Okay, so i just downloaded Football Manager 2009 DEMO and took charge of Inter, first thing i checked was the team information screen and guess what, it says the club has a value of 473 milion, and has a LOAN DEBT OF 503 milion!
I posted on the sega forums complaining that it is not true, as i never heard of such a thing so i wanted to ask you guys too, do you have any idea about that?
GRANDE INTER, Amore Mio!
Dear Santa, the past year, you took my favorite singer, Michael Jackson and my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze.
I want you to know for the next year, that Milan is my favorite oldie, and Juventus is my favorite bitch.
I know in 2008 we had 0 debt, now i see that we have 70% of the total value in 2009 as debt (around 200 million eur). I dont know if I should believe that or not...I mean how do you go from 0 debt in one year to 200 million in the next one?! This puts us in top 5 of most in debt clubs in Europe in 2009. Seriously wtf.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/34/...ions_Rank.html
A very good document about some in-depth financial status of the football clubs is Deloitte's Football Money League yearly report. Here is the 2009 one:
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/...tteFML2009.pdf
Inter is on 10th place in Europe atm, behind Milan and Roma (lol?) but in front of Jube.
Last edited by Trance; 15 Oct 09 at 10:05.
What makes you think Inter didn't have any debt in 2008?
Those seem like random numbers to be honest. How does one fully value a club? Or find out how much debt it has unless the club's tell them. Which I doubt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes%...football_clubsOriginally Posted by CafeCordoba
Check out 2008.
So BBilan has no debt at all? Naaaaah man, Galliani kept bitching how they have to pay rents back.
GRANDE INTER, Amore Mio!
Dear Santa, the past year, you took my favorite singer, Michael Jackson and my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze.
I want you to know for the next year, that Milan is my favorite oldie, and Juventus is my favorite bitch.
I don't know where they pull all this numbers from, if they are entirely accurate or just estimations. Either way there's gotta be a seed of truth behind them which means we did acquire some debt in 2009. Still wonder where from, as we did no major investment.
Maybe the stadium thing?
GRANDE INTER, Amore Mio!
Dear Santa, the past year, you took my favorite singer, Michael Jackson and my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze.
I want you to know for the next year, that Milan is my favorite oldie, and Juventus is my favorite bitch.
You are mixing things when you say 0 debt & 200 million euros debt. They are both relatively correct ( when I say relatively, it means couple of millions here and there...), but one needs to interpret them. 0 Euro figure indicates the year's turnover with regards to the year's profit & loss. We are tendentially always carrying a financial loss over the year, which usually Moratti partially or fully covers at the end of the semester. This year, Moratti didnt need to cover the losses for 2 reason - 1) Ibra's sale has made our season (when I say season, it actually means year) income equal our expenditure (million here, million there) 2) Even if he wanted too, due to the new UEFA regulations, Moratti cannot cover anymore losses since UEFA's intentions is to make each & every club self-efficient.
Now with regards to the 200 million figure, that is also correct since that is the more or less current debt figure. This is an something which you carry around over a period of years. Each time you end the season with losses that your current owner doesnt cover, you accumulate debt. Each year you gain profit in the year's turnover, you reduce the debt. Currently, Inter have around 170M euros debt (at least this is the last figure I've heard about) which we have to somehow eliminate by 2012, which is UEFA's deadline to European clubs to get self-financed & debt-ridden in order to keep participating in European competitions. We owe this situation mainly to Real Madrid, but not entirely since this is something which everyone expected sooner or later. RM just made sure it came sooner rather than later...
Good explanation. And that is a fantastic thing clubs need to be more self-financed. I've always been irritated (after I actually started thing about the issue) by the fact Inter has been like mini-Chelsea. That "sugar daddy" is there behind the scenes to pump his/her money to run the club (Moratti, Berlusconi, Abramovic, loan money behind RM..) and club's operation is fully dependent on sugar daddy's money. Even if I don't like either EPL-like businessmarketingbrand-bullshit, it's better than sugar daddy business were there is no responsibility of your actions. If you screw up, sugar daddy pumps some more money and the business continues. With some real income and without the debt, the operational running of the club is much more respectable.
There are clubs who have worsened their self-efficiency due to new owners though. Like Man Utd. Their new owners instead of investing, moved some of their debts onto the club. The plan was obviously to rid themselves from debts out of the club's profits and later on sell th club. This regulation however ruined their plans..
Man U have always been amongst the highest achievers, if not THE highest achievers, when it comes to self-financing. They have been having a positive turnover for years. Yet, now they find themselves with a mountain to climb for 2012, due to the new owner's debts. We have 170M euros debts, Man U have around 700.......You can see the reason why they would sell CR for 93M euros and barely buying a replacement.
Same did Milan. They had exactly 67M euros in debts and sold Kaka for an agreed rate of 67M euros, in order to settle the club's debts once and for all. In fact they didnt look for a replacement. They also got in 15M euros out of Gourcuff and went on to splash 15M euros on Huntelaar. You see the trend here... Now Milan have 0 Euros debts & a positive yearly turnover. This will have to be the trend in Europe.
very interesting read..
hopefully, UEFA can institute this policy.....
i'm pretty sure it's gonna keep getting delayed though; maybe 4-5 more years..
UEFA can grand charge all they want, but they are also interested in making $$ and if the likes of ManU, Chelsea, Real and Barca are not in CL, revenue will go waaaaay down for UEFA as well.
but assuming it does push through for 2012, it will level the playing field a bit, and force the big teams into making some interesting tradeoffs come transfer season...
Thanks for clarifying some things. But there still is something I don't get. If we had 0 debt in 2008, and this year we basically covered ourselves financially with the Ibra sale, then where did the 170M come from if they were not there last year?
There's nothing to understand. It's all random numbers being thrown around. Don't be suprize if in 2010 our debts become 25%.
Cmon there's gotta be some logic behind all the numbers. I guess an economist or whatever can make sense of all this if given the correct numbers. I'm just waiting for someone to translate the numbers into english and so far, Lombardiamia has shed some light.
Think of it! Massimo Moratti is a fucking oil mogul who has mega millions possibly even billions. He's a business man. Do you honestly believe a business man could run something he loves so much to the ground like that? We're probably in some debt but 77%? Common!
We're about to build a multi-million dollar stadium and we're 3 quarters of the way to becoming legally bankrupt? I simply find it hard to believe. Especially since Roma who are in worse position than us, according to reports are much better than us in that list.
I'm not sure you fully understood the meaning of those numbers. There is no 0 debt with regards to Inter. You are mixing in figures. Let me try to to re-explain, maybe I wasnt clear enough. There are currently 2 different figures which need to be analyzed - 0 Euro & 170 million Euros. I'll divide the 2 figures into 2 different paragraphs so that they are easier to understand.
0 Euros - The 0 euro figure is the 2008-2009 club turnover. By turnover, I mean that when the club evaluates the yearly profit & the yearly expenditure, the total sum is equal to 0 (always an approximate figure). I'll try to be more specific with examples. Let's say the club over a whole year has spent 100 million euros (in various salaries, players bought, running expenses etc..) & in the same year the club has 100 million euros profits (merchandizing, tickets, friendlies, bonuses etc..). Now you spend 100M & gain another 100M which means that in this year (2008-2009) there was practically no losses or profits. That gives you the 0 euro figure.
170M euros - This is the amount of debt that we have been carrying forward over a number of years. Let's be more specific in here too. Let's say that in the year 2000, Inter had no debts, 0. In 2001, say the yearly turnover was -30M euros. In 2002 the yearly turnover -25M euros...etc etc. The club debts started from 0 in 2000, then went to -30M a year later, -55M the year after and so on and so forth. Had we not sold Ibra this year, we would probably be looking at a -50M yearly turnover, which would mean that above those 170M we would have to add another 50M which would total to 220M euros debts. But since this year we had a 0 euro annual turnover, our debts remained the same as they were last year.
Hope this is easier to comprehend, but the key to understand this is that the 0 euro figure reflects what the club did over a period of a year, whereas the 170M euro figure reflects a much longer period of time and an accumulation of years of negative yearly turnovers.
I was taught Turnover was total revenue over the year no deductions except returns...noooooo dont ruin my little education.....
Everything a man should be. We miss you Cipe.
Lolll might be I'm using a wrong term. Want I want to say is the + minus the - over a year. As far as I'm concerned, I think that is the turnover. What actually remains in your pockets, if anything..
ok that was more than clear, thx
Then it means those numbers in the reports I linked are confusing since they decided not to show this running debt over the years that we have in last year's figures. Meh, numbers...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
