 200 million tastes like success, and it is very unusual for the owner to have incurred any debt along the way.

I would suggest Chelsea's spending even this season was funded by Champions League money and the globalisation their product, it was not funded by Abramovich because he wanted a play thing. Yes he spent a lot in the first instance but he will have got his money back easily by now.

Even lower league clubs, the owners do not suffer the payments, payments are forged from sponsorhip and ticket fees etc so when it comes day to hang up their scarf, the chairman has had fun, but very rarely will he have suffered in the pocket.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lonestar007:

Also, these owners don't just do this with sports teams. The one I spoke with also owns several small newspaper companies, which lose money. He just likes them. They don't lose so much that they actually effect his overall financial position. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry, i'm leaving this thread now, it's quite obviously a **** take.

What the man himself says

By the way, the estimated amount that he has put into Chelsea by February of this year os over 587 million pounds. The club is not looking to make a profit anytime soon, so this amount will go up. With it currently losing money, how much do you honestly think he could sell it for?

Sorry, as our economist friend will no doubt agree, if these people wanted to make money, they would never invest in football. Outside of the G14 clubs (and not even including all of these), the teams don't make a good enough return on money to be worthy investments, including the eventual selling price.

Don't keep going from what you think or what you want to believe, do a google search and you will be surprised at how this actually works.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lonestar007:

What the man himself says

By the way, the estimated amount that he has put into Chelsea by February of this year os over 587 million pounds. The club is not looking to make a profit anytime soon, so this amount will go up. With it currently losing money, how much do you honestly think he could sell it for?

Sorry, as our economist friend will no doubt agree, if these people wanted to make money, they would never invest in football. Outside of the G14 clubs (and not even including all of these), the teams don't make a good enough return on money to be worthy investments, including the eventual selling price.

Don't keep going from what you think or what you want to believe, do a google search and you will be surprised at how this actually works. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you seriously basing your argument on an interview with a Russian billionaire, whose buisness dealings have been questioned since day one and many people believe is using the club to clean dirty money (as Mitja said)?

Perhaps i'm being too harsh but to believe a word Abramovich says, and especially in relation to money seems rather naive.

Not quite as naive as believing someone when they say they own a few newspapers just for the craic, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

Are you seriously basing your argument on an interview with a Russian billionaire, whose buisness dealings have been questioned since day one and many people believe is using the club to clean dirty money (as Mitja said)?

Perhaps i'm being too harsh but to believe a word Abramovich says, and especially in relation to money seems rather naive.

Not quite as naive as believing someone when they say they own a few newspapers just for the craic, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don;t know anything about the dirty money. That is a seperate argument and I cannot really comment on that.

What I said was simply to point out that he is not using the club as a financial investment or as a business to make money.

And what the guy told me is what it is. It is naive to believe that extreamly wealthy people will never use their money for fun or personal interest. Almost everything you buy for personal enjoyment is a loss of money. Cars, boats, houses, computers, clothes, etc.... This class of people just can include businesses in the group of things they can buy for fun. Check it out, happens a lot more than you think.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">originally posted by Mitja:-

IMO, abramovic owns chelsea only for "cleaning his dirty money". (not sure if that's corect english phrase). like many others in (eastern) europe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LEGAL DISCLAIMER:-

The opinions stated on this forum are neither those of Sports Interactive Limited nor Sega, and therefore neither company can be held legally accountable for any opinions expressed which are construed as libellous.

I doubt that is true as I'm sure with his money Abramovic can access accounting geniuses who could come up with much more financially efficient ways to 'clean his dirty money' than buying a football club.

Back to FM, has anyone played as Chelsea? If so do you get blamed for the financial position or does the virtual Abramovic keep pumping money in to keep the balance healthy?

Also totally off topic but is there any reason the people involved in this argument can't make their points without incorporating condescension? If you were having this debate face to face would you be insulting each other's intelligence or lack of common sense?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> LEGAL DISCLAIMER:-

The opinions stated on this forum are neither those of Sports Interactive Limited nor Sega, and therefore neither company can be held legally accountable for any opinions expressed which are construed as libellous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mitja however, will be sued pretty quickly

Let's face it, money laundering is about keeping a low profile, not buying a football club and putting 100's of £m into it. Nobody on this forum would know who Abramovich was if he'd not bought Chelsea. If I was a money launderer, I wouldn't go and draw a whole load of unnecessary attention to myself now would I?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lonestar007:

he is not using the club as a financial investment or as a business to make money. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

clearly he's not. that was my point.

PS hope he's not comming to this forums

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ross77:

Let's face it, money laundering is about keeping a low profile, not buying a football club and putting 100's of £m into it. Nobody on this forum would know who Abramovich was if he'd not bought Chelsea. If I was a money launderer, I wouldn't go and draw a whole load of unnecessary attention to myself now would I? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

of course not, except if you were running awey from guys like Putin. than publicity could help a lot.

Of course sports teams are owned by people who love sport rather then look to make profit from it.

Have you seen how many premiership clubs made losses of £20+ million a season in recent years?

Do you honestly believe the owners sleep easy at night thinking "I'm only £90m down, if we buy no one else, keep the wages level and go from 13th to 4th for the next four or five years we'll turn a profit."

I'm new on this site.

Totally off-subject, but could someone tell me how I can view the threads I've posted?

I posted a thread about FM 08 not working on my laptop, it downloads the first time and then I can play it, but after that I can't find out how to play it as nothing happens or nothing comes up and I don't know how to do complete un-install.

I have Windows Vista Home Basic.

Please help?!?!?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Totally off-subject, but could someone tell me how I can view the threads I've posted? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Top left of the thread there is a button which says 'Go'. Click it, in the drop down box, click 'Personal Zone'. That will open a new page. On that page there will be a link which says 'View Forum Posts by [username]'. After clicking that a new page wioll open with all your posts on it.

Some things I agree with others I don't but quoting random articles from the media is no help.

In terms of English football this is a good site which shows a summary of football clubs finances that are Ltd or PLCs.

Football Economy

You have to question running a business where the wages to turnover ratio exceeds 80%. Sheer madness.

Looking at the business I work in we turnover 2.5m and our ratio is around 20%.

I laughed when I saw the employment stats for Grimsby. They employ 8 times as many people as many of the clubs of their ilk. They lose money to. Does it take a rocket scientist to wonder why?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kccircle:

I laughed when I saw the employment stats for Grimsby. They employ 8 times as many people as many of the clubs of their ilk. They lose money to. Does it take a rocket scientist to wonder why? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stats can be twisted to show anything.

In this case I would imagine Grimsby employ their own stewards, security, cleaners etc whereas other clubs outsource this work to a specialist company.

This results in the employment figures being lower but the actual cost of the work might be very similar.

quote:

Originally posted by kccircle:

I laughed when I saw the employment stats for Grimsby. They employ 8 times as many people as many of the clubs of their ilk.

Obviously something fishy going on there!

Seriously, it is too easy to make money on FM. IMO a key reason for this in the lower leagues is the inflation of attendance stats. In some games I play as Barnet, they will manage to fill Underhill for a run-of-the-mill League 2 game. That just wouldn't happen in real life!

Another problem is the ease with which money can be made from tranfers. It is too easy to find potential stars and bring them in for next to nothing on low wages, then sell them for millions a few years later.

Chelsea have no intention of turning a profit? I do believe a year or so ago there was a prominent business model put forward by a Chelsea exec stating that they intend to start turning a profit by 2010.

I think the best plan for SI would be to speak to chairpeople of football clubs from different divisions throughout England,Scotland etc to get a feel for finances and what they do to prop up the clubs. There is no better way of getting information than straight from the horses mouth.