North Sea League

Laughable.

You finally quote me when i purposely throw in a general statement yet when i ask you where the money is coming from you hide.

Just as petty hiding from answering a question as you are accusing BIer of making things up.

Your question has already been answered. You should read more carefully.

If you look at the biggest earners in European club footbal (by the way, the Dutch clubs are nowhere to be seen on that list), you will notice that the match-day revenue for most of them represents 20-30% of their total income. The rest is TV money and sponsorship money. As ugly as this sounds, the North Sea League would be a TV/sponsorship league.

I don't see much sense in this idea at all to be honest.

Do we really think fans from clubs in Scotland, for example, will want or be able to afford to travel to the likes of Norway for games on a regular basis?

I'm sure like Bier says the fans would much prefer to play the teams in their country as there is much more interest and greater rivalry and I also don't see this idea as an attractive one for TV audiences either.

You continue to shamefully make up things. The numbers for the 2010/11 season are not submitted to the authorities yet, and they won't be submitted, until the 2011 fiscal year is over. Even the Financial Director of Ajax don't have the numbers you claim to have. Than again, you have already claimed that you know more about Ajax than Michael van Praag, so I am not really surprised by the lies you are telling here.

Oh, you won't stop will you. But I'll say it again, don't accuse people of making things up just because you don't know what you're talking about, but I guess the all knowing Mac Red can't grasp that concept. You see, Ajax is a stock company, and is on the Dutch stock market. As such they have a responsibility towards their stockholders to inform them, and they release their season's figures after every season in a press statement. But please, do continue with this, it's very entertaining.

And I never claimed that I know more than Van Praag about Ajax. But what you don't understand is that Van Praag's opinion does not represent the view of Dutch football clubs.

I don't see much sense in this idea at all to be honest.

Do we really think fans from clubs in Scotland, for example, will want or be able to afford to travel to the likes of Norway for games on a regular basis?

I'm sure like Bier says the fans would much prefer to play the teams in their country as there is much more interest and greater rivalry and I also don't see this idea as an attractive one for TV audiences either.

I am not disputing that. The only difference would be, Celtic and Rangers would be playing 22 matches in the domestic league (instead of the 38 they play now), and another 22 matches in the regional league. From those 22 matches in the regional league, 11 will be home ties, so the Celtic and Rangers fans would get the chance to watch (at their ground) the likes of Ajax, Anderlecht, PSV or Brugge, instead of watching the likes of St Mirren or Hamilton 3 times a season. For Celtic and Rangers, the North Sea League is not even debatable. They will be huge winners in this situation.

so the Celtic and Rangers fans would get the chance to watch (at their ground) the likes of Ajax, Anderlecht, PSV or Brugge, instead of watching the likes of St Mirren or Hamilton 3 times a season. For Celtic and Rangers, the North Sea League is not even debatable. They will be huge winners in this situation.

Celtic and Rangers fans 'get to see' clubs such as those on a regular basis in European competition while also getting drawn with much bigger and more prestigious opposition from time to time so I still don't see the point.

Your question has already been answered. You should read more carefully.

I was the one who pointed out it would be financed solely on new TV sponsorship and league sponsorship and in such a bland area of Europe, the increase in these revenue streams is hardly sufficient to suggest it would be enough to keep players in the league.

No new fans will be brought to the league, no new stadiums and the amount of increased revenue will be countered by the extreme decrease in away fans going to stadiums to support their team when they would have to pay for flights every second week plus accommodation and take off time from work.

Oh, you won't stop will you. But I'll say it again, don't accuse people of making things up just because you don't know what you're talking about, but I guess the all knowing Mac Red can't grasp that concept. You see, Ajax is a stock company, and is on the Dutch stock market. As such they have a responsibility towards their stockholders to inform them, and they release their season's figures after every season in a press statement. But please, do continue with this, it's very entertaining.

Well, you won't be able to get out of this sh*t with lies.

Ajax is a public company, and they have the obligation to publish their annual Directors' Report and their Financial Statements. Unfortunately for you, the last reports and statements they have published is for the 2010 fiscal year, and it states a total revenue of €68 million. You can read a very solid analysis here:

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-ajax-are-no-longer-dutch-masters.html

Unless, of course, you can provide us with Ajax's annual Directors' Report and their Financial Statements for the 2011 fiscal year, the one that you are familiar with. By the way, the financial reports are made on the basis of fiscal years, not football seasons.

Celtic and Rangers fans 'get to see' clubs such as those on a regular basis in European competition while also getting drawn with much bigger and more prestigious opposition from time to time so I still don't see the point.

The same Celtic and Rangers who now struggle to get into the group stage of the Europa League, not to mention the Champions League?

Well, you won't be able to get out of this sh*t with lies.

Ajax is a public company, and they have the obligation to publish their annual Directors' Report and their Financial Statements. Unfortunately for you, the last reports and statements they have published is for the 2010 fiscal year, and it states a total revenue of €68 million. You can read a very solid analysis here:

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-ajax-are-no-longer-dutch-masters.html

Unless, of course, you can provide us with Ajax's annual Directors' Report and their Financial Statements for the 2011 fiscal year, the one that you are familiar with. By the way, the financial reports are made on the basis of fiscal years, not football seasons.

Wow. A blogspot blog. Best source ever.

I guess this press statement released 2 weeks ago then doesn't exist. I didn't post it before as it's in Dutch anyway, but seems you don't leave me any other option. Take note that it's hosted on Ajax's domain.

Nice try though.

I was the one who pointed out it would be financed solely on new TV sponsorship and league sponsorship and in such a bland area of Europe, the increase in these revenue streams is hardly sufficient to suggest it would be enough to keep players in the league.

For the 2010 fiscal year, Ajax have earned exactly €7 million of TV money. That is 23 times less than Real Madrid. For a club with such a rich history and tradition, the €7 million figure is ridiculous beyond belief. You know, there are some very serious reasons for the decline of Dutch, Belgian and Scottish clubs, who once used to be European powerhouses.

For the 2010 fiscal year, Ajax have earned exactly €7 million of TV money. That is 23 times less than Real Madrid. For a club with such a rich history and tradition, the €7 million figure is ridiculous beyond belief. You know, there are some very serious reasons for the decline of Dutch, Belgian and Scottish clubs, who once used to be European powerhouses.

Mac, i asked you a question and you gave me a figure of some TV deal to try and usurp this debate.

This new league will not be able to fund the clubs enough through league and TV sponsorship sufficient enough to keep their top players and counter the decrease in away fans travelling to games.

The consequences of this are endless. Less apparel sold, less match day tickets, less spending at food stores inside the stadium, less game day functions, etc.

Not to mention the impact on youth teams of these clubs. If costs are high and revenue is low, spending is cut and education is reduced.

There is no substance to your theory Mac. If there was i would highly struggle to come to grips as to why it wasn't brought about or in early stages of development. It appears your just debating to be seen as an intellectual and a visionary on another level to us when in truth this is a fictional piece of drivel.

For the 2010 fiscal year, Ajax have earned exactly €7 million of TV money. That is 23 times less than Real Madrid. For a club with such a rich history and tradition, the €7 million figure is ridiculous beyond belief. You know, there are some very serious reasons for the decline of Dutch, Belgian and Scottish clubs, who once used to be European powerhouses.

Real Madrid's TV money is what's ridiculous. Compare that to what German clubs get. And they get 4-5 times more than Ajax. You see, Ajax get little money as it is, but still they choose to share it with the rest of the clubs, unlike Real Madrid. But I think what you don't get, Ajax has never been a powerhouse financially. There's always been a huge financially gap with other bigger teams.

Wow. A blogspot blog. Best source ever.

You are telling me that you've never heard of SwissRamble?

I guess this press astatement released 2 weeks ago then doesn't exist. I didn't post it before as it's in Dutch anyway, but seems you don't leave me any other option. Take note that it's hosted on Ajax's domain.

Nice try though.

That press release is not an annual financial report, and includes revenue from players' transfers (LFC have paid the biggest part of that additional €28 million revenue). If you were informed on the issue, you would have known that, in financial terms, money from player sales is not considered a regular revenue. Selling most valuable assets is only a way of covering your financial losses. Like the previous season, when Ajax finished with a loss of €13.2 million, because there were no serious player sales, apart from the transfer of Vermaelen to Arsenal.

The same Celtic and Rangers who now struggle to get into the group stage of the Europa League, not to mention the Champions League?

If we just look at recent history both Rangers and Celtic have qualified for European Competition every season since 1991, apart from Celtic missing out in 1994-1995.

Also Celtic are currently competing in this season's Europa League in the group stages and Rangers have competed in Europe more seasons than any other British clubs.

Like I said I don't see any point to this idea even as a means of these clubs raising more money as that seems to be what is most important to you in regards to football.

Mac, i asked you a question and you gave me a figure of some TV deal to try and usurp this debate.

Sorry, but it is not my fault that you don't understand it. Maybe this will help you:



Clubs from traditional footballing countries like Holland, Belgium and Scotland are suffering badly, because their markets are too small, and the majority of sponsors are going to England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France. The idea about the North Sea League is to create a bigger market that could compete with the big markets mentioned above. From the traditional football point of view, it is as cruel idea as the creation of the English Premier League, at the expense of the other 72 clubs in the league system. I know it sucks, but it is the only way to remain competitive.

You are telling me that you've never heard of SwissRamble?
That press release is not an annual financial report, and includes revenue from players' transfers (LFC have paid the biggest part of that additional €28 million revenue). If you were informed on the issue, you would have known that, in financial terms, money from player sales is not considered a regular revenue. Selling most valuable assets is only a way of covering your financial losses. Like the previous season, when Ajax finished with a loss of €13.2 million, because there were no serious player sales, apart from the transfer of Vermaelen to Arsenal.

Your point being? Maybe you forgot that all that I said was that Ajax had the their highest revenue ever last season, which is true. You were the one accusing me of lying. You want to check that report and see what it says next to netto revenue? 97 million. The annual financial report is bullsh*t. it's all about seasonal in football, even the Deloitte money league is based on seasons. The Jaarcijfers  one I gave you in that link is all what Ajax releases when it comes to yearly figures, and the figures are obviously correct. And Ajax compared to other clubs generally makes a profit on their transfers, while other make a loss. Ajax has always done that, it's one of their strengths. And they made a loss in 2009/2010 because they missed out on Champions League that season, not because of player sales. But you keep making up more stuff, and then accuse me of doing it.

From the traditional football point of view, it is as cruel idea as the creation of the English Premier League, at the expense of the other 72 clubs in the league system. I know it sucks, but it is the only way to remain competitive.

It's not even close.

Creating a new top tier in a domestic league is a world away from creating a whole new league consisting of teams from different countries 100 of miles apart.

Your point being? Maybe you forgot that all that I said was that Ajax had the their highest revenue ever last season, which is true. You were the one accusing me of lying. You want to check that report and see what it says next to netto revenue? 97 million. The annual financial report is bullsh*t. it's all about seasonal in football, even the Deloitte money league is based on seasons. And Ajax compared to other clubs generally makes a profit on their transfers, while other make a loss. Ajax has always done that, it's one of their strengths. And they made a loss in 2009/2010 because they missed out on Champions League that season, not because of player sales. But you keep making up more stuff, and then accuse me of doing it.

That post just shows how little you know about football finance. At first, I've thought that you are lying, but it turns out that you are just clueless on the matter. Sorry for calling you a liar.

It's not even close.

Creating a new top tier in a domestic league is a world away from creating a whole new league consisting of teams from different countries 100 of miles apart.

In terms of money re-distribution, it is very much the same. The top 20 clubs (or 12, in the case of the regional league) breaking away in order to improve their revenue streams, at the expense of the other 72 clubs (or 78, in the case of the regional league).

Sorry, but it is not my fault that you don't understand it. Maybe this will help you:



Clubs from traditional footballing countries like Holland, Belgium and Scotland are suffering badly, because their markets are too small, and the majority of sponsors are going to England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France. The idea about the North Sea League is to create a bigger market that could compete with the big markets mentioned above. From the traditional football point of view, it is as cruel idea as the creation of the English Premier League, at the expense of the other 72 clubs in the league system. I know it sucks, but it is the only way to remain competitive.

Mate, if that is what your aiming for your doing the opposite.

Your reducing the amount of sponsors who are contributing to these clubs. My minimising the appeal of domestic leagues and trying to push for a North Sea League your alienating existing sponsors for new ones who would probably pay at most 50% more sponsorship at the cost of 90% of clubs.

Your pretty much pushing for the lesser clubs in these areas to go bust and try to build up these top clubs without any guarantee and an unbelievable amount of risk.

In terms of money re-distribution, it is very much the same. The top 20 clubs (or 12, in the case of the regional league) breaking away in order to improve their revenue streams, at the expense of the other 72 clubs (or 78, in the case of the regional league).

Ah. I forgot. It's all about money.

Sorry I thought when you talked about ' from a traditional football point of view' you were meaning from a traditional point of view not a modern money making point of view.

Silly me eh.

That post just shows how little you know about football finance. At first, I've thought that you are lying, but it turns out that you are just clueless on the matter. Sorry for calling you a liar.

I wouldn't say I'm clueless, but I'm certainly no expert on the field of finances no, and I'm not ashamed of that. But since you obviously are, then please explain to me where you got the idea from that transfers are included into that 97 million revenue? Click.
What do you say, they aren't included? Guess you're even more clueless than me. Who's the one making stuff up now.

I wouldn't say I'm clueless, but I'm certainly no expert on the field of finances

And that is why you should stop waiving around with press releases from the middle of the fiscal year, and wait until the proper annual financial report is published. A report that includes all the financial parameters like amortization of assets, club's debt and interests paid, total revenue and total spending. What you have posted above is not a financial report. It is merely a PR exercise. We have already seen a lot of these under G&H at LFC. Here is how a proper financial report looks like:

http://invinciblebastion.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/lfc-aa-2010.pdf

Not some press release on a single page.