Re: Serie A Thread - 2009/10 Season
using the share price and the ebitda to prove the point that juve didn't suffer such a bad financial loss?....... nice try buddy
when i talked about their capitalization i wasn't referring to their "market capitalization"... wich is a completely different thing.... the market capitalization won't tell u anything about the true financial situation of a company.... it's just an indicator of the investors trust in the financial stability of the company.....
also the share price won't tell u anything about their losses... as it's effected by many other external factors......if tomorrow the agnelli family would come out with a public statement, saying they intend to sell, say, the 5% of their shares..... the price would sink instantly..... while if they would say they're gonna make some massive investments on the team next year, then in 2 hours the share price would go sky-high. besides a club like juventus, with a massive major shareholder and a very slight float, won't ever show massive increases or decreases in the share price.
..... so don't use market capitalization to prove your point..... u're not gonna fool me this way.
Then what other type of measurement do you suggest using, and what did you mean by the other "capitalization" ? Market Cap (which is essentially price x shares) is a standard simple way of examining the size of any company. For instance, if you look at Microsoft, it's market cap has gone from 232462 to 185398 so it has shrunk by about 20% in terms of size in the last four years, Google has gone from 61390 to 97398 so you have an almost 60% increase in the same time
(all figures in Euros). There may be ownership issues at Juventus:
JUVENTUS FOOTBALL CLUB SPA ORD (all figures USD)
Holder Name-------------------Position--------Mkt Val-------% O/S
Exor SpA (Private Equity)-----120,934,166-----142,172,866---60
Libyan Investment Auth--------15,121,352------17,776,994----7.5
CLOMBO UGO--------------------4,000,000-------4,702,488-----1.99
Norges Bank Inv Mgmt----------606,684---------713,231-------0.3
Dimensional Fund Advs---------296,089---------348,089-------0.15
RMJ SGR pA--------------------95,000----------111,684-------0.05
TIAA-CREF Asset Mgmnt---------75,409----------88,652--------0.04
Eurizon Capital SA------------40,737----------47,891--------0.02
Tredje AP-fonden--------------21,400----------25,158--------0.01
Principal Glb Inv-------------18,388----------21,617--------0.01
Dimensional Fnd Advsr---------18,000----------21,161--------0.01
Grds of New Zealand Superan---17,586----------20,674--------0.01
KBC Asset Mgmnt (Belg)--------8,241-----------9,688---------<0.01
Vanguard Group, Inc-----------7,552-----------8,878---------<0.01
Acadian Asset Mgmnt-----------5,379-----------6,324---------<0.01
...
So Angelli's Exor Company owns 60% of all Juventus shares, which is a controlling interest, but if you have a look at the other holders, you see proper investment management firms, for instance - a New Zealand pension fund, Vanguard, Norges. Each of these is a reputable company and they have invested in Juventus to make a return, the return is generated by price (or market cap) increases. If they sell when the price has depreciated they will make a loss on their investment whereas if they sell when the price has increased they will have made a profit. The performance of their investment in Juventus will be a result of price changes in Juventus's stock. Other holdings vehicles or individuals also have over 50% of traded companies Compagnia Italpetroli own 66% of AS Roma, 66% of Lazio is owned by it's sister company Lazio Events SRL. When a company is traded on an open market it has to adhere to norms and rules governing share trading, so in my opinion using measures like market cap and price are valid for looking at a company's growth.
and it's also unappropriate and deceptive to use the ebitda the prove the point that juventus didn't undergo some major financial losses.... (wich makes me believe u did it on purpose
). in order to keep an acceptable ebitda margin juve had to sell cannavaro, thuram, zambrotta, ibrahimovic and vieira...... and, unlike all those others clubs u mentioned in your post, juventus didn't sell those players by its own will.... they didn't sell em coz "a cycle was over" or coz the players asked a move.... they HAD to sell em in order to cope with the upcoming lack of major incomes related to champions league, pay-tv rights, merchandising and so on.... they were forced to sell those players coz they couldn't afford to keep em all in serie b.
but if they would have decided not to sell them, then u would have read a completely different ebitda margin for 2007 and 2008 (and i'm pretty sure u're well aware of it).
and it's not just that either. the ebitda doesn't take into account the taxes (ebitda actually stands for "earning before interests, taxes, depreciation and ammortization") .... now about half of juventus 2006 ebitda margin comes from those massive players transfers.... wich means that the taxation data is much much higher than any other club in that list.... none of those clubs sold players for more than 60 millions euros that year in 2006.... so as soon as u put the taxation back into the equation..... well the figures change.... A LOT!
Is this totally true ? Sure they would have had to have sold some players (in the same way Liverpool will probably have to sell after missing out on the CL - if that happens this year), or the way Man Utd might have to sell due to impending debt. But for instance, with Ibrahimovic they tried to keep him, despite his big wages and the massive transfer fee he would generate. In the case of Ibrahimovic the decision seems utterly to be because the player wanted to avoid Serie B to the point where he was going to
have legal action against the club. I'm not sure the Vieira transfer was a financial issue, I have his autobiography at home so will try and find the quote from him in the preface, I think he said something along the lines of not wanting to play Serie B at his age.
I agree that EBITDA is not a perfect measure for valuation and investibility, but it is good for comparisons, especially for profitability as it negates the effects of financing and accounting decisions. I included Net Sales and Gross Income, since these three are common top line items in financial reporting. Anyway here are the taxation figures (in Euros)
Year -------- Pretax Income -------- Total Income Taxes -------- Current Domestic Income Taxes -------- Deferred Domestic Income Taxes
06/2009 -------- 13.4 -------- 6.8 -------- 5.5 -------- 1.3
06/2008 -------- (9.4) -------- 11.4 -------- 4.3 -------- 7.0
06/2007 -------- 4.2 -------- 5.1 -------- 3.8 -------- 1.3
06/2006 -------- (31.6) -------- 4.9 -------- 7.0 -------- (2.1)
06/2005 -------- 6.4 -------- 9.4 -------- 6.6 -------- 2.8
06/2004 -------- (20.0) -------- (1.5) -------- 5.7 -------- (7.2)
06/2003 -------- 9.5 -------- 7.4 -------- 4.0 -------- 3.4
06/2002 -------- 16.6 -------- 10.5 -------- 2.4 -------- 8.1
As you can see the pre tax income, which I assume is the figure you refer to by
"as soon as u put the taxation back into the equation..... well the figures change.... A LOT!" does change, it goes down to -31.6, but if you look in 2004, it was down at -20 anyway, so pre tax income has always fluctuated for Juventus in the last 10 years or so - even before the scandal. Also as you can see the total income tax for 2006 is 4.9, which is less than 9.4 from the year before. Even then Juventus were able to deferr their tax and spread the payment of it back over the next few years, so in fact the taxation is not of huge significance.
u say that u never read how that massive loss people talks about was calculated..... well of course u didn't, as no one writes a balance sheet including incomes that didn't actually came..... but if u wanna get an idea, just take a look at any other top flight club figures, and pay attentions to the incomes related to tv-rights, sponsorships, champion's league incomes and merchandising.... that what juve lost... it doesn't take an analist to figure out what kind of numbers we're talking about.
As a publicly traded company Juventus are legally forced to publish full financial reports such as balance sheets, income statements, etc. These have to adhere to standard accounting principles and so all items should be present. You can use 2005 figures to judge any income that Juventus should have had for champions league merchandising and sponsorship rights. Their position in 200, financially, can be used as a guide, since in 2004-5 they were Serie A winners (although they were later stripped of this in 2006, that would not have impacted on 2005 financial reporting) and were in the Champions League for the 2005-6 season. As such any financial losses should be reflected in financial reports from 2005 (pre scandal) to 2007 (post scandal).
yeah, but clubs usually do it by their own decision.... and they do it coz they obviously consider it a "step up".... that's absolutely not the case here (wich makes that birmingham and man city comparison absolutely wrong and unappropriate).
That may be the case with those two, but what about West Ham ? After the Icelandic take-over went wrong, the club were mooted for sale and had to change their board of directors. Eggert Magnusson was no longer a viable director of West Ham, yet the club have since survived and have new owners.
so let's say the truth: u can't stand the fact that juventus is still "alive" as a club... that's the reason of your hatred..... and that's probably also the reason why u seem to notice just the ref's calls wich go in juventus favour and not the ones that go in napoli, palermo, inter, milan favour.
This is wild conjecture on your part. I don't wish to see Juventus "dead", all I think is that appropriate punishment should have occured, and since that has not, there will always be suspicion over the favourable calls they have had. The facts are they were not punished for the scandals in the late 1990s, and the calciopoli punishment was not of significant severity. So long as justice has only been partially done there will always be massive doubts about this legitimacy.
So coming back to the discussion with edmundo. I still think he's wrong in thinking about a big conspiracy for Juventus and against other clubs. But if he's talking about the punishment of Juventus. He's maybe not that wrong, compare Juventus' punishment to that of my favourite club...or Fiorentina, or Real Madrid a couple of years ago when the Madrid municipality "bought" their training ground (my favourite club played in the centre of Brussels, if the Brussels' municipality would have bought the ground...all their financial would have been solved..but that is illegal in Belgium)
This is the crux of the matter, you can say that Fiorentina, Napoli and RDWM were liqidated and re-formed, and this is different to clubs like Juventus who were caught in a scandal. To my mind, but types of clubs committed errors / crimes, Fiorentina, Napoli and RDWM made accounting and financial management errors. They were punished (and maybe punishment is not the exact word to use, but the consequences were negative) by demotion to low leagues. Now, the punishment was a result of financial proceedures, but there was a possibility that the regional FA could have stepped in to prevent such a substantial demotion (e.g. forwarding of league payments, granting conditional licences, deferring monies owed by clubs) - it would have been complicated but these clubs could have been "managed" through their problems. I'm not saying this should have happened, just that such a possibility existed. If you compare this with Juventus (and you could even say Anderlecht too who were embroiled in a match fixing case, but this only came to light many years after the event, so it is a more complex issue) the FIGC did not demote them to the same level as Fiorentina and Napoli found themselves in. So it seems that financial errors are punished more than match/fixing ref scandals.
The whole point is you have to punish the latter with a significant punishment, match fixing, more than so many other scandals, damages the whole structure of the game, it means what we, the fans, are watching in the stadium or on tv is no more than a pre-ordained farce.
Leo also raises his hands in surrender. This sums it up:
but knowing how the things go in Italy, I wouldn't be too much surprised that Calciopoli was exaggerated only to take out from the games a superpower like Juventus for some times, or that the whole system is actually broken and they decided to take Juventus as a martyr to make believe that now it's all clean.
