greenbay wrote:Don't know who should buy a book on accounting. But taking a credit definiteley does not count as revenue, it's no income at all, it's of course a liability in the accounts. Revenue is just those amounts coming in from the daily business operations, so in case of a football club it's ticket sales, it's tv money, it's merchandising and advertising income, and stuff like that. Even transfer fees from selling players do not account for revenue, but have to be shown as "other income", at least not according to IFRS accounting principles which become more and more the standard in the EU.
Not sure about IFRS accounting principles, but most of the time I see clubs revenues, transfer fees are included. Deloittes money league does not, but it's an exception... I don't think I've ever seen a club publishing revenue that didn't include transfer fees, It's the main reason why Bayern and Dortmund have much higher revenue in Spoonmans first list than in the money league.
Credit is not included, though, neither is money that the owner puts into the organisation.
greenbay wrote:Don't know who should buy a book on accounting. But taking a credit definiteley does not count as revenue, it's no income at all, it's of course a liability in the accounts. Revenue is just those amounts coming in from the daily business operations, so in case of a football club it's ticket sales, it's tv money, it's merchandising and advertising income, and stuff like that. Even transfer fees from selling players do not account for revenue, but have to be shown as "other income", at least not according to IFRS accounting principles which become more and more the standard in the EU.
Not sure about IFRS accounting principles, but most of the time I see clubs revenues, transfer fees are included. Deloittes money league does not, but it's an exception... I don't think I've ever seen a club publishing revenue that didn't include transfer fees, It's the main reason why Bayern and Dortmund have much higher revenue in Spoonmans first list than in the money league.
Credit is not included, though, neither is money that the owner puts into the organisation.
It's also the reason why FC Porto isn't there and Benfica isn't higher up.
spoonman wrote:By the way, 62% of all top flight tickets were season tickets.
That 62% is an artificial number. The top clubs who are always sold out since at least a decade, put a limit on the the number of season tickets. On top comes that 10% of the tickets must go to the visiting teams. Otherwise the figure would be much higher.
Cirdan wrote:Not sure about IFRS accounting principles, but most of the time I see clubs revenues, transfer fees are included. Deloittes money league does not, but it's an exception...
Well, the IFRS don't mention transfer fees in particular. But under basic standards, those transfer fees are the cost of buying a fixed asset called "this player will now be with your team only". Same as buying machinery for a plant, "this machine will now produce good for your plant only". A football club doesn't acquire the player's right for the purpose of buying and selling, but for using him in the process of gaining revenue from playing games. As does the plant with the machinery to gain revenue from the produced goods. So finally, if the plant decides to sell the machinery before the useful life is over, they don't show this income under turnover but under other income. As IFRS always do when selling a fixed asset that has been bought earlier. Another clue is that the transfer right's in the club's account definitely undergo depreciation over the contract period, they are not shown as cost of goods. The fixed asset has a finite life called the contract period. So the transfer fee has to be depreciated over the contract period. Same as a with a machinery for a plant during it's useful life. So I see no point why football club could do different. Imho it's other income not revenue.
Cirdan wrote:Not sure about IFRS accounting principles, but most of the time I see clubs revenues, transfer fees are included. Deloittes money league does not, but it's an exception...
Well, the IFRS don't mention transfer fees in particular. But under basic standards, those transfer fees are the cost of buying a fixed asset called "this player will now be with your team only". Same as buying machinery for a plant, "this machine will now produce good for your plant only". A football club doesn't acquire the player's right for the purpose of buying and selling, but for using him in the process of gaining revenue from playing games. As does the plant with the machinery to gain revenue from the produced goods. So finally, if the plant decides to sell the machinery before the useful life is over, they don't show this income under turnover but under other income. As IFRS always do when selling a fixed asset that has been bought earlier. Another clue is that the transfer right's in the club's account definitely undergo depreciation over the contract period, they are not shown as cost of goods. The fixed asset has a finite life called the contract period. So the transfer fee has to be depreciated over the contract period. Same as a with a machinery for a plant during it's useful life. So I see no point why football club could do different. Imho it's other income not revenue.
Well, a players booking value does get handled that way after he is bought by a club, but how often does a player actually get transfered for something remotely resembling his booking value? Also, buying cheap or training up and selling expensive is a wide-spread business model in the football world, if we have to stay with the machine-analogy it's often more akin to building or refining the machine than using it up (Porto is the primary example for this).
Even if a club acquires players with the intention of improving their skills and to make money not with priority from playing games but with priority from "buy low - sell high", it does not make any difference imho. It's still IAS 38, so with selling the player later being a case of "other income". To become IFRS 5 and therefore "revenue" the club must buy the player with the intentionen of reselling him immediately. That's not the case, they want to train the player a couple of seasons.
Allianz are buying an 8.33% stake of Bayern Munich for €110m. Bayern will use that money to pay off their stadium immediately (so the club would be completely debt-free) and for the construction of a new youth academy.
Adidas and Audi also hold an 8.33% stake respectively. Rumours about a third investor had been circulating for some time, and club officialls said that a potential third investor would be the last one. On the other hand, the club has a rule that no more than 30% can be owned by "outsiders", so 5% would still be up for grabs.
spoonman wrote:
On the other hand, the club has a rule that no more than 30% can be owned by "outsiders", so 5% would still be up for grabs.
This rule can be changed by members of Bayern. So i should not argue that this will be always like that.
But Bayern has no strong partners with Adidas Audi and Allianz. Partners for longer partnership and in which they trust.
For the Allianz deal, I guess they need a vote of club members end of year for accomplish the deal. I think club comite cannot take this decission alone.
Under the Bundesliga "50+1 rule", the clubs are allowed to sell an unlimited numbers of shares to investors. But they have to make sure that at least fifty percent plus one vote in the club's general assembly remain with the club's registered members. In case of Bayern that's 100,000+ Average Joes. Mostly of course from Germany, but also a growing number worldwide. So Bayern can easily still sell the remaining 75%, worth more than a billion Euros as it seems, if the members want.
spoonman wrote:
Adidas and Audi also hold an 8.33% stake respectively. Rumours about a third investor had been circulating for some time, and club officialls said that a potential third investor would be the last one. On the other hand, the club has a rule that no more than 30% can be owned by "outsiders", so 5% would still be up for grabs.
Actually that is the plot.
Initially Adidas bought 10% shares (2.5 million of the shares capital). When Audi came in the share capital was lifted from 25 million € to 27.5 million € and both did hold 9.09% afterwards.
With the new sale they made another increase of the share capital of 2.5 million €. Now the 2.5 are 8.33% of 30 million €.
Tho the next 2.5 mil increase would bring each of those to 7.69% and not to the ideal 7.5%. So The next increase will be bigger, but only 2.5 will be handed out to an investor. The other 833,333 € will go to Bayern.
In the mean time, according to the financial report of Željezničar for the year 2014 (our fiscal year is identical to the calendar one) all the revenues amounted to around 1.075.000 € (includes the youth teams as well) and the expenses for current opperations in 2014 amounted to 767.000 € with the rest spent on covering liabilites from the past. My guess would be that FK Sarajevo has the highest budget in our league, somewhere around 2 to 2,6 million €.
Doživjeti možda neću da prođeš u finale
i da velikog Reala pobjediš na penale...
