The on topic thread

[Zidane98]

Nah, Chelsea would be worth over a bil. Forbes value united at 2.8 billion iirc and real and barca around 3 billion.
1.5 billion seems logical imo

I'd say those valuations are a little on the "enthusiastic" side.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

I'd say those valuations are a little on the "enthusiastic" side.

Why? United have 1.25 billion quid of inflows from 2 sponsors over the next 10 years. Increased TV rights will only lead to increased valuations. moomba probably has a better handle on it than me.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Probably should be in the FFP/Finances thread so this will be the last I post on it in here*

I did a quick search on Chelsea on Swiss Ramble. The following link breaks down the impact of the new TV deal on every EPL team and then goes further into Chelsea's balance sheet and outlook.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Chelsea

It does appear to be a little thin but the worse case scenario (Roman calling the debt) is extraordinarily unlikely. JT would have to root his mrs or something.

Every EPL team will pocket ridiculous sums over the new TV deal, increased sponsorship levels, etc. You'd have to be blind freddy to mess this up. All teams have to do is stay in the EPL and the owners will make a mint (looking at you Mike Ashley).

People talk about the ridiculous transfer fees paid for players. This is the new norm and it will continue. Every club outside of England knows that the English teams are minted.

The Glazers discussed the increase in TV revenue and commercial opportunities in 2005 when they LBO'd United. They were spot on

*May not be the last I post on it in here. I will bite at most stupid replies.

 

[chef]

Pretty much Roman owes Roman £900m.

 

[Magma]

yeah, you'd have to pretty much be insane to consider selling a prem team in the next 10 years.

as long as sky and bt and other possible competitors continue to pump money in, clubs will profit. i dont know if it means that transfer fees will continue to rise. wages definitely. the premier league gets more investment than most sports get overall. it's insane

 

[NUFC Tiger]

yeah, you'd have to pretty much be insane to consider selling a prem team in the next 10 years.

as long as sky and bt and other possible competitors continue to pump money in, clubs will profit. i dont know if it means that transfer fees will continue to rise. wages definitely. the premier league gets more investment than most sports get overall. it's insane

Read an article a few weeks ago suggesting Mike Ashley is setting a dangerous precedent for the league where his money hungry approach might lead to other investors buying into PL clubs and then running them as money making entities (rather than trying to improve the club's competitiveness).

Hope that isn't true, imagine seeing 5-6 (or more) clubs with no interest in trying to crack the top bracket and who only want to make their owners lots of money.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Mirror going early with their April fool's jokes - apparently we will appoint Steve McLaren in the summer and spend $60m overhauling the squad (Colo, Krul and Tiote being sold off).

Given we've not spent a penny in 3 of the last 4 windows, I'd frankly be surprised if we spend $6m!

 

[Jatz]

Read an article a few weeks ago suggesting Mike Ashley is setting a dangerous precedent for the league where his money hungry approach might lead to other investors buying into PL clubs and then running them as money making entities (rather than trying to improve the club's competitiveness).

Hope that isn't true, imagine seeing 5-6 (or more) clubs with no interest in trying to crack the top bracket and who only want to make their owners lots of money.

That wouldn't really work because then one (or more) of those clubs would be relegated, losing a whole lot of money in the process. The rich owners definitely wouldn't want that.

 

[Latro]

Read an article a few weeks ago suggesting Mike Ashley is setting a dangerous precedent for the league where his money hungry approach might lead to other investors buying into PL clubs and then running them as money making entities (rather than trying to improve the club's competitiveness).

Hope that isn't true, imagine seeing 5-6 (or more) clubs with no interest in trying to crack the top bracket and who only want to make their owners lots of money.

Like Kroenke

 

[NUFC Tiger]

That wouldn't really work because then one (or more) of those clubs would be relegated, losing a whole lot of money in the process. The rich owners definitely wouldn't want that.

Possibly but assuming they buy into established teams and only invest just enough/minimal amount to keep the club competitive enough to finish safely in midtable, it could potentially work. You'd reasonably expect they'd all start with stronger survival chances than most of the newly promoted sides in any case.

With the TV/commercial revenue side of the game only likely to continue to climb, it might attract more grub owners.

Like Kroenke

Pretty good comparison Latro - at least for you guys, you do spend money most windows (more than Cashley can say) and you are competitive out on the pitch most of the time. Would probably be frustrating as an Arsenal fan to see the club making so much money but failing to flex its financial muscles against some of the bigger spenders in the league/world.

 

[Shoei]

Football clubs are a very poor investment if you are looking to "make a mint".

I hope people realise the difference between revenue and profit.

Arsenal's revenue was £299 million for 2013/14 but the club's PROFIT was only £4.3 million

 

[Magma]

the increased revenue will definitely entice the likes of mike ashley to get involved. ffp has put a stop to anyone like the sheikh completely transforming a club.

 

[moomba]

The way to make money out of a football club has never been about profits, more about awarding contracts to your own private companies for goods/services used by the club, or simply hanging on to your investment and seeing the value rise.

Around the start of the premier league era Man United was valued at around £8m. They almost certainly wouldn't have hit the heights they have financially without a huge spend in those early 90's but even if they had only just done enough to stay in the league they would be worth ten times that now at least.

One change could be the new premier league FFP rules. Wages can only go up by £4m a year plus the increase in your commercial contracts. So this new TV wedge can't be spent on the players, it will never get spent on the supporters so owners might start making some serious money in profits out of football clubs.

Some people might scoff, but I reckon in the next 20 years, Sheikh Mansour would have made more out of Man City than he's spent. And he'll have a club valued at well over £1bn for his troubles.

 

[moomba]

£18.7m profit for the Geordies.

 

[jd2010]

I believe we technically are 'debt free' to any banks/financial institutions - Mike Ashley paid off the original $130m odd when he took over the club and the club 'owe' him this in an interest free loan. Given how much cash stripping he's done in the last few years, many Toon fans are curious to see where the debt currently stands ($121m is the last figure given) but that is outdated and 'surely' given he's been running the club on a shoestring, he's been using plenty of the profits to reduce that debt to him (many speculate he won't even entertain selling the club until that is paid off first - that would potentially also knock a good $130m off any asking price too hopefully).

$40m profit (second best of all clubs I think mentioned there) says it all.

Debt is to the owner who is running your club at a profit but terribly on the pitch. I can see why he runs it the way he does, owed a lot of money by the club he doesn't support (Spurs & Rangers fan apparently). Feel for the fans because a big club has just been used as a giant Sports Direct marketing tool

 

[Shoei]

The way to make money out of a football club has never been about profits, more about awarding contracts to your own private companies for goods/services used by the club, or simply hanging on to your investment and seeing the value rise.

Around the start of the premier league era Man United was valued at around £8m. They almost certainly wouldn't have hit the heights they have financially without a huge spend in those early 90's but even if they had only just done enough to stay in the league they would be worth ten times that now at least.

One change could be the new premier league FFP rules. Wages can only go up by £4m a year plus the increase in your commercial contracts. So this new TV wedge can't be spent on the players, it will never get spent on the supporters so owners might start making some serious money in profits out of football clubs.

Some people might scoff, but I reckon in the next 20 years, Sheikh Mansour would have made more out of Man City than he's spent. And he'll have a club valued at well over £1bn for his troubles.

An investment is only worth it if it increases in value.

Football clubs require constant spending just to maintain their ability to stay in the premier league/champions leag. One bad season and your investment get wiped out.

The top 5-6 clubs maybe good investments purely because their commercial contracts can offset/balance the income needed to improve the playing squads.

The rest of the teams in the league cant. They are forever stuck in the get player/incur costs sell player/recover costs try not to get relegated cycle. There is very little money to be made off these clubs.

 

[jd2010]

Football clubs are a very poor investment if you are looking to "make a mint".

I hope people realise the difference between revenue and profit.

Arsenal's revenue was £299 million for 2013/14 but the club's PROFIT was only £4.3 million

Would be interesting to know how much Sports Direct's profits have risen since Ashely took over at Newcastle. That is how the money is made through the "sponsor" company. Same with the Arabs and Etihad.

Roman didn't buy Chelsea to make money, he did it for PR to clean his image. Apparently (the guy who testified against him died) made his money through fraudulent acquisitions of land, forged documents on oil purchases, arms trading etc.

 

[moomba]

Would be interesting to know how much Sports Direct's profits have risen since Ashely took over at Newcastle. That is how the money is made through the "sponsor" company. Same with the Arabs and Etihad.

Isn't the whole point of sponsoring a sports team to raise your profile and ultimately revenue/profits?

 

[chef]

Roman didn't buy Chelsea to make money, he did it for PR to clean his image. Apparently (the guy who testified against him died) made his money through fraudulent acquisitions of land, forged documents on oil purchases, arms trading etc.

Agree he's not doing it for money, not sure about the PR bit.

 

[jd2010]

Isn't the whole point of sponsoring a sports team to raise your profile and ultimately revenue/profits?

Yeah but sponsors don't generally own the club like Ashley

 

[moomba]

An investment is only worth it if it increases in value.

Football clubs require constant spending just to maintain their ability to stay in the premier league/champions leag. One bad season and your investment get wiped out.

The top 5-6 clubs maybe good investments purely because their commercial contracts can offset/balance the income needed to improve the playing squads.

The rest of the teams in the league cant. They are forever stuck in the get player/incur costs sell player/recover costs try not to get relegated cycle. There is very little money to be made off these clubs.

The value of Spurs has risen by USD$271m since 2007 according to Forbes. Without really any sort of spending.

I agree that it's difficult, and there are a lot of disaster stories, but I'd be surprised if in 5 years time the value of every team that stays in the premier league hasn't risen by at least 50%.

 

[moomba]

Yeah but sponsors don't generally own the club like Ashley

Etihad doesn't own Man City.

 

[jd2010]

Agree he's not doing it for money, not sure about the PR bit.

Raises his profile considerably. Would say that 95% of people see his face and think billionaire football club owner and not someone who has had a chequered past. Fantastic PR value being a face of a club IMO

 

[jd2010]

Etihad doesn't own Man City.

Let's not get started on the ownership structures of City and the Arabs. We both know you pass the tests but there's some very close links between company and owners. If you can work within the rules whilst everyone doesn't believe it go for it, fair play to them I say!

 

[moomba]

Let's not get started on the ownership structures of City and the Arabs. We both know you pass the tests but there's some very close links between company and owners. If you can work within the rules whilst everyone doesn't believe it go for it, fair play to them I say!

People need to make their mind up. Is Etihad being used to prop up City by paying inflated sponsorship deals? Or is City being used to prop up Etihad as you are inferring?

Maybe there is no conspiracy and it's just a straightforward commercial deal that is very beneficial to both parties.