[金融掃盲]祖雲達斯冇蝕到趴,曼聯(同所有球會)最大開支唔係轉會費,賣波衫唔好賺,贊助刁都冇你想像中咁多。但,依然有金融上嘅考慮。就係開心樂園餐!人地睇嘢,唔係一兩季,係十年甚至幾十年。
TLDR:相信全香港第一個人講C朗as a 開心樂園餐
1. 其實足球嗰部份都可以掃盲,C朗雖然肯定好好好好波,但由於太靚仔太霸氣,往住有好多myth.例如以為佢射罰球好勁(對上一球幾時?好似講到而家),或者以為佢射門命中率好高—例如蘇斯克查話,呀C朗禁區外射門呀,100球都99球中龍。事實?C朗在祖雲達斯,所有射門,唔夠四成中龍。當然你可以話蘇斯克查只係做個比喻,唔係真係話99%。
2. 反正呢篇文唔係要攻擊C朗(*),而係講,好多你以為嘅「常識」,係錯嘅。
3. 不過既然係Financial Times,當然都講返錢銀。以下係幾個關於C朗轉會嘅 financial myth:
4. 祖雲達斯蝕到趴:唔算。轉會費1500萬歐(加埋表現頂多2500萬)。祖雲達斯2018年1億買返嚟。不過球員係會「折舊」嘅,正式嚟講,係舊「轉會費」會攤銷(Amortize),你當好似機械咁折舊啦。每年個「折舊」先係開支,然後個球員嘅「價值」(**)在公司個資產負債表每年就減低,同你會計101讀嘅差不多。一般個「壽命」就係合約年期,咁佢在祖雲達斯4年約,1億歐就攤4年,今年最後一年,在祖雲達斯本薄度,佢最新carrying value 係3000萬左右。咁所以祖雲達斯蝕讓都要輸錢,但唔係輸8500萬,輸1500萬啫。
5. 有趣地,曼聯簽C朗係2年約,但個「折舊」用5年,我就唔知點解啦,都唔係一般做法,問返核數師點解肯簽,可能預佢退休做埋高層啩。上市公司喎,不能太亂嚟的,核數師肯簽,咁…….咪得咯。
6. 咁所以曼聯買得好抵? — 又唔係。球場上唔知,但我地講財務。同好多人嘅理解唔同,球會最大嘅開支,唔係轉會費(可以攤N年,同埋有機會賣出去收返啲),而係人工!C朗份糧同在祖雲達斯比只係減少少,過到嚟變咗係英超最高薪球員(***)。即使曼聯係英超最高收入嘅球會,佢老哥份糧都佔咗間會收入嘅5%— 一條友佔收入5%,你可以諗下幾咁誇張,應該冇乜其他公司可以咁。
7. 車,賣波衫同拎筫助都賺得返 — 不客氣地講:講得呢句,就知你完全唔識了。最好都係STFU。再講一次,絶大部份波衫收入嘅錢,係Adidas或Nike拎晒。唔信嘅,你睇兩樣嘢。曼聯30億美金市值,Adidas 600億,Nike 2600億,你話邊個好賺?另外,如果賣波衫咁好搵,咁巴塞叫美斯賣返件特別版已經夠。但明顯唔係咁,你睇球會啲商業收入,都見到個數字唔係 波衫件數X零售價。至於贊助?亦唔會忽然多咗好多,好多一早傾咗。
8. 咁到底有乜財政效益? — 球場上嘅不講,但球場外嘅,都仲係有嘅。冇錯就係Brand Building.軟實力,細細個導你食開心樂園餐(原文冇呢句,我加嘅),大個咪日日食。文中提到,曼聯近年戰績麻麻,固然班死忠不離不棄,「但大家都知熟客唔值錢」,咁點搵新粉絲?點同曼城爭?(你諗下,廿幾三十年前我睇曼聯時,all due respect,曼城有幾多球迷?嗰時在英國見有個廣告串曼城:Manchester Worldwide,City Nationwide).地球上最多ig follower嘅C朗,就係答案啦。
9. 仲有,正如上面講,球迷一般嘅loyalty 都高,係好客,唔會因為隔離會件波衫平三十蚊你就買對家(你對比下,UBER,或者做電訊商)。所以,就係我樓上講嘅,開心樂園餐。細細個導你捧曼聯,大個自然科水。
10. 曼聯睇嘅唔係一季,兩季,而係未來幾十年呀!好大盤棋。應該係咁。當然幫到戰績更好.咁點都要有球場上嘅作用嘅,唔係買條友做親善大使嘛。發唔發現,唔落場踢嘅代言人,影響力低好多?你而家仲碧咸傑斯咩,我知係名宿(奧雲係咪名宿?)。但新一代無感嘛。至於啲老嘢?係咪都捧架啦,即係電話或寬頻啲舊客,唔使對佢咁好的。
(*)有冇話你知英超如果要捧,我係捧曼聯的?我唯一買過嘅英超波衫就係曼聯,唯一一次現場睇英超亦係曼聯。
(**)插嘴講句,咩公司係員工嘅資產,廢話。閣下有冇在公司資產負債表出現?冇。你嘅地位低過張枱,係等同公司用嘅condom(妓院上市都得啩?好似澳洲有)。你去到球星咁,在公司資產負債表度出現,你就真係公司嘅資產啦!
(***)呢度插播,原文冇講,係我意見。C朗居然減埋人工仲係英超最高,可見祖雲達斯畀得幾咁豪。我舊文有寫過,C朗一條友嘅人工,高過意甲十幾隊波,亦即係佢份人工夠搞一隊可以踢歐霸嘅意甲隊。最正係—即使唔計C朗,祖雲達斯都仲係意甲最高人工!
==============
已烴2000人訂!多謝大家!Two thousand people can't be wrong!(扯,幾百萬人冇訂添!).下一個目標當然係攞你命3000!
==============
月頭訂最抵!一週年!比別人知得多。subscribe now(https://bityl.co/4Y0h)。Ivan Patreon,港美市場評點,專題號外,每日一圖,好文推介。每星期6篇,月費100. 畀年費仲有85折,20/40年費VIP 送本人著作一本。
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「manchester city value」的推薦目錄:
- 關於manchester city value 在 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於manchester city value 在 AntiheroThai Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於manchester city value 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於manchester city value 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於manchester city value 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於manchester city value 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於manchester city value 在 Manchester City Football Players Market Values - YouTube 的評價
- 關於manchester city value 在 'Man City the first billion-pound club' | By Sky Sports Football 的評價
manchester city value 在 AntiheroThai Facebook 的最佳貼文
เปรียบเทียบมูลค่าทรัพย์สินของเจ้าของ แมนฯ ซิตี้ vs ว่าที่เจ้าของนิวคาสเซิ่ล
อยากสนุกตื่นเต้นเร้าใจได้ข่าวสารข้อมูลนักเตะกดได้ที่ลิงค์นี้เลยครับ https://linksunn.com/myljs3j
Compare property value of Manchester City vs Newcastle owner
If you want to have fun, exciting, sensational, get news about footballers. Click this link https://linksunn.com/myljs3jTranslated
manchester city value 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的精選貼文
The very fact it's called "Third World" says a lot, and then they publish an article on the "benefit" of colonialism using selective data. I guess that didn't take long...You can't make this stuff up. Occidental hegemony corrected?
19 September 2017
LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY
Dear Shahid Qadir, Taylor & Francis, Colleagues and Interested Public,
We are deeply disappointed by the unacceptable process around the publication of Bruce Gilley’s Viewpoint essay, “The case for colonialism,” which was published in Third World Quarterly without any consultation with the Editorial Board. As International Editorial Board Members, we were told in an email on 15 September from Shahid Qadir that this piece was put through the required double-blind peer review process. We asked for these reviews to be sent to the Editorial Board, and they were not.
We have now been informed by our colleagues who reviewed the piece for a Special Issue that they rejected it as unfit to send to additional peer review, and they stated in an email to us:
“We would question the editorial process that has led to the publication of the piece. It was initially offered to guest editors Dr John Narayan and Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins as an article to consider for inclusion in the aforementioned special issue. The guest editors relayed their unease with the article and rejected considering the piece for peer review. It has subsequently come to light that the article was later reviewed as a standard article and rejected by at least one reviewer and then repackaged as an opinion piece.”—email from Dr John Narayan (Birmingham City University)
Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins (Warwick University)
Dr Kehinde Andrews (Birmingham City University)
Dr Eugene Nulman (Birmingham City University)
Dr Goldie Osuri (University of Warwick)
Dr Lucia Pradella (King’s College London)
Professor Vijay Prashad (Trinity College)
Dr Sahar Rad (SOAS, University of London)
Professor Satnam Virdee (University of Glasgow)
Dr Helen Yaffe (London School of Economics)
We have also been informed through correspondence between Prof Ilan Kapoor and our colleague who was the peer-reviewer, after the piece was rejected by the Special Issue editors, that her review also rejected the Viewpoint. Thus, the fact is established that this did not pass the peer-review when we have documentation that it was rejected by three peer reviewers.
As the Viewpoint did not pass the double-blind peer review as claimed by the editor in the statement he issued in the name of the journal, it must be retracted and a new statement issued.
The Viewpoint fails criterion #1 of the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE guidelines that state: “Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if: they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).” https://publicationethics.org/…/Retractions_COPE_gline_fina…
These COPE guidelines are Taylor & Francis’s reference documents for ethics of retracting a publication the editorial board was told in an email on 18 September by Shahid Qadir.
Thus, Bruce Gilley’s Viewpoint essay, “The case for colonialism” must be retracted, as it fails to provide reliable findings, as demonstrated by its failure in the double-blind peer review process.
We all subscribe to the principle of freedom of speech and the value of provocation in order to generate critical debate. However, this cannot be done by means of a piece that fails to meet academic standards of rigour and balance by ignoring all manner of violence, exploitation and harm perpetrated in the name of colonialism (and imperialism) and that causes offence and hurt and thereby clearly violates that very principle of free speech.
The Editor of TWQ has issued a public statement without any consultation with the Editorial Board that is not truthful about the process of this peer-review, and thus, as we fully disagree with both the academic content of the Viewpoint and the response issued in the name of the journal, we are forced to resign immediately from the Editorial Board of Third World Quarterly.
As scholars, we remain ever-committed to the ideals that this journal has stood for over the past 40 years, and we would consider serving on an Editorial Board under different editorial arrangements.
Sincerely,
Ilan Kapoor (York University, Canada)
Stefano Ponte (Copenhagen Business School, Denmark + Duke University, US)
Lisa Ann Richey(Roskilde University, Denmark + Duke University, US)
Mahmood Mamdani (Makerere Institute of Social Research, Uganda + Columbia University, US)
Asef Bayat (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, US)
Naila Kabeer (London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)
Katie Willis (Royal Holloway University of London, UK)
David Simon (Chalmers Univ. of Technology, Sweden + Royal Holloway Univ. of London, UK)
Walden Bello (State University of New York at Binghamton, US)
Giles Mohan (The Open University, UK)
Ayesha Jalal (Tufts University, US)
Uma Kothari (University of Manchester, UK)
Vijay Prashad (Trinity College, US)
Klaus John Dodds (Royal Holloway University of London, UK)
Richard Falk (Princeton University, US)
manchester city value 在 'Man City the first billion-pound club' | By Sky Sports Football 的推薦與評價
" Manchester City are the first club in the history of the PL to have a ... and according to company brand finance their brand value is $1. ... <看更多>
manchester city value 在 Manchester City Football Players Market Values - YouTube 的推薦與評價
Manchester City Football Players Market Values This video is about Manchester City Football Players Market Values. Manchester City Football ... ... <看更多>