Farhad Moshiri

[jinkyali]

Dont be bloody stupid, why would you expect Dave to explain his baseless rubbish?

He wont be answering this question.

I will give him the benefit if the doubt for now. He seems so cocksure on what's needed that I assume he will be able to explain exactly how it can be delivered.

 

[Dymak]

Google the matching principle in relation to accounting.

I had a brief look mate, and it's heavily focused on the word 'period'.

Those with interests in making accounts look as pretty as possible may have issues with reported 50million pound losses over a given period. But I don't think the fans or the club have to worry when we have a 60 million pound overdraft and an annual income in excess of 120 million.

 

[jinkyali]

I had a brief look mate, and it's heavily focused on the word 'period'.

Those with interests in making accounts look as pretty as possible may have issues with reported 50million pound losses over a given period. But I don't think the fans or the club have to worry when we have a 60 million pound overdraft and an annual income of in excess of 120 million.

Based on your previous example the 120m wouldn't just come in the next day. It would have to be apportioned over the periods it reflects as would the costs.

And with respect its not the fans who dictate financial records and thus limiting factors on the clubs ability to spending.

 

[Bluewolf]

You mean like Roman at Chelsea?

Net debt Not stated; £1.125bn owed to Abramovich.

Or maybe the fella at City?

Sheikh Mansour put a further £58m into City; his total since 2008 is now £1.3bn.

Neither of which gave the money to the clubs, cos you cant just give your team money, you have to lend it, like Moshiri has.

Literally no point mate. He doesn't operate on things like facts or logic. Anything that proves him completely wrong he just twists them and goes off into a tangent that's got nothing to do with anything you've put.

 

[Goat]

Literally no point mate. He doesn't operate on things like facts or logic. Anything that proves him completely wrong he just twists them and goes off into a tangent that's got nothing to do with anything you've put.

Oh I know mate, but I enjoy the sport.

 

[Bluewolf]

Oh I know mate, but I enjoy the sport.

Haha fair enough. It's my sincere hope that one day he finds himself on everyone's ignore list and just ends up waffling his bile to a forum where no one can see him. Like a futuristic episode of the twilight zone.

 

[Dymak]

Based on your previous example the 120m wouldn't just come in the next day. It would have to be apportioned over the periods it reflects as would the costs.

And with respect its not the fans who dictate financial records and thus limiting factors on the clubs ability to spending.

We can agree that cash flow is always going to be an issue. But I don't think a financial record showing a periodical loss of 50 million pound should be causing panic when we have another financial record showing that in excess of 120 million pound is on its way during the next accounting period.

 

[jinkyali]

We can agree that cash flow is always going to be an issue. But I don't think a financial record showing a periodical loss of 50 million pound should be causing panic when we have another financial record showing that in excess of 120 million pound is on its way during the next accounting period.

But there is also x amount of cost to come too.

 

[CRIMHEAD]

It does matter if people are having a panic attack about a calculation indicating a 50 million pound loss the day before you receive 120 million pound in the bank.

How do overdrafts effect these calculations?

Because if you have a £50,000 annual salary, and you spend £5000 more than your yearly income, you could say that you have made an annual loss of £5000. But if you have an overdraft of £10000, and you aren't going to lose your job, then there's absolutely no need to have a panic attack.

To add to that, Mosh dropped 100M over the summer to pay for all the transfers and then some. So we don't owe anyone anything. Its an accounting loss, which only matters for FFP calculations.

Is salary a bit high for our revenue? Sure. But that'll be remedied soon enough.

 

[CRIMHEAD]

Well, at the risk of answering someone asking for directions by telling them "I wouldn't start from here", I have to say that my problem with Moshiri is the same as it has been from day one: he's not the owner we require. He never had the wherewithal for the transformation we required. That's meant we've seen a lot of hype surrounding his buying up of debt. The owner we need is someone who has limitless amounts of cash to invest; wiping out debt, pumping hundreds of millions into the squad, and funding a stadium development. What we actually got was a bare upgrade from what went before. The dial hasn't been shifted. We're still operating on a wing and a prayer still.

Once this stadium scheme ends up like all the others - in the bin - we'll be looking for a new owner.

I'm confused. Isn't that what he's doing? He's spent 250M at least. We have no commercial debt because he paid it all off. Of course its listed as equity just like all the other rich owners. Actually, Mosh immediately treated it as equity. MAN city's owner actually did record it as debt initially.

Has anyone spent more? Honestly, he's the owner you are describing.

I honestly thought you were going to say something else.

If he can't pull the stadium deal off, then yes, that would be an obvious problem.

 

[CRIMHEAD]

You mean like Roman at Chelsea?

Net debt Not stated; £1.125bn owed to Abramovich.

Or maybe the fella at City?

Sheikh Mansour put a further £58m into City; his total since 2008 is now £1.3bn.

Neither of which gave the money to the clubs, cos you cant just give your team money, you have to lend it, like Moshiri has.

Mansour actually treated initially as debt and since has converted most of it to equity I believe like Mosh did.

 

[Daytripper]

The hive mind hasn’t changed much then

 

[davek]

You see this is where I don't get your arguments.

On the one hand refer to Moshiri as building up debt which the club will fallback on being a bad thing.

Then you say he's the wrong owner because his spending doesn't outstrip everyone else. Something which would result in a huge debt being owed to moshiri by the club.

Help me out here. Tell me how he could be the transformational owner you crave without building up a debt owed by the club. All at the same time as being compliant with FFP.

...where's the contradiction?

 

[davek]

I'm confused. Isn't that what he's doing? He's spent 250M at least. We have no commercial debt because he paid it all off. Of course its listed as equity just like all the other rich owners. Actually, Mosh immediately treated it as equity. MAN city's owner actually did record it as debt initially.

Has anyone spent more? Honestly, he's the owner you are describing.

I honestly thought you were going to say something else.

If he can't pull the stadium deal off, then yes, that would be an obvious problem.

He's spent that on shares and owning club debt....that will be paid back to him. There's no comparison with what happened at Chelsea and City where the squad saw transformative investment.

"He's the owner you were describing".

I wish.

 

[mahermi1]

Spending that outstripped the rest....we dont do that now.

Tell me Dave how many multi billionaires were there in football, in them days. If that's all that you want, maybe your supporting the wrong team. Only Chelsea, PSG and Man City fit your criteria.