Just had a quick look on companies house and noted the last accounts and abbreviated, didn't realise the investment vehicle for the acquisition was set up in Hong Kong.
Far be it for me to defend Bernie on almost anything but the Sky exclusive deal is nothing to do with him - he always insisted on extensive coverage on the Free to air channels - only allowing the Sky Channel 4 deal because it kept F1 on free to air after the BBC reneged on their deal. F1 now has new owners though and Bernie no longer calls the shots and they have gone for the short term cash cow that Sky offers. I expect in the UK at least interest in F1 to go the same way as interest in Cricket
But then Sky sports breaks off into various subscription channels such as football premier league cricket golf and formula 1 to rinse those that are prepared to pay it of even more money.
Makes me laugh when people say when the to deals go the clubs will be in the ****. It'll never happen, too many Asians/Australians/Americans who actually see themselves as actual fans these days. I'm sure Liverpool and United could actually sell out any game purely by these 'fans' if Scousers/Mancs boycotted. The only thing that could scupper their deals is if the MLS caught on properly and I live in hope.
Who? Huddersfield? It does include promotion bonuses though so I imagine their % of turnover is now tiny in comparison.
So we're the only one of the 24 who were a small company? I guess we'll never know what the turnover was in a year when we took millions in transfers and add ons. I'm not an accountant but does a small company never have to reveal it's turnover? Or can it be selective and reveal its turnover when it suits?
No, a small company files abbreviated accounts and doesn't file its profit and loss account which would state turnover. *Edit, just for completeness, to be classed as a medium sized company and file full accounts, it must meet 2 of 3 criteria, over 250 staff, turnover must be above a level (think was about £25ish m), and net assets needed to be over about £12m
Yep, Huddersfield. Obviously I'm not sure whether it includes promotion bonuses or not. But at first glance it looks very much like they were paying players unsustainable wages in the season they went up.
Probably because they exceed the criteria and are classed as medium sized companies (see my edit on the previous post)
What makes Sky more important than any other channel though? anyway you could argue that it was when SKY started chucking money at sport was when it all started to go wrong, players started getting stupid money, that cascaded down the leagues where there was little TV money and your everyday fan started getting hammered. Personally remember fondly when test matches were on terrestrial TV ( the days when far more people were interested in it ( not a coincidence)