Inter's Financial Situation

[.h.]

Its probably not capital losses per se, it probably counts as salary payment (bonus, in effect), but still - same outtcome. We've spent 10mil (amortisation) + 1.2-2m (handshake) this year. Which is better than ~19m for amortisation+salary i guess.

 

[andrei]

I still think most of you don't look at the situation through the right angle.
Our problem is not the FFP or the shit that came with it. Our problem is the cash flow and the sustainability of the club.
Nainggolan was 24m + Santon+ Zaniolo. In Roma's books those 24m were already received. In ours, we "owe" them another 10m. How is the cash flow???

We make this shit with 80m "profit" and bill reduction not for UEFA/FFP, but for Goldman Sachs or other bank, when we will need to restructure our debt. We need to show them a positive cash flow with a healthy financial statement. I don't think the bankers will give a fuck about "amortisation of Joao Mario or Nainggolan.

 

[ADRossi]

I have to disagree, terminating players that still has net book value will make us register a capital loss. At least this is what Calcio de Finanza used.
Unlike loan players where we still have to account their amortization.

Quite obviously targeting 80 net capital gain on this current market is practically impossible.

I'm not sure I was clear enough in my first post.

Let's pretend you have a useless player who no one wants to buy, named Zaoa Zario, with a book value of a 8M€ in the last year of his contract on 2M€ wages. You have two options:

1) loan the player out. This incurs 8M€ in amortization of the player, and you save the wages. When the player's contract expires at the end of the season there is no capital loss.

2) terminate the player. This incurs an 8M€ capital loss, and you have no amortization expense. You then pay a small severance fee to the player.

The point I'm making is that the income statement is almost identical and accomplishes the same objective. Option 1 prevents a capital loss, Option 2 doesn't. This is why setting a capital gain goal is pointless.

 

[.h.]

I still think most of you don't look at the situation through the right angle.
Our problem is not the FFP or the shit that came with it. Our problem is the cash flow and the sustainability of the club.
Nainggolan was 24m + Santon+ Zaniolo. In Roma's books those 24m were already received. In ours, we "owe" them another 10m. How is the cash flow???

We make this shit with 80m "profit" and bill reduction not for UEFA/FFP, but for Goldman Sachs or other bank, when we will need to restructure our debt. We need to show them a positive cash flow with a healthy financial statement. I don't think the bankers will give a fuck about "amortisation of Joao Mario or Nainggolan.

cashflow is unrelatetd to the accounting treatment.

When you purchase an asset, you might pay for it in full in one lump sum, but you account for it over several years of depreciation

simple example:

Shop has £100 on its balance sheet. With that £100, it buys a £100 laptop for the business.

Well, the shop is still 'worth' £100. Nothing's changed, its just swapped cash for an asset. But that asset has a fixed life - if we say 5 years, we reduce the value of the asset (linear depreciation) £20 every year for 5 years.


It helps with things like smoothing out tax - if you did it based on cashflow, you'd have a P&L of -£100 in year 1, then X where X is whatever cashflow the laptop produced. Instead, we now have X-£20 every year. Much smoother.


In the same way, if our shop now SOLD laptops, and we bought a laaptop for £80 (e.g. from manufacturer) and sold it retail for £100, we take that full impact now - so we've made £20 profit this year. The lifetime of the asset doesnt tmake any sense for us as the seller, only for the buyer.

 

[brehme1989]

Watford FC: New shirt sponsor deal paid in cryptocurrency

The Premier League club says it has signed a "club-record" deal with an online betting company.

www.bbc.com

Odds that we got the same kind of deal?

 

[.h.]

suning probably took the majority of the $hitinter coins so they still control the voting rights on any deciisons they run through the platform

 

[Mr-Intermilan]

so lets take the whole picture
intermilan under moratti spent around
200$mil between 1996-2000 which made inter crippled
and by 2004 they made a huge divert and Facchetti made a huge turnover to the financials + inter trophies
and by 2008 morratti misused the status and bought poor players again and gave players high wages
by 2011 it was obvious inter made the same mistake, to repeat the same steps of facchetti
but with stupider decisions and improper transfer market
by 2016 we made the same stupid decisions, bought 3 players with 100mil and they had 0 impact on INTER?

by 2020 we are hindered by our financials?

what is missing?

1- Inter own stadium that will push income to 30-50 mil[Naming,sponserchip..etc]
2- proper transfer market, currently we spend alot we gain little and sometimes its more harm than good
3- a clear strategy to adopt and sell youngster properly[unlike the stupid Ausilio money laundering tactics sell for 10 rebuying for 15]
4- Having a clear strategy in terms of playing system/player types to reduce errors in coach hiring and players.


selling HAKIMI or LUKAKU, we can choose monaco route
where they closed there debts by selling Mbabi and other players
and became profitable, yet we will repeat the MORRATTI cycle after that
unless something happens in terms of the team fundamentals.

 

[.h.]

i'm slightly torn on the stadium thing to be honest. I dont know how much financial difference a stadium will make for us - it might be as low as £15m a season. If you look at the impact on Juve's books of their stadium, its not as high as was anticipated IIRC. Considering the high cost (£400m each for both us and Milan??), and we'd be splitting a lot of the 'ancillary' revenues from it (e.g. concerts, stadium sponsorship, etc)....

In an ideal world we would do it, because it will boost our finances either way, but I dont know if the RoI measures up - e.g. spending £400m to generate +£15-20m cashflow is a high price per earnings.

 

[CafeCordoba]

What is our costs of playing in Meazza?

We have better ticket revenues than Juve so new stadium would elevate those revenues bit more?

I think the difference with all things considered could be more than 20m€ per year. These fucking pandemics are however quite a risk so insurance plans might have cost bumps. Clubs like Tottenham are so fucked right now. New stadium which should be raking money for the club, was there empty for one full season.

 

[Mr-Intermilan]

What is our costs of playing in Meazza?

We have better ticket revenues than Juve so new stadium would elevate those revenues bit more?

I think the difference with all things considered could be more than 20m€ per year. These fucking pandemics are however quite a risk so insurance plans might have cost bumps. Clubs like Tottenham are so fucked right now. New stadium which should be raking money for the club, was there empty for one full season.

the stadium is part of the solution
where we are missing alot of revenues
from extra sponsorship,naming rights..etc
totinham example cant be the norm, since this pandemic
screwed every aspect of life...

but for instance juve received 100 mil for 10 years
for the stadium naming right{from 2020-2030}

i know it may sound stupid
but inter pays to milan
municipality yearly

inter pays for his offices rent
5 mil per year!

 

[.h.]

But dont forget, Juve spent 155mil on their stadium. We're talking 800mil+ for Inter and Milan.

 

[andrei]

But dont forget, Juve spent 155mil on their stadium. We're talking 800mil+ for Inter and Milan.

Do we really need a 800mil+ stadium? Juventus stadium was really cheap. San Mames costed 210m and has a capacity over 50k.

 

[brehme1989]

Milano is one of the most expensive cities in Europe and the world. Which means that land costs much more than in other places.

The issue with the cost is trying to create something that will bring in revenue for the 13 out 14 days of a 2 week period where there's no game. Higher cost means more revenue attracting amenities. Could be an utter failure, but it's not like the cost is because you have higher quality seats or more expensive bricks and cement.

 

[.h.]

As brehme says its the price of land thats the problem. Wembley and the new spurs stadium are circa 1 billion GBP each too. Its the cost of development in a major city.

One of the problems is that, unlike the premiership, we dont have the sell out crowds to push our stadium capacity upwards - so by building a new stadium (and, typically, making more seats) you would immediately increase revenues from that alone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but our tickes are typically much much cheaper than the Premiership as well? Not to mention season tickets and corporate boxes.

 

[andrei]

Another question? Do we really need to buy the land or we could lease for 99y (an example). The price for the land would be the same? I understand very well that not the cement or the bricks make the difference.

Yes, the tickets price are more exoensive in England, but I believe in the big derbies with the full stadium, we made usual something like 4m. But form these, I don't know how much is going to Milano municipality.

 

[brehme1989]

Another question? Do we really need to buy the land or we could lease for 99y (an example).

Depends on who owns the land.

 

[.h.]

even on something like a 99year lease you're still practically paying the value of the land anyway. There's no easy short cuts on the land value.

 

[pazza moratti]

I remember there was some talk about Inter and Milan moving out from San Siro area to Sesto San Giovanni area and build new stadium there? Land cost should be lot cheaper there? But I dont know what happened to that plan?

 

[CafeCordoba]

That plan was abandoned.

 

[William]

I think it was only ever a threat of a plan to try and push our only actual plan