Sheffield Utd made a Profit not a Loss!
A Post From a concerned West Ham Fan
How come Sheffield United are claiming between £30 million and £50 million in damages flowing from relegation?
Sheffield United made an operating profit of £2.6 million in the 2006-07 season (their last season in the Premier League) and an operating profit of £1.3 million in the 2007-08 season (their first season, post relegation, in the Championship). Source, the Sheffield United website.
Hence the true measure of their loss is £1.3 million loss of profits. I’m sure West Ham would gladly pay that amount to get Sheffield to go away.
This post was submitted by BAC.
Random Related Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
October 9th, 2008 at 12:42 PM
No disrespect but I think your post is a little naive.Sheffield United for the past two seasons have had to sell a lot of their first team players and decrease the size of the squad.Had we not had to do that, then no doubt we could have carried a large squad of high wage earners like West Ham. In each of the past two seasons, we have sold more players money-wise than we have bought and lost more players quantity-wise than have come in.Your point is a little basic - we could no doubt have made a huge profit had we played the youth team and sold all the senior staff.With Premiership status and the income that goes with it we would have been able to afford more capable players and keep our better ones.When January comes I am sure the fans will not be lauding what a profitable month it is when there is a small fire sale due to the financial crisis!
October 9th, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I don’t think it’s naive to suggest that a business’s damages should be assessed with regard to actual loss of profits, not claimed loss of gross revenue.That’s what would happen, for example, if the business’s trade were adversely affected by some public works, such as road closures preventing access.
And, the independent tribunal did not find that West Ham were the only cause of Sheffield United’s relegation (Who employed Neil Warnock, for instance?) so they shouldn’t be responsible for the whole loss, in any case.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:24 PM
I think west ham got off lightly. You broke the rules and should have been docked points and relegated. You then may have been stuck in the championship for the next 10 years or even relegated again. So i would say 30m is a small price to pay. Remember this is not sheffield utd fault, your the ones who cheated so you deserve everything you get. Maybe the icelandic bank going bust is karma
October 9th, 2008 at 5:08 PM
The crux is SU still made a profit because it had to cut costs drastically and had to sell it’s better players.That is the reason they were able to do so. Had Prem status been retained, which would have occurred with 38 points had WH been effectively disqualified, then the guarantee of elevated income, potential further income would have been there and the club would have kept its better players and been able to invest in the playing squad.It is expensive being in the PL, but it is about obtaining as much turnover to improve your onfield team via investment. We were denied that opportunity by a team who didn’t operate within the rules but were allowed to continue as part of the competition.