|
|
Post by jollypotter88 on Dec 6, 2013 13:53:46 GMT
Sorry if already posted but amazing to see £20 BILLION in bets in 12 months to 365 and also £180m in profit before taking into account £30m spent on SCFC (mostly on debts i think). Still got plenty of monies left over for Jan, the point remains, will PC or 'The Family' spend some it? t.co/dbJGzdfcPl |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 14:32:49 GMT
Sorry if already posted but amazing to see £20 BILLION in bets in 12 months to 365l That's Maccca100 for ya. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 16:16:28 GMT
Blimey, that's less than a 1% profit margin!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 16:18:13 GMT
Blimey, that's less than a 1% profit margin! Not much to tax then....wonder how that happened |
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 6, 2013 16:25:11 GMT
Football fair play won't allow us to spend a fortune. I think it'll be around 5m net.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 16:26:10 GMT
We'll get what we get. I really get embarrassed and annoyed when this speculation around BET365 and their turnover gets "discussed". Peter Coates is a Stokie just like the rest of us, he's been a fan all his life, so please show some restraint and respect eh folks?
|
|
|
|
Post by jollypotter88 on Dec 6, 2013 17:02:36 GMT
I think we will be backed in Jan. We won't be given the money TP was afforded of course but if we get rid of the deadwood in the team then it should also open up some more funds. Can see Diouf being the number 1 target in Jan though!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 6, 2013 18:30:47 GMT
Blimey, that's less than a 1% profit margin! If any bookmaker worked on gross profit margins as high as, say, retailers such as supermarkets, they'd soon go out of business because no one would use them as their odds would be uncompetitive. Bookies are the ultimate pile it high sell it cheap, huge turnover, business - where huge amounts are taken in but the amounts paid out are also huge, leaving small profits in percentage terms - but large profits in cash terms, if (as the bookmaker hopes) the turnover is high enough. And like another poster says above, the fact that there are big profits does not mean that Bet365 should simply pour limitless amounts into the money pit that is Stoke City. Bet 365 seem to be doing all the right things: generating a big client base, making good (and increasing) profits year on year, taking good (but affordable) dividend income for the shareholders, and keeping the amount set aside to subsidise Stoke City within a level which does not impact too highly on the core business which is online bookmaking. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 6, 2013 18:34:41 GMT
Football fair play won't allow us to spend a fortune. I think it'll be around 5m net. Can You explain why please? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by wearestoke80 on Dec 6, 2013 18:38:22 GMT
MH has to prove himself to the investors that he can use their money wisely - on s different scale; but like at Man City that's what they based their decision on.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 6, 2013 18:48:37 GMT
MH has to prove himself to the investors that he can use their money wisely - on s different scale; but like at Man City that's what they based their decision on. His Man City signings verge on the side of good than bad imo. If they don't trust him with money, they should never have appointed him. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 6, 2013 18:50:08 GMT
Football fair play won't allow us to spend a fortune. I think it'll be around 5m net. Can You explain why please? Cheers. We do have quite a bit of wriggle room on transfer fees under the Premier League fair play rules, but we are only allowed to increase our wage bill by (I think) £4 million this year and that means we have to sell or give away players (and get their wages covered by another club) to free up wages for players we buy. We can only increase wages by more than £4 million if we find GENUINE extra income. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 6, 2013 18:57:05 GMT
Can You explain why please? Cheers. We do have quite a bit of wriggle room on transfer fees under the Premier League fair play rules, but we are only allowed to increase our wage bill by (I think) £4 million this year and that means we have to sell or give away players (and get their wages covered by another club) to free up wages for players we buy. We can only increase wages by more than £4 million if we find GENUINE extra income. Yeah, I've see You write that one before LP (it was the first I'd seen it) so know it. Cobham sounds like he's going on about transfer fees though unless I've got the wrong end of the stick? I wonder how much we did increase it by? We shed some wages from the bill with who left I would imagine, so there might still be a bit of wiggle room within that. But getting rid of people like KJ etc is imperative. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 6, 2013 19:10:59 GMT
We do have quite a bit of wriggle room on transfer fees under the Premier League fair play rules, but we are only allowed to increase our wage bill by (I think) £4 million this year and that means we have to sell or give away players (and get their wages covered by another club) to free up wages for players we buy. We can only increase wages by more than £4 million if we find GENUINE extra income. Yeah, I've see You write that one before LP (it was the first I'd seen it) so know it. Cobham sounds like he's going on about transfer fees though unless I've got the wrong end of the stick? I wonder how much we did increase it by? We shed some wages from the bill with who left I would imagine, so there might still be a bit of wiggle room within that. But getting rid of people like KJ etc is imperative. Transfer fees are affected more by the UEFA rules - where the sanction is banning from European competition which may not affect us anyway. But even under the Prem League rules having the right to spend £x million on transfers is of little use if there is not the wriggle room in the wage bill to pay those players. Life will be a LOT easier when our highest earners (Crouch and Jones) are off the wage bill. Jerome's wages are apparently covered 100% by Palace which presumably has given us some room on wages. EDIT - I think one problem is that we have too many players on decent wages in our squad. If a few more squad places were taken up by younger, home grown players on lowish wages, that would leave us more money to spend on wages for a few big earners. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 6, 2013 19:17:56 GMT
Can You explain why please? Cheers. We do have quite a bit of wriggle room on transfer fees under the Premier League fair play rules, but we are only allowed to increase our wage bill by (I think) £4 million this year and that means we have to sell or give away players (and get their wages covered by another club) to free up wages for players we buy. We can only increase wages by more than £4 million if we find GENUINE extra income. True. And I guess GENUINE extra income is going down rather than up. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 6, 2013 19:23:48 GMT
We do have quite a bit of wriggle room on transfer fees under the Premier League fair play rules, but we are only allowed to increase our wage bill by (I think) £4 million this year and that means we have to sell or give away players (and get their wages covered by another club) to free up wages for players we buy. We can only increase wages by more than £4 million if we find GENUINE extra income. True. And I guess GENUINE extra income is going down rather than up. Yes, that's certainly true for this season. Of course the TV income has gone up but we are not allowed to spend more than £4 million of that extra income on wages. The rules are there to STOP all the extra TV income going on wages - and quite right too! |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 6, 2013 19:24:36 GMT
We do have quite a bit of wriggle room on transfer fees under the Premier League fair play rules, but we are only allowed to increase our wage bill by (I think) £4 million this year and that means we have to sell or give away players (and get their wages covered by another club) to free up wages for players we buy. We can only increase wages by more than £4 million if we find GENUINE extra income. True. And I guess GENUINE extra income is going down rather than up. With the tv deal, won't our income be the biggest ever? |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 6, 2013 19:29:31 GMT
True. And I guess GENUINE extra income is going down rather than up. With the tv deal, won't our income be the biggest ever? I think the answer to that is above. As a point of interest what other income sources are there? Ticket sales, merchandise, entertainment, sponsorship... Anything else? |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 6, 2013 19:32:11 GMT
With the tv deal, won't our income be the biggest ever? I think the answer to that is above. As a point of interest what other income sources are there? Ticket sales, merchandise, entertainment, sponsorship... Anything else? Prize money and player sales are the next biggest I'd guess after tv money and tickets for us. |
|
|
|
Post by whereami on Dec 6, 2013 19:34:14 GMT
True. And I guess GENUINE extra income is going down rather than up. Yes, that's certainly true for this season. Of course the TV income has gone up but we are not allowed to spend more than £4 million of that extra income on wages. The rules are there to STOP all the extra TV income going on wages - and quite right too! Shame they didn't set a cap on agents fees spent per season at the same time, for what they do they're an obscene drain on the money floating around top flight football |
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Dec 6, 2013 23:46:45 GMT
Can't we pay low wages this season with an agreement to pay a big bonus at the start of next season? By which time the big earners will have been moved on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 4:47:38 GMT
Blimey, that's less than a 1% profit margin! If any bookmaker worked on gross profit margins as high as, say, retailers such as supermarkets, they'd soon go out of business because no one would use them as their odds would be uncompetitive. Bookies are the ultimate pile it high sell it cheap, huge turnover, business - where huge amounts are taken in but the amounts paid out are also huge, leaving small profits in percentage terms - but large profits in cash terms, if (as the bookmaker hopes) the turnover is high enough. And like another poster says above, the fact that there are big profits does not mean that Bet365 should simply pour limitless amounts into the money pit that is Stoke City. Bet 365 seem to be doing all the right things: generating a big client base, making good (and increasing) profits year on year, taking good (but affordable) dividend income for the shareholders, and keeping the amount set aside to subsidise Stoke City within a level which does not impact too highly on the core business which is online bookmaking. Agreed on all of that LP |
|
