Danny Wilson Said
New member
I think finishing third in 1991 was a bit better.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Palace’s Accounts
- Thread starter El Presidente
- Start date
I think finishing third in 1991 was a bit better.
Mr Putdown
Well-known member
And, let’s be honest you are just sucking on your owners golden tit. Is that definitely sustainable?
Feck me, I’m lost for words, are you losing money “the right way”
[edit: just seen who I was quoting, I’ve wasted everyone’s time. Apologies for the forthcoming deluge of drivel, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov explained it all.]
Last edited:
And, let’s be honest you are just sucking on your owners golden tit. Is that definitely sustainable?
Feck me, I’m lost for words, are you losing money “the right way”
[edit: just seen who I was quoting, I’ve wasted everyone’s time. Apologies for the forthcoming deluge of drivel, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov explained it all.]
I struggle to see why you get so wound up? I was merely replying to the laughable notion of being lectured about sustainability by a Palace fan.
Care to refute any points instead of chucking silly insults about?
- Thread starter
- #125
In the accounts it says it’s just the bonus element that goes into the academy.
This seems odd, why pay tax and national insurance on the bonus when it would be more efficient to put the money directly in from the club?
Shuggie
Well-known member
You're having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent (as the old saying goes).
Probably worth remembering that Disney just spouts any old bullshit to them and they lap it up.
"yeah lads, course I am going to rebuild the ground"
"don't worry, I'm personally funding the academy with my own money on which I paid tax & NI"
"we will repay all the money the club owes to small local businesses and particularly the LAS. We always pay our debts"
(Just put that last one in as a fanciful notion)
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 10,686
And, let’s be honest you are just sucking on your owners golden tit. Is that definitely sustainable?
Feck me, I’m lost for words, are you losing money “the right way”
[edit: just seen who I was quoting, I’ve wasted everyone’s time. Apologies for the forthcoming deluge of drivel, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov explained it all.]
Is it really so perplexing?
We are very, very lucky to have a benefactor like Tony. Without him we would not be where we are today.
He is a very successful businessman, who has a certain amount of disposable wealth that he likes to invest into his club.
He has put in something like £311m over ten years.
From the £311m he has paid for:
- A stadium
- A Category 1 training ground
- Pumped money into Women's football
- Brought in top rated senior management team
- Continued investment into the club's infrastructure
- And yes, he also funded the transfers and player wages, whilst in the championship (within FFP)
All of this investment is with an aim to making the club self sufficient.
It's a long term project. And sure it might not come off.
But yes I consider this approach more sustainable than selling off your best young prospect to stop yourself breaching FFP.
Mr Putdown
Well-known member
It’s not perplexing at all.
It’s also hard to disagree with any of your reply, I’ve always been impressed with what he’s done for your club.
My question, was querying whether relying on such generosity is actually sustainable (And while I’m on here, apologies to LlcoolJ for that cider infused rant. The ‘golden tit’ reference was of course to another major club benefactor who finally said enough is enough, Sir Jack Hayward.)?
One thing I certainly wasn’t suggesting was that our clubs model is superior to Brighton’s, I was questioning the sustainability of yours. I was interested in reading what people thought of that point, nothing more.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 10,686
Thanks for the response.
Nothing in football is sustainable if you take away premier league money and benefactor's contributions.
My understanding is that the money coming in from Tony at present, is funding infrastructure projects, rather than paying player wages.
Although some of last year's losses were also due to compensation to Swansea and Chris Hughton.
If Tony were to walk away, then I think the club would have to reassess these projects.
But it wouldn't necessarily need to find someone to pump money into the club to stay afloat.
Dougie
Well-known member
- Jan 11, 2012
- 5,705
Isn’t all the infrastructure in place?
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 10,686
Last I heard they were planning to extend the training ground by adding 3 new pitches and adding additional facilities for the Women and youth teams.
Mr Putdown
Well-known member
TB’s football vision is impressively holistic; it’s actually annoyingly impressive.
*Gullsworth*
My Hair is like his hair
Also the increased capacity to the stadium, creating further hospitality, probably all on hold for another year now.
Mr Putdown
Well-known member
I believe that’s known on here as developing your ground the ‘Palace Way”.
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
This is the point, of course. How far would you have to go back to find a time when all - or even a majority - of the top division's clubs could stand on their own feet without a benefactor or TV money? In the 1960s, a club could succeed with a reasonably wealthy local businessman like Bob Lord in charge at Burnley, then came market flotations, then millionaires like Jack Walker buying the title for Blackburn, then billionaires ... there has been benefactor inflation to the point that nations are effectively owning clubs.
In the circumstances, the idea that Albion can sustain itself in the Premier League on TV, gate revenue and player development once TB has helped it up to a certain level seems optimistic. Every time a takeover such as that of Newcastle by the Saudi royal family happens, it reduces the number of clubs that we can realistically compete against.
Two or three times on this thread you've attempted to refute the evidence and every time it has turned out that your points are half-baked drivel. I'd pipe down if I were you.
Ultimately, your smug brand of denying fact really has no place up against evidence compiled by someone who knows what they're talking about.
I'm surprised you haven't tried convincing us that 50% of salary costs are actually payments on that wonderful new stand of yours, as that is the general level of cluelessness you have exhibited on here so far.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 10,686
That's a fair point..
He knows ultimately he can't and won't compete in the transfer market.
But he is certainly giving us our best chance, with the infrastructure he is putting in place.
Arguably that infrastructure could make us self sufficient at Championship level. Which is a more realistic aspiration for the club IMO,
.
Surely it is sustainable if Tony Bloom puts in less than he makes every year. Also I think that hes put in £320 over the first 10 years so averages out at £32m a year. If he averages £25m a year over the next few years then the conveyor belt of youth players start to work. surely he is going in the right direction,
It may never be fully sustainable, but maybe it could be manageable to the extent that his son won't have to worry when he takes over.
Offside Oz
New member
- Apr 30, 2016
- 33
Looking at all these numbers, it all seems so incredibly fragile. Not just for Palace but for most PL teams in general. The AWB money enabled them to get in to profit but they won’t get that kind of slug of money every year. Match day revenue is going to be reduced for sometime now. Got to wonder if all clubs will survive in the medium term.
And how on earth do clubs survive with relegation and the subsequent loss of 80% of their income (mainly TV)?
And how on earth do clubs survive with relegation and the subsequent loss of 80% of their income (mainly TV)?