The on topic thread

[Magma]

none of them. just differing ways of looking at something.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

whether you disagree with the modelling or not it's hardly some random on twitter.

it wuld all be just a bit boring if everyone accepted the exact same thing as gospel when i dont think there is really any particular reason why forbes, deloittes and whatnot are 'right'. people just seem to like the numbers a bit more.

Its not liking the numbers its just that they come from well regarded financial services and publications that would have been thoroughly fact checked.

 

[Magma]

Its not liking the numbers its just that they come from well regarded financial services and publications that would have been thoroughly fact checked.

and this guy has just done something different using a different method. people just don't like the result so the other one is better.

he hasn't made up numbers or anything, he has used the numbers given by clubs and used them a different way. a club value is an arbitrary figure regardless.

 

[moomba]

I think a lot of people are equating value with size of club.

How can City be ahead of United? How can Norwich be up there with Everton etc.

It's not really what it's all about.

I've not gone into huge depth, but I have no reason to doubt the claim that it is the most accurate model. My criticidm of is it is that it focuses on value at a particular point without considering some of the factors that affect clubs.

Liverpool for example last year had a big debt on the stadium and incurred a lot of costs but hadnt realised anything from it. Next set of figures they'll have extra stadium revenue to factor in.

Norwich had excelent figures, but got relegated so their value is going to take a dive.

If you're buying a club you don't ignore those other factors.

 

[Gosha]

Who would've thought the table moomba made would've caused so much controversy

 

[SM]

whether you disagree with the modelling or not it's hardly some random on twitter.

it wuld all be just a bit boring if everyone accepted the exact same thing as gospel when i dont think there is really any particular reason why forbes, deloittes and whatnot are 'right'. people just seem to like the numbers a bit more.

Apart from the whole academically accepted financial modeling shtick of course.

 

[moomba]

I didnt make any table. It's a model that has been around since 2013 afaik. We were 5th with a value of £401m.

 

[SM]

All that said.. A business is worth what someone will pay.

 

[Magma]

Apart from the whole academically accepted financial modeling shtick of course.

good thing no one ever challenged anything academically accepted then.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

and this guy has just done something different using a different method. people just don't like the result so the other one is better.

he hasn't made up numbers or anything, he has used the numbers given by clubs and used them a different way. a club value is an arbitrary figure regardless.

He has used a system that literally nobody else has ever used, im not the most familiar with KPMG, Deioltte and the likes but i doubt they would use this model.

From a marketing pov i can't use this to justify sponsoring a club over another when there are more regarded reports that are more accurate.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

All that said.. A business is worth what someone will pay.

Probably a shitload when we become a cashed up Arab's play thing

 

[SM]

good thing no one ever challenged anything academically accepted then.

Apart from the people posting a model with no grounding in academia and holding it as equal in the discussion as said academically accepted models.

 

[moomba]

He has used a system that literally nobody else has ever used, im not the most familiar with KPMG, Deioltte and the likes but i doubt they would use this model.

From a marketing pov i can't use this to justify sponsoring a club over another when there are more regarded reports that are more accurate.

You wouldnt use any of these to assess the brand value of a club. Different research available for stuff like that.

 

[Magma]

He has used a system that literally nobody else has ever used, im not the most familiar with KPMG, Deioltte and the likes but i doubt they would use this model.

From a marketing pov i can't use this to justify sponsoring a club over another when there are more regarded reports that are more accurate.

well no, of course not. but it would be strange if someone uses anything like that as a reason to why the should buy someone like a football club.

they're all just figures spurted out using the figures available to them and with different formulas. personally i think the deloitte one is the best but everyone will say theirs is the best and most accurate.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

Probably a shitload when we become a cashed up Arab's play thing

Spurs would be a good investment tbh

London based, good youf, new stadium as well as having the next big English player (which does sell).

 

[jd2010]

Spurs would be a good investment tbh

London based, good youf, new stadium as well as having the next big English player (which does sell).

Likely home to the London NFL franchise eventually too

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

You wouldnt use any of these to assess the brand value of a club. Different research available for stuff like that.

However that research is still as dry as financial reports.

I went into marketing to avoid the boredom

 

[moomba]

I posted a brand value report a year or so back. People got pissy about that too.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

Likely home to the London NFL franchise eventually too

Im still iffy on that.

Theoretically the NFL would need to add another team in the opposite conference.

And the west coast teams would have some really bad travel as well.

 

[Magma]

Spurs would be a good investment tbh

London based, good youf, new stadium as well as having the next big English player (which does sell).

problem is (for others) levy has his mitts on it, and knows it.

you'd be nuts to try and buy it from him. imagine how much any of the top 6 clubs would cost!

 

[jd2010]

Im still iffy on that.

Theoretically the NFL would need to add another team in the opposite conference.

And the west coast teams would have some really bad travel as well.

Travelling sides would just end up having the bye the week after playing in London. They'd find a way with the scheduling pretty easily there's enough games over there now already anyway

 

[Art Vandelay_]

problem is (for others) levy has his mitts on it, and knows it.

you'd be nuts to try and buy it from him. imagine how much any of the top 6 clubs would cost!

It'll happen soon enough. The owner is now 80 years old.

 

[jd2010]

problem is (for others) levy has his mitts on it, and knows it.

you'd be nuts to try and buy it from him. imagine how much any of the top 6 clubs would cost!

There'll come a time the ROI will be that much that ENIC and Levy will cash in. They bought the controlling stake for £25m and they'll easily get £800m when the new stadium is built.

All the investment has been on infrastructure like the training ground, youth facilities and now new stadium

 

[jd2010]

I don't think the selling price is the stumbling block at all really. It will be Levy wanting to remain as chairmen. He loves being a football chairmen and would love to still have that role with us. Wouldn't be against an Arab/Yank buying us and appointing him as football director

 

[Magma]

surely you'd ask for into the billions?

british clubs should just continue to bring in more and more cash.