|
Something that I meant to say in my previous post but didn't get around to was basically that if any owners like Hicks & Gillett or the Glazers were counting on a big sale of the club at a high price to bail them out, they completely overestimated the allure of any football club, even a successful one, to attract any investor(s) rich enough to afford the prices they are seeking. Football clubs simply aren't great business opportunities from a purely financial sense compared to other options that an investor can sink money into. People like Abramovich are rare and even the stereotypical spendthrift Arabian tycoons have been looking at things like infrastructure, costs, and development potential before pulling the trigger.
TyChan fucked around with this message at Dec 31, 2009 around 19:32 |
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 19:30 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 07:34 |
|
|
I think the only way to do it is to buy low and sell high. If you got in big for United when they first floated and then sold to the Glazers, you'd have come out with a ridiculous amount of money. Which is why people assumed, and may still assume, that the Glazers have some kind of meaningful strategy for increasing revenues. This is how a lot of business works. Beg or borrow money to buy a firm at its face value, increase revenues and make it worth more than what you paid for it. There are three strategies apparent. Either you increase traditional revenues (merchandise, tickets, anything Malaysians buy), you break the television agreement, or you break away from the league altogether. The trouble with forming a superleague is exactly that issue. You'll have three or four years of profits, and then after that most of the extra money will just go to the players. You're in a competitive market, it's in the interest of teams to pay players as much as they can. The only way to make supernormal profits in that of market is to be making significantly more than everyone else. Which means that the smartest money would be to break up the common bargaining agreement. Which would be difficult. And require a preponderance of lawyers. And everyone else would hate you and possibly make rules to spite you. I've said before, though, they could just do something if Sky tries to lowball the next rights bid. But that's probably less likely now ESPN have made a commitment to the market, as opposed to it simply being a choice between Sky and free-to-air terrestrial providers.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 20:00 |
|
Chiunque puņ essere Luther Blissett, semplicemente adottando il nome Luther Blissett
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:I think the only way to do it is to buy low and sell high. If you got in big for United when they first floated and then sold to the Glazers, you'd have come out with a ridiculous amount of money. That kind of leaves people like the Glazers or H&G up poo poo creek to a certain extent then, doesn't it? No new buyer is going to look at those clubs realistically and think, "oh, I'll buy this low and sell it even higher to someone else." You could do that with Birmingham, maybe, but not with an established player. The leverage buyout approach assumes (at least in America) that you've purchased an undervalued, easily improvable asset. Using Man-U as an example, by the time the Glazers got in, could they really have improved Manchester United's revenues to the point where they could sell it for a price that would still give them the profit the seek without taking the major risks you've mentioned? I don't think so. I think a lot of people interested in purchasing Liverpool or Manchester United have basically decided to wait until the present owners cash out because of the debt pressure and because cost-cutting will only serve to reduce the value of the clubs. That's not good news for the fans, but that's what I'd be doing if I was legally and professionally responsible for the proper investment of £1 Billion. quote:There are three strategies apparent. Either you increase traditional revenues (merchandise, tickets, anything Malaysians buy), you break the television agreement, or you break away from the league altogether. I do wonder what the Glazers could do to increase revenues at this point. They've already been fantastic about merchandising the hell out of the club. What else could you do to increase the value of Manchester United? I guess you could say you haven't squeezed the full worth out of emerging markets in Asia, but even then, the worth of that has to be pretty limited. I guess this is when you see how much a team can truly "sell out."
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 20:46 |
|
|
TyChan posted:That kind of leaves people like the Glazers or H&G up poo poo creek to a certain extent then, doesn't it? No new buyer is going to look at those clubs realistically and think, "oh, I'll buy this low and sell it even higher to someone else." You could do that with Birmingham, maybe, but not with an established player. They don't need to improve it at all though. Glazers are risk free at this point afaik, all the debt is leveraged against the club, they could walk away from the club and let it slide into administration and get bought up by someone else and they'll not be the poorer for it. The only reason they are holding onto the club as it stands is that it pays them a rather nice salary they've been allowed to set themselves based on the success of the club, as soon as the club stops being successful they can just wash their hands of it and walk out with lots of money. They bought the club with loans, transferred the loans to the club so they themselves are now debt free, because they are in charge at the club they choose their own salary and keep taking from the club while the club struggles to pay it's interest on the loans. They won't sell unless someone comes in with a huge freaking offer that makes it more profitable to take a lump sum now instead of their wonderfully fat guaranteed salaries for the rest of their forseeable lives. This is why he got all his kids in on this too.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 20:52 |
|
|
Naturally, they made such assumptions since they're still operating under the hilarious Ron Paul fallacy that people who are able to lay their hands on $1.5bn worth of equity are somehow intelligent enough to use it in a way that doesn't involve trying to lick one's own elbow and poo poo one's own pants. I think I realised aged fourteen that I was smarter than literally anybody who did anything, but even I fall for it sometimes. If United goes to poo poo, the Glazers still lose something like £250-300m of their own money, IIRC. Plus, banks don't really tend to let you gently caress up like that twice.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 20:53 |
|
|
Outrespective posted:They don't need to improve it at all though. I was thinking more about the propsect of selling the club for that profitable lump sum and the huge end profit that a good businessman should always be seeking. You're right in that they could just sell for a loss in comparison with their purchase price, but if they got enough in salaries and dividends during their tenure, they could still be just dandy. That approach just strikes me as slipshod, though, and if that's all you're looking to do when you buy a business, you're not maximizing the potential of your investment. fullleatherjacket posted:If United goes to poo poo, the Glazers still lose something like £250-300m of their own money, IIRC. Plus, banks don't really tend to let you gently caress up like that twice. Yeah. I assume that the Glazers will continue to want to do business of some kind. If you build a reputation as a business killer, it's going to be hard to get your hands on investment cash or get people to sell things to you. I think Hicks' reputation is pretty much shot at this point. MLB is already doing everything it can keep him from getting back into the Texas Rangers. TyChan fucked around with this message at Dec 31, 2009 around 21:04 |
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 21:01 |
|
|
So I've been learning about the English soccer leagues, how "any club" can make it to the top, theoretically, if they win each league they're in. Pretty interesting stuff. My question, though, is where does a club start? Say I'm a billionaire who wants to put together a football team, how does the league decide where my team goes? Do we just start at the shittiest league?
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 21:56 |
|
|
the posted:My question, though, is where does a club start? Say I'm a billionaire who wants to put together a football team, how does the league decide where my team goes? Do we just start at the shittiest league? In England this is the case. In Italy teams will sometimes be inserted into a league - this was the case for both Napoli and Fiorentina who ceased to exist and were later reformed as new clubs (neither were inserted in the top tier though). I'm not sure if every football association has the power to do it.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 21:59 |
|
|
So if like Bill Gates wanted to put together a team, and he bought all the top EPL players, they'd start at the worst English league and work their way to the Premiere league after like 10 years?
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 22:00 |
|
|
the posted:So if like Bill Gates wanted to put together a team, and he bought all the top EPL players, they'd start at the worst English league and work their way to the Premiere league after like 10 years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englis...l_league_system More or less. I think the highest level you can come in at is 9.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 22:04 |
|
|
the posted:So if like Bill Gates wanted to put together a team, and he bought all the top EPL players, they'd start at the worst English league and work their way to the Premiere league after like 10 years? Yep. I don't think there has ever been a precedent set when a club was inserted in to a higher league. AFC Wimbledon which has a similar fan base to the old Wimbledon FC had to start in the non-leagues.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 22:05 |
|
|
Stim posted:Yep. I don't think there has ever been a precedent set when a club was inserted in to a higher league. If by fanbase you mean 1000 people and Vinny Jones.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 22:24 |
|
|
the posted:So if like Bill Gates wanted to put together a team, and he bought all the top EPL players, they'd start at the worst English league and work their way to the Premiere league after like 10 years? That or you buy out a team and relocate them, ala Wimbledon who were a london based club who groundshared with Crystal Palace at Selhurst Park, being bought out and relocated to Milton Keynes. Of course it's much cheaper to do this with a league one or two club, which is 3rd or 4th level, saves you working all the way up from the 9th level without having to fork out hundreds of millions and not getting to move the team at all or rebrand them if you bought a premiership team. Of course if you are Mike Ashley, buy a prem team for hundreds of millions, get them relegated in farcical circumstances, treat the fans and the history of the club like utter poo poo and a toy you no longer want for almost a year so that when you do start rebranding the team in your image the fans will accept it because it wasn't as bad as it was before. Mike Ashley's Newcastle Sports Direct United who play at Nintendo Wii@St James Park.com Clubs who start out again at the 9th level are usually fan based like FC United (formed after Man United got bought out by the Glazers) and AFC Wimbledon. Outrespective fucked around with this message at Dec 31, 2009 around 22:30 |
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 22:27 |
|
|
ESPN Soccernet posted:ESPN Soccernet can disclose that moves are afoot to sound out potential investors in Portsmouth with a view to subjecting the club to an amazing third takeover of the season. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/s...england&cc=5739 The Guardian posted:The chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association, Nick Cusack, will meet Portsmouth officials on Monday for talks about the state of the club's finances, after yesterday's disclosure that players' wages had not been paid on time for a third month this season. Portsmouth said that they expected the squad to be paid on Tuesday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...ers-wages-faraj Not really much to say beyond the usual stuff. I really do feel like we are witnessing the end of a football club now.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2009 23:48 |
|
|
Stim posted:Yep. I don't think there has ever been a precedent set when a club was inserted in to a higher league. Most clubs which go pop don't actually start at the super lower level, FC United of Manchester and AFC Wimbledon certainly didn't start at the lower tier [tier 21 (Redrow) Lancashire Amateur League: Division 7 in FC United of Manchester's case], AFC Wimbledon started at tier 9 for instance
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 02:07 |
|
|
JingleBells posted:Most clubs which go pop don't actually start at the super lower level, FC United of Manchester and AFC Wimbledon certainly didn't start at the lower tier [tier 21 (Redrow) Lancashire Amateur League: Division 7 in FC United of Manchester's case], AFC Wimbledon started at tier 9 for instance It's still all within non-league though right? I don't think a club has ever been kept/inserted into the Football League or whatever?
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 02:36 |
|
|
Stim posted:It's still all within non-league though right? I don't think a club has ever been kept/inserted into the Football League or whatever? Yeah, all semi-pro stuff, I don't believe anyone has suddenly turned up in division 3/league two
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 02:40 |
|
|
Stim posted:If they owe money to the HMRC and there is no real proposition to pay them off then they will cease to exist. What happens to the season schedule if this were to happen before all the games have been played? Any solution I can think of is unfair. Default all the remaining fixtures 3-0? Or would they be able to scrounge up enough money to cover the debts by selling absolutely everything and then play on a rented pitch in the sticks with their reserve side? And even managing to keep the stadium around until the end of the season would be more meaningful for the taxman because they could use the club to generate a modicum of income in receipts etc.
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 04:14 |
|
|
Antti posted:What happens to the season schedule if this were to happen before all the games have been played? Any solution I can think of is unfair. Default all the remaining fixtures 3-0? I think their results don't count and the league is counted with 36 games played. Imagine the outrage if Liverpool make 4th on goal difference because their loss to Pompey was discounted.
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 04:22 |
|
|
Antti posted:What happens to the season schedule if this were to happen before all the games have been played? Any solution I can think of is unfair. Default all the remaining fixtures 3-0? I'm googling this but can't find anything right now (I'm pretty drunk too.. I'll have a good look tomorrow I promise!). I really doubt they can cover the debts by selling. Their players are worth very little and will be sold for even less given the conditions, their stadium is worth very little and doesn't even have shelter on some stands. If they are deemed bankrupt and unable to repay their debts everything will be sold for extremely low prices and they will be unable to take part in the league. The Premier League has been incredibly generous to Portsmouth and arguably they should have been put into administration a long time ago. If they go completely bust and cease to exist then it's because the authorities arguably let them off the hook so often. It's really depressing and I feel sorry for the actual fans. Unless some miracle owner comes in and saves them I think they are doomed.
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 04:25 |
|
|
gently caress, one of our rare victories was against Portsmouth. If they cease to exist, does that mean only two relegations or will 17th go down?
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 05:24 |
|
|
pisshead posted:gently caress, one of our rare victories was against Portsmouth. If they cease to exist, does that mean only two relegations or will 17th go down? two relegations and three promotions, kinda the opposite of what they did to even out the prem at 20 back like 15 years ago
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 06:10 |
|
|
Antti posted:What happens to the season schedule if this were to happen before all the games have been played? Any solution I can think of is unfair. Default all the remaining fixtures 3-0? A Belgian league club went pop this year and they erased its fixtures from the schedule and clubs' records, loving up the standings. The NPL did the same with King's Lynn I think. Luigi Thirty fucked around with this message at Jan 1, 2010 around 20:30 |
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 06:34 |
|
|
Didn't the Premier League just alter the rules to allow them to step in if a club was liable to go belly up? I think it got lost in the whole Gartside/Whelan EPL 2 cuntery which was at the same meeting. Edit : Although the concept of Liverpool squeaking in to 4th due to Portsmouth's results being wiped would be too glorious for words.
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 06:44 |
|
|
I don't know where the OP is getting the "Spurs have no debt" line from. David Conn's EPL debt report from June says that Spurs have £65m debt. Forbes' latest soccer team valuations report have Spurs at 29% debt/value, which according to their valuation of the team puts their debt at £90m. One would have to assume that's only to get worse with the burden of a new stadium and a free-spending Redknapp at the helm.
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 08:47 |
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:
I believe this was the case shortly after buying the club but i think the glazers have now transferred the vast majority of that to the club. Oceanbound posted:I don't know where the OP is getting the "Spurs have no debt" line from. David Conn's EPL debt report from June says that Spurs have £65m debt. Forbes' latest soccer team valuations report have Spurs at 29% debt/value, which according to their valuation of the team puts their debt at £90m. One would have to assume that's only to get worse with the burden of a new stadium and a free-spending Redknapp at the helm. Thanks for the link, i'll update everything in a bit.
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 11:10 |
|
|
Guess whose company is the main sponsor of Portsmouth FC? 
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 13:40 |
|
|
Oceanbound posted:I don't know where the OP is getting the "Spurs have no debt" line from. David Conn's EPL debt report from June says that Spurs have £65m debt. Forbes' latest soccer team valuations report have Spurs at 29% debt/value, which according to their valuation of the team puts their debt at £90m. One would have to assume that's only to get worse with the burden of a new stadium and a free-spending Redknapp at the helm. Nah, look at the annual report. Copy here: http://ir2.flife.de/data/tottenham/...f/1000001_e.pdf Revenue: £113m Pre-tax profit: £33.4m (record) Debt: £45.9m Here's the reason we're in rude health - we're run as a business, not as a vanity project for someone. The new stadium is an investment, and the way it's being planned is designed to minimise any costs and risks to the club - no groundsharing, no reduction in capacity, no need to run two sites concurrently. The other point is that a large amount of the investment has already taken place - the club's been buying up the property around the ground for years. The club's assets stand at about the £300m mark. The cost of the new stadium's supposedly around £250m, question would be around how it's funded (loans, money from ENIC/Joe Lewis, season ticket debentures, etc), and what that costs the club annually. Looking at the way the club runs, I doubt it will be anything other than the most cost effective way. Next thing's to look at how Redknapp's actually acted and spoken since he came in. He's a wheeler and a dealer, not someone who just throws money about. Look at who he's brought in, and I'd say it's difficult to argue any of them have been a waste: Defoe, Palacios, Cudicini, Chimbonda, Keane, Bassong and Crouch. To me, we've paid well below the value of the impact they've had on the club, and that's the characteristic of the way Redknapp deals in the transfer market. Also, bear in mind that what any manager has to spend is set by the board, not by the manager. So yeah, we've probably got one of the best sustainable financial outlooks of any club in the Premier League. Looking a few miles down the road, the Highbury Square thing at Arsenal is a bit of a mystery box. I've not got time to dig into it at the moment, but I've seen stuff in the past which has suggested there's a degree of exposure with the financial situation, and the possibility of buyers defaulting. Definitely unfortunate with deciding to create a massive housing development at the time they did.
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 19:06 |
|
I am the law, but an easily bribed kind of law.
|
Oh, and: http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...40&pagenumber=1
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2010 19:18 |
|
|
MattWPBS posted:Also, bear in mind that what any manager has to spend is set by the board, not by the manager. This is what I don't understand about the whole Pompey fiasco. Somebody must have realized at some point that Redknapp's spending was just not sustainable. The opposite is simply unfathomable. So they allowed it. Why? Did they think that Gaydamak was just going to keep pumping money in? Was it Gaydamak's fault for letting it happen? But I think there had been rumblings for quite a while that he wanted to sell up. Whoever was in charge must have thought that whoever replaced him would be able to eat the losses. Little did they know that they somehow managed to come upon not one, but two Arabs who have absolutely no money. Which brings me to another question: why is someone who doesn't even have enough money to pay the running costs of a club buying it in the first place? So many questions, and yet none will ever be answered.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2010 13:23 |
|
|
Because they hoped to get away quickly enough. If you follow the paper trail back far enough, then the whole lot belongs to Gaydamak because SAFahim and the new owners haven't bothered paying him yet.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2010 14:01 |
|
|
The rumours are that the new Pompey owner has money but was tricked or coerced into buying. Understandably, he doesn't want to pump any money into the club. Good money after bad and all that. The whole situation just seems to be one huge financial clusterfuck.
|
| # ? Jan 3, 2010 13:04 |
|
|
Glazers trying to sort out the debt. Interest payments were £69 million last year, insane. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/t...icle6973929.ece
|
| # ? Jan 3, 2010 13:11 |
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Glazers trying to sort out the debt. Interest payments were £69 million last year, insane. I'm trying to work out how much money Leeds have just cost them denying them a cup run, multiple millions certainly.
|
| # ? Jan 3, 2010 15:28 |
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:I'm trying to work out how much money Leeds have just cost them denying them a cup run, multiple millions certainly. The real question is how the gently caress did they take out a loan with 14.25% interest. Thats about 5% less then what you will pay on those lovely store credit cards that anyone can get.
|
| # ? Jan 3, 2010 15:53 |
|
|
PhillyLucky posted:The real question is how the gently caress did they take out a loan with 14.25% interest. Thats about 5% less then what you will pay on those lovely store credit cards that anyone can get. poo poo, with the recession right now I'm getting bombarded with credit card offers for things with up to 30% APR.
|
| # ? Jan 3, 2010 17:56 |
|
|
PhillyLucky posted:The real question is how the gently caress did they take out a loan with 14.25% interest. Thats about 5% less then what you will pay on those lovely store credit cards that anyone can get. If you're a creditor with that much money at stake, you ideally want an interest rate that will outperform the return you'd get from other kinds of investments while not putting on so much of an obligation on the borrower that default becomes a certainty. 14.25% sounds about right.
|
| # ? Jan 3, 2010 17:58 |
|
|
The owners of Derby County at the moment are being very clever, in that they're not spending outside of their means at all, and have reduced the club debt to not much more than the mortgage on the stadium. A lot of fans are getting irate about mediocre players etc, but I think at this rate everyone seems set to go bankrupt and we'll end up in the Premier League regardless. Cardiff are in the news today about rumours they're getting wound up, planning to be the last club standing doesn't seem overly silly now.
|
| # ? Jan 3, 2010 18:46 |
|
|
Bovine Delight posted:poo poo, with the recession right now I'm getting bombarded with credit card offers for things with up to 30% APR. Pfft, that's nothing. Try 2356% APR
|
| # ? Jan 3, 2010 19:13 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 07:34 |
|
|
That's both scary and hilarious
|
| # ? Jan 3, 2010 19:15 |
|
