[ITA] Serie A 2014/2015 (39 Viewers)

[Vlad]

well since our esteemed writer here didnt reference any of his stuff i will take it as him pulling number out of his ass, why would you thing they are accurate?

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=ASR:IM
http://quote.morningstar.com/stock-...AA:ASR&ft=&d=202a0d868a5e01a97d64f78bbb39b037
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/stocknet/secdocuments.aspx?symbol=asr&country=ita

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Dostoevsky]

Roma's owners pumped into the club more than 150m in the last few years and they still have negative equity. Sabatini is sucking them dry.

They had huge sales. What are you talking about?

Marquinhos and Lamela only made them like 60mln. They sold many others too. Pumped what?

 

[Vlad]

They had huge sales. What are you talking about?

Marquinhos and Lamela only made them like 60mln. They sold many others too. Pumped what?

Owners increased Roma's equity in the last 2-3 years. Roughly about 150m worth of new shares were issued. Even with sales they wouldn't be able to afford purchases, as they are burning cash fast. Every year they can count on 40-50m loss. See the links above.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=ASR:IM
http://quote.morningstar.com/stock-...AA:ASR&ft=&d=202a0d868a5e01a97d64f78bbb39b037
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/stocknet/secdocuments.aspx?symbol=asr&country=ita

"That figure is not the standard amount shown at the bottom of the balance sheet after all debits and credits have been taken into account"

theres also the matter of excluding the contracts of totti and de rossi thats about 20 mil off in each period

 

[Zacheryah]

Owners increased Roma's equity in the last 2-3 years. Roughly about 150m worth of new shares were issued. Even with sales they wouldn't be able to afford purchases, as they are burning cash fast. Every year they can count on 40-50m loss. See the links above.

"Sabatini has less money to work with"

 

[Vlad]

"That figure is not the standard amount shown at the bottom of the balance sheet after all debits and credits have been taken into account"

theres also the matter of excluding the contracts of totti and de rossi thats about 20 mil off in each period

What's the argument here? Author pointed that Roma cumulatively recorded 98m loss in the last 2 years (p. 142 http://quote.morningstar.com/stock-...AA:ASR&ft=&d=202a0d868a5e01a97d64f78bbb39b037), while FFP allows only 45m spread over the last 3 years. That alone should be enough to exclude them from all European competitions, since the fundamental rule of FFP is not fulfilled.

Why would you exclude contracts of Totti or De Rossi?

- - - Updated - - -

"Sabatini has less money to work with"

Indeed

 

[GordoDeCentral]

What's the argument here? Author pointed that Roma cumulatively recorded 98m loss in the last 2 years (p. 142 http://quote.morningstar.com/stock-...AA:ASR&ft=&d=202a0d868a5e01a97d64f78bbb39b037), while FFP allows only 45m spread over the last 3 years. That alone should be enough to exclude them from all European competitions, since the fundamental rule of FFP is not fulfilled.

Why would you exclude contracts of Totti or De Rossi?

- - - Updated - - -



Indeed

the argument here is the figures you are showing are not the ones used by uefa to determine the 45 mil threshold, by the author's admission.

"A clause championed by Ernesto Paolillo, the ex-Inter CEO, allows clubs to offset some losses by not including the contracts of players contracted before June 1, 2010, as well as investments made in an organisation’s youth structure."

 

[Vlad]

the argument here is the figures you are showing are not the ones used by uefa to determine the 45 mil threshold, by the author's admission.

"A clause championed by Ernesto Paolillo, the ex-Inter CEO, allows clubs to offset some losses by not including the contracts of players contracted before June 1, 2010, as well as investments made in an organisation’s youth structure."

They are still far bellow the minimum requirements. At least they'll get hefty fine which will set them back. While our mgmt were careful to comply with all enforced rules, Roma have completely neglected that aspect. This year another 30m loss is expected, that would mean 130m cumulatively over the last 3 years. Even if you exclude certain contracts, investment into youth, they will still fall short.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

They are still far above the minimum requirements.

my point is the author doesnt know where they stand exactly, all he is doing is speculate on where that threshold figure might be. I think we are on the same boat as Roma.

 

[JuveJay]

So with their new stadium is there a chance of them going full Valencia?

 

[Sir Miss-A-Lot]

So with their new stadium is there a chance of them going full Valencia?

I don't think so, but they are in desperate need to raise income this season, if they want to keep their stars next summer. A good run in the CL would give them a boost, but in the long run they can't keep operating this way. They are doing it now because they believe their investment will give return, but in football such investments are always risky, because if the sporting results aren't as expected, you will most likely get operating losses, which could force you to sell out assets

 

[GordoDeCentral]

So with their new stadium is there a chance of them going full Valencia?

nah the stadium will give them more income, they might surpass us in revenue

 

[Vlad]

my point is the author doesnt know where they stand exactly, all he is doing is speculate on where that threshold figure might be. I think we are on the same boat as Roma.

We're in much better position than Roma. Our wage structure is better optimized (around 60% vs 70% of income), we have positive equity (another requirement). Juve atm is close to breaking even, considering that investments projects aren't taken into account.

- - - Updated - - -

So with their new stadium is there a chance of them going full Valencia?

They have rich owners and they aren't hesitating to invest directly into the club.

- - - Updated - - -

nah the stadium will give them more income, they might surpass us in revenue

Income from tickets, maybe. Overall they will hardly ever catch up with us. There is a gap of close to 180m between the two in terms of income.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

FYI these are the current FFP cases

http://www.uefa.org/disciplinary/club-financial-controlling-body/cases/index.html

 

[Dostoevsky]

FYI these are the current FFP cases

http://www.uefa.org/disciplinary/club-financial-controlling-body/cases/index.html

 

[GordoDeCentral]

 

[AlexOB]

So with their new stadium is there a chance of them going full Valencia?

Roma's city or whatever has actually rejected the project for the building of the Roma stadium... Read something about it the other day. Was in italian, tho, therefore I didn't understand all the details, but that was the big deal.

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

nah the stadium will give them more income, they might surpass us in revenue

No they wouldn't.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

No they wouldn't.

*will not.

there is no real difference between wouldnt and might, so if you were to take a differing position here it would have to be categorical.

 

[PedroFlu]

"Sabatini has less money to work with"

He does have.

He's commited to spend an average of 25M (counting on revenues from sales) per season at Roma, Marotta has spent around 35M each season.

And our salary budget is higher.

- - - Updated - - -

Owners increased Roma's equity in the last 2-3 years. Roughly about 150m worth of new shares were issued. Even with sales they wouldn't be able to afford purchases, as they are burning cash fast. Every year they can count on 40-50m loss. See the links above.

Regarding merely transfer fees expenses, they spent around 25M per season in the past 4 years. Marotta spent an average of 35M per season in the past 5 years.

The thing is their salary sheet, while still lower than ours, is too high for their low revenues. They simply can't afford to spend this way.