share holders dividends. how much is right?

i'm liverpool at the end of the 3rd season and my share holders dividends is 1.2mill pounds.

does this sound right because i thought it should be more?

i've made a profit of 22mill and my bank balance is 79 mill.

i'm liverpool at the end of the 3rd season and my share holders dividends is 1.2mill pounds.

does this sound right because i thought it should be more?

i've made a profit of 22mill and my bank balance is 79 mill.

At ManUtd Im usually paying out 22,500,000

I can't check back very far, but on my game they've taken about 40%-50% of the clubs profit the last four seasons, so that doesn't sound right. Perhaps they've got other plans for the money?

From 2009 to 2013 my teams balance has gone from around £40m to £140m (after the last payment) and they have taken out £82m in total during that period.

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

Perhaps they've got other plans for the money? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Liverpool's debt (and potentially very significant salary load) could be the reason why dividends are restricted.

A debt-free club, making a healthy profit will usually pay out 35-40% of operating profits.

Do you know if players purchased on monthly installments will mean something?

Obviously the club would have a higher profit that season, compared to if it was payed upfront, but would the board take out 35-40% percent of the current profit, or will the monthly payments be included in the equation?

It's tricky. However, I believe it's pretty safe to say that paying in installments (particularly over 24 months) will reduce the stresses on a club's finances. A huge lump sum payment might lead to short-term liquidity problems and increased interest payments caused by a negative bank balance. This WILL definitely affect the dividends in some way.

Looking at it objectively, it is better to invest your money in players than to see huge amounts withdrawn as dividends.

Yes, that's what I realized not to long ago when I decided to sell some players that I didn't really want to sell because the offers were to good to refuse.

I had plenty of money at the time, but figured they might build a new stadium, but at the end of the season the board grabbed almost all of the money I made on transfers. I spent £49m that season on transfers and sold for £98m and the board grabbed £32m.

in my 1st season at man utd i made £60m profit and the board took nothing! to make things even better i had asked them to expand the stadium and they said no only to increase it to 92,000 at the end of the season. i like my board!

Going back to the OP, whilst it does seem a relatively small figure for your profit, in real life it can be realistic.

In theory the club could use 100% of net profit as dividends if the board don't think that the cash could be better used elsewhere, or it could distribute 0% if the owners want to grow the club.

Perhaps its the sign that the owners want you to spend big to get further success!

As for whether SI have got this right or not, as there is no real definitive policy for dividends % pay out, you ould argue it either way.

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

i'm liverpool at the end of the 3rd season and my share holders dividends is 1.2mill pounds.

does this sound right because i thought it should be more?

i've made a profit of 22mill and my bank balance is 79 mill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no obligation whatsoever for Company's (run by Directors) to pay out any dividends at the end the year. Its a business decision whether to pay profit out as dividends, use it to purchase business assets, retain it within the company for future needs/ambitions or a combination of all three.

Generally speaking, most publicly quoted companies pay out dividends or else institutional investors wouldn't invest in them. However, for private companies (such as Liverpool), the directors are the owners too, so there isn't the same impetus to pay dividends. Most private company shareholders are looking for capital growth in the value of their shares, and are looking to the future when they can sell up and realise the benefit of that capital growth.

On balance, I think perhaps FM puts too much money into dividend payouts. That said, they must have researched it as best they can, although private companies can keep a lot of there records private.

it really doesnt seem a lot on my arsenal save i was making over £100million profit a year and shelling out over £40million to share holders

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

it really doesnt seem a lot on my arsenal save i was making over £100million profit a year and shelling out over £40million to share holders </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it is a lot actually when you consider that companies the size of Google rarely pay dividends at all.

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

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

i'm liverpool at the end of the 3rd season and my share holders dividends is 1.2mill pounds.

does this sound right because i thought it should be more?

i've made a profit of 22mill and my bank balance is 79 mill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no obligation whatsoever for Company's (run by Directors) to pay out any dividends at the end the year. Its a business decision whether to pay profit out as dividends, use it to purchase business assets, retain it within the company for future needs/ambitions or a combination of all three.

Generally speaking, most publicly quoted companies pay out dividends or else institutional investors wouldn't invest in them. However, for private companies (such as Liverpool), the directors are the owners too, so there isn't the same impetus to pay dividends. Most private company shareholders are looking for capital growth in the value of their shares, and are looking to the future when they can sell up and realise the benefit of that capital growth.

On balance, I think perhaps FM puts too much money into dividend payouts. That said, they must have researched it as best they can, although private companies can keep a lot of there records private. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i have noticed that they dont pay out every year so that probably makes sense.

didn't think it seemed that much though. that's all.

as for FM putting too much money into dividend payouts.

maybe its a way of getting rid of extra money in the game? to stop people stockpiling too much and then going round into the minus' when they get to the top of the variable

Dividends can be whatever a company's board wants them to be. There is no 'too much' or 'too little' provided dividends do not exceed profits.

The only time I would question them is if the club was owned by a charity or a fan's trust, as that would be unlikely to be legal in most cases.