• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Pros for buying SAFC vs NUFC

Status
Not open for further replies.
70s traveller said:
It must be god-awful just being a billionaire that no-one knows about? I somehow think "being noticed" was not one of his main reasons to buy Chelsea. I'd imagine he was very well known in the global business world long before his ties with Chelsea.
Click to expand...

Different owners, different agendas. A lot of Russian oligarchs with 'dubious' fortunes tend to acquire high profile assets sometimes as a kind of insulation.
 

So assuming that any club could be purchased and funded as a plaything to push up the leagues, what else does it take to make a club a good investment. Why was Man City, completely overshadowed by Man Utd for 30 years, chosen over Leeds or Villa or Sheffield. I think that being in Manchester next door to United gave City some extra cred, that wasn't there for a similar sized club from another city.

Ultimately you're looking for something "intangible" to take over and drive the club on beyond just player purchase. You're looking for the current image of the club which has a certain historical legacy (but only so far back). What about the image of the town/city? Is it a cool city, or an old city? What else in the city do people think of when they think of the football club?

Truly investing in a club (as opposed to being a rich mans play thing) has to mean that you either expect the business to appreciate in value so you can sell it for a profit, you expect to earn money from the annual operation of the club or the club will provide a commercial benefit to another business through advertising or cross-promotion.

I'm still at a loss as to which either club would offer to an owner.
 
Exiled in Texas said:
So assuming that any club could be purchased and funded as a plaything to push up the leagues, what else does it take to make a club a good investment. Why was Man City, completely overshadowed by Man Utd for 30 years, chosen over Leeds or Villa or Sheffield. I think that being in Manchester next door to United gave City some extra cred, that wasn't there for a similar sized club from another city.

Ultimately you're looking for something "intangible" to take over and drive the club on beyond just player purchase. You're looking for the current image of the club which has a certain historical legacy (but only so far back). What about the image of the town/city? Is it a cool city, or an old city? What else in the city do people think of when they think of the football club?

Truly investing in a club (as opposed to being a rich mans play thing) has to mean that you either expect the business to appreciate in value so you can sell it for a profit, you expect to earn money from the annual operation of the club or the club will provide a commercial benefit to another business through advertising or cross-promotion.

I'm still at a loss as to which either club would offer to an owner.
Click to expand...

Well, in the case of MCFC they didn´t just buy the club.. They took over East Manchester, right now our Abu Dhabi overlords are building 6000 new homes in the area. That in itself hints that the football club was just a part of what they wanted.
 
Sima said:
What derby defeat at The Stadium of Light did Kieron Dyer comment on your atmosphere being better than ours?
Click to expand...

Fuck knows if anyone else has responded to this but it was the 2-2 draw where Phillips scored twice, and it was summit about the atmosphere and hatred when the scum team was being read out.
 
Confucius said:
I wouldn't know, I've never tried buying one. Man Utd, Everton, Liverpool aren't set in the city centre, I'm not sure how many are to be honest
Click to expand...

Oh aye, it's not a vital part of the puzzle because, like you say, so few clubs have their stadium in the centre. I just meant that if the suitors are staying in a nice hotel, in a nice city, it improves their opinion of the club as a whole, no? Like Bristol City, vs Preston North End.

Grumpy Old Man said:
The last published external debt was £68m, but that may well have been reduced by now. The rumour in the summer was that Short was willing to accept £80m, although ideally he'd like £110m. A combined number in the range of £140-170m wouldn't be that far adrift, I'd have thought - say £250m less than Ashley wants for you.
Click to expand...

So if it's, say, £150m, any new owner would have to spend a lot of money to get you back in the top flight, and to consolidate you as a Premier League team before they start enjoying the rewards that the Premier League affords? Three seasons of spending on the playing squad that will be financed chiefly by player sales and owner investment?

Is that a fair assessment?
 
joss said:
Different owners, different agendas. A lot of Russian oligarchs with 'dubious' fortunes tend to acquire high profile assets sometimes as a kind of insulation.
Click to expand...
So what are the chances of one of them buying us?
Although if/when he (or she) decides to pull the finance for whatever reason we'd be in a worse situation and probably have had a manager from that part of the world so where we'd be?
 
The Fish said:
Oh aye, it's not a vital part of the puzzle because, like you say, so few clubs have their stadium in the centre. I just meant that if the suitors are staying in a nice hotel, in a nice city, it improves their opinion of the club as a whole, no? Like Bristol City, vs Preston North End.



So if it's, say, £150m, any new owner would have to spend a lot of money to get you back in the top flight, and to consolidate you as a Premier League team before they start enjoying the rewards that the Premier League affords? Three seasons of spending on the playing squad that will be financed chiefly by player sales and owner investment?

Is that a fair assessment?
Click to expand...

You're missing my point. I'm talking about how, for an investor-type buyer, there's potentially less financial commitment needed to be put into us to realise a profit of say, £100m, than would be needed to put into you to yield the same profit.

I'm saying you could buy us for £150m, spend £100m getting us to lower half PL, and you have an investment worth about £400m (going off Ashley's valuation of you now). That's a £150m profit on a £250m investment. To get you to the next level, they'd have to buy you for £400m, and may be spend as much again to get you to Europa League level. The club might then be worth, say £1bn. That's a £200m profit, but you've had to commit £800m to get it. Assuming, of course, either investment works; as we both know, football is very far from a means of guaranteed success. However, for an investor-led buyer, buying us would seem to require less upfront capital. For a buyer for whom that's not a relevant factor, then, at the moment, you're closer to playing with the big boys, and thus the more attractive prospect.

By the way, the only rewards the PL gives you is a better share valuation, and, for a certain kind of owner, a chance to bask in a warm, fuzzy glow of reflected glory. Any extra income you might get is swallowed up by additional wages, etc.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
You're missing my point. I'm talking about how, for an investor-type buyer, there's potentially less financial commitment needed to be put into us to realise a profit of say, £100m, than would be needed to put into you to yield the same profit.

I'm saying you could buy us for £150m, spend £100m getting us to lower half PL, and you have an investment worth about £400m (going off Ashley's valuation of you now). That's a £150m profit on a £250m investment. To get you to the next level, they'd have to buy you for £400m, and may be spend as much again to get you to Europa League level. The club might then be worth, say £1bn. That's a £200m profit, but you've had to commit £800m to get it. Assuming, of course, either investment works; as we both know, football is very far from a means of guaranteed success. However, for an investor-led buyer, buying us would seem to require less upfront capital. For a buyer for whom that's not a relevant factor, then, at the moment, you're closer to playing with the big boys, and thus the more attractive prospect.

By the way, the only rewards the PL gives you is a better share valuation, and, for a certain kind of owner, a chance to bask in a warm, fuzzy glow of reflected glory. Any extra income you might get is swallowed up by additional wages, etc.
Click to expand...
I prefer this answer
 
joss said:
Different owners, different agendas. A lot of Russian oligarchs with 'dubious' fortunes tend to acquire high profile assets sometimes as a kind of insulation.
Click to expand...
Prokhorov isn't that dodgy compared to a lot of the Oligarchs. He's cleaner than Roman for starters - they don't know what he was doing for the majority of his 20s and then suddenly he's in Yeltsin's inner circle :lol:
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
You're missing my point. I'm talking about how, for an investor-type buyer, there's potentially less financial commitment needed to be put into us to realise a profit of say, £100m, than would be needed to put into you to yield the same profit.

I'm saying you could buy us for £150m, spend £100m getting us to lower half PL, and you have an investment worth about £400m (going off Ashley's valuation of you now). That's a £150m profit on a £250m investment. To get you to the next level, they'd have to buy you for £400m, and may be spend as much again to get you to Europa League level. The club might then be worth, say £1bn. That's a £200m profit, but you've had to commit £800m to get it. Assuming, of course, either investment works; as we both know, football is very far from a means of guaranteed success. However, for an investor-led buyer, buying us would seem to require less upfront capital. For a buyer for whom that's not a relevant factor, then, at the moment, you're closer to playing with the big boys, and thus the more attractive prospect.

By the way, the only rewards the PL gives you is a better share valuation, and, for a certain kind of owner, a chance to bask in a warm, fuzzy glow of reflected glory. Any extra income you might get is swallowed up by additional wages, etc.
Click to expand...

Pure rubbish. The tv deal is up for negotiation again,to begin in 2019. There's now talk of Silicon Valley getting involved. So the deal is going to go right up again.
Already the overseas deal has beem negotiated in maybe 10 or 12 of the 70odd regions, and it's already up to almost half of the current one.
The NFL deal in comparison is worth £40bn a year with a market mainly concentrated in North America. The PL already reaches 200 countries and the tech companies want a slice. The current tv broadcasters won't loosen their grip easily.

What A Waster said:
Pure rubbish. The tv deal is up for negotiation again,to begin in 2019. There's now talk of Silicon Valley getting involved. So the deal is going to go right up again.
Already the overseas deal has beem negotiated in maybe 10 or 12 of the 70odd regions, and it's already up to almost half of the current one.
The NFL deal in comparison is worth £40bn a year with a market mainly concentrated in North America. The PL already reaches 200 countries and the tech companies want a slice. The current tv broadcasters won't loosen their grip easily.
Click to expand...

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top