The on topic thread

[moomba]

Well it hasn't been shown to be more accurate because it uses rubbish factors of analysis. You've asked the question and had it explained about why debt increases rather than diminishes value.

Surely the only way of proving accuracy is to compare valuations to actual purchase prices.

If this model is closer than the others then maybe the factors arent as rubbish as you might think.

 

[SM]

Surely the only way of proving accuracy is to compare valuations to actual purchase prices.

If this model is closer than the others then maybe the factors arent as rubbish as you might think.

Is it closer?

 

[glenferry23]

Or do we also have to prove there isn't a man who lives in the moon?

 

[moomba]

Blimey, and here I was thinking the burden of proof was on the person putting forward the bogus claim.

Or do we also have to prove there isn't a man who lives in the moon?

I asked the question that IF the Markham model is proven to be more accurate does it really matter if it's not a hundred years old or has the bscking of academia.

I don't know if it's nore accurate or not. It has been claimed that it is much more accurate by a few people in the football industry but I'll wait and see for myself. Thats why I've said a few times I'm keeping an open mind.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

If NFL have a London team they really need one up North too.

They would have to wait til the etihad gets expanded for any chance of a team really.

I think the nfl have 65000 seats as the bare minimum (But that could just be for superbowls)

 

[SM]

I asked the question that IF the Markham model is proven to be more accurate does it really matter if it's not a hundred years old or has the bscking of academia.

I don't know if it's nore accurate or not. It has been claimed that it is much more accurate by a few people in the football industry but I'll wait and see for myself. Thats why I've said a few times I'm keeping an open mind.

So you don't know, but because it spat out Man City as the most valuable PL club you felt the need to post it?

 

[moomba]

So you don't know, but because it spat out Man City as the most valuable PL club you felt the need to post it?

Are you for real?

 

[SM]

Are you for real?

Yes. You've openly admitted to not having the foggiest about the accuracy of the model, but still felt the need to post it. Only reason I could see you doing so is because of the team at the top. Or are you in the habit of posting unfounded and unproven models just for shits and gigs?

 

[moomba]

They would have to wait til the etihad gets expanded for any chance of a team really.

I think the nfl have 65000 seats as the bare minimum (But that could just be for superbowls)

Not sure how much extra the North Stand extension would add to capacity. Think we're at around 55k at the moment. Problem with it being a City identified team (and I'm sure we'd want a team if there was any chance) would be the potential loss of support from the red side of Manchester.

I guess Spurs might have the same problem but with so many teams in London and it being so populated it might not be that big an issue.

 

[jod23]

everyone take their mind off accounting and look at this aesthetically pleasing psg kit for next season

That's awful. Nothing will beat our kit for next season. Straight fire.

 

[moomba]

Yes. You've openly admitted to not having the foggiest about the accuracy of the model, but still felt the need to post it. Only reason I could see you doing so is because of the team at the top. Or are you in the habit of posting unfounded and unproven models just for shits and gigs?

I posted it because I thought it would interest some of us. No more reason than that. As I've mentioned, City being on top of this list doesn't benefit me in one solitary way. In the past I've posted Forbes, Brand Finance, Deloittes rankings on various topics without delving into the accuracy or the methodology of their models.

It's just shit to discuss on a footy message board.

 

[SM]

I posted it because I thought it would interest some of us. No more reason than that. As I've mentioned, City being on top of this list doesn't benefit me in one solitary way. In the past I've posted Forbes, Brand Finance, Deloittes rankings on various topics without delving into the accuracy or the methodology of their models.

It's just shit to discuss on a footy message board.

Lol ok.

 

[moomba]

Anyway, here is the research paper. Haven't read through it all yet but it is interesting.

This paper introduces an original multivariate model developed to value English Premier League (EPL) clubs. Prior to developing the model, established valuation methods were assessed for their accuracy in estimating an EPL club’s worth. Of these models, three were general company valuation techniques: market capitalisation, discounted cash flow and bankruptcy values; and three were contemporary football industry valuation models: revenue multiples, Forbes ‘Most Valuable Soccer Teams’ and broker values. For comparison purposes the models were calculated for a sample period of nine seasons between the 2003/04 and 2011/12 seasons. Estimated valuations were also compared to actual club sale transaction prices during the same period. Comparative results show the multivariate model introduced in the paper is the only universally applicable and reliable methodology to value EPL clubs of the methods evaluated.

Theres a fair bit of detail in there, as well as comparisons between Forbes and Markham models relating to sales of premier league clubs between 2003 and 2011. Forbes didn't have publicly available figures for 8 of the clubs sold, but of the remaining 7 there was pretty big deviations between their valuation and the sale price.

Man United - 2005 (-13.7%)
Aston Villa - 2006 (0.5%)
Liverpool - 2007 (12.1%)
Man City - 2007 (51.8%)
Newcastle - 2007 (7.4%)
Man City - 2008 (-59.2%)
Liverpool - 2010 (69.1%)

Markham had a few big variations too (Portsmouth 2006 -32.8% and Blackburn 2010 - 59.2%) but 10 of the 15 sales their valuation was within 10% of the actual sale price (2 of 7 for Forbes). And where they both had valuations, 5 of 7 times Markham was closer to the actual sale price.

Theres plenty more in there and you wouldn't expect a research paper to play down the accuracy of it's own research. But interesting stuff, might have another look after I get back from the school run.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2238265&download=yes

 

[Bojan KantKick]

A clubs valuation and what it sells for are 2 completely different things.

 

[jd2010]

They would have to wait til the etihad gets expanded for any chance of a team really.

I think the nfl have 65000 seats as the bare minimum (But that could just be for superbowls)

That's a Super Bowl requirement. There's a few in the 60-65k mark but yeah most are built with the intention to host the super bowl and are over that requirement

 

[moomba]

 

[moomba]

Presumably because of this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...n-Utd-signing-Ibrahimovic-Pogba-revealed.html

 

[Bojan KantKick]

lol so much of that is wrong. Pogba on under 200k a week? Please.

Raiola is being investigated.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

 

[Donnie Darko]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Taylor_(footballer,_born_1980)

who can match this players career?
a 20 year career as a backup or 3rd choice...

when he first came out on the scene he looked a decent player , but opted for a career of being a backup..

 

[SM]

Anyway, here is the research paper. Haven't read through it all yet but it is interesting.




Theres a fair bit of detail in there, as well as comparisons between Forbes and Markham models relating to sales of premier league clubs between 2003 and 2011. Forbes didn't have publicly available figures for 8 of the clubs sold, but of the remaining 7 there was pretty big deviations between their valuation and the sale price.

Man United - 2005 (-13.7%)
Aston Villa - 2006 (0.5%)
Liverpool - 2007 (12.1%)
Man City - 2007 (51.8%)
Newcastle - 2007 (7.4%)
Man City - 2008 (-59.2%)
Liverpool - 2010 (69.1%)

Markham had a few big variations too (Portsmouth 2006 -32.8% and Blackburn 2010 - 59.2%) but 10 of the 15 sales their valuation was within 10% of the actual sale price (2 of 7 for Forbes). And where they both had valuations, 5 of 7 times Markham was closer to the actual sale price.

Theres plenty more in there and you wouldn't expect a research paper to play down the accuracy of it's own research. But interesting stuff, might have another look after I get back from the school run.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2238265&download=yes

Sale price and value of the club are entirely separate..

 

[Jatz]

so they used a model which nobody else uses to value businesses.

I can probably manipulate a gordon growth model to make Leicester the most valuabke club in the world.

Go on then, do it you tease!

 

[Jatz]

lol so much of that is wrong. Pogba on under 200k a week? Please.

Raiola is being investigated.

If Raiola did something wrong, would United not be implicated in that? You signed off on the deal.

 

[Buckleys Jocks]

If Raiola did something wrong, would United not be implicated in that? You signed off on the deal.

Juventus were the ones who paid him though. It was reported at the time the deal was confirmed that this was the issue that kept delaying the announcement.

 

[Zidane98]

Juventus were the ones who paid him though. It was reported at the time the deal was confirmed that this was the issue that kept delaying the announcement.

According to football leaks Juve paid Raiola 21m and United are paying Raiola 16m in future payments + Pogba paying Raiola 2.2m himself. That's almost like 3rd party ownership.