http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbad...ops-the-worlds-50-most-valuable-sports-teams/ Arsenal now are #10 on the worlds most valuable sports teams. Before this turns into a string of posts, of "If we are so rich why don't we buy players...", this list is based on the value of the club and the potential of the club brand to earn money. It does not represent the richest club + owner combination. Arsenal is estimated to be worth 1.29 billion, but obviously the family that owns Manchester city is worth far more than that, and personal money is more available to be spent. So why post this? Because if and when FFP rules take effect it means that Arsenal will only be behind Manchester United in spending power and the richer Arsenal get, the more the gap is closed on the teams that require their owners to donate 100 million+ per season, in order to compete. The closer we can get to Manchester United at 2.23 billion, the more it will hurt the sugar-daddies, to keep financing their hobby year after year. As we have seen at Chelsea, the supply of cash has started to dry up a little. Ultimately, it will get to the point that these clubs have to compete with us on a club-level. Even the coffers of Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan are not bottomless. The plan is working, please keep faith.
You're wrong matey.That list shows how much it would cost you to buy that team.The Arsenal figure would be based on the number of shares and the current buying and selling priceof the shares.It has nothing to do with spending power
Nowhere in the article does it say that, and no one in the financial industry would be stupid enough to tell you that that figure represented "how much it would cost you to buy that team". The cost of buying anything is unrelated to the value of the item as any high school economics student will tell you. It is entirely based on supply and demand.
Also it makes you wonder how effectively the FFP will be policed. For example what is stopping Citeh selling the naming rights fo Mancinis chair in the dug out for £100 mill a season??
The FFP will turn out to be a huge pile of steaming horse poo...UEFA will not want to tackle the fallout from failing Barcelona, Real Madrid or any of the newly rich Russian clubs or French clubs as this is important to their power base and will continue to be. The clubs will find loop holes to crawl through. The only way to make it fair if to impose a transfer and wage limit...Uefa should tell clubs that they can spend a maximum of £70m per year on salaries (inc bonuses) then the best players won't all end up in just 1 or 2 clubs...for example if a club pays 150k per week to 2 players 100k per week to 2 this will equal approx £25.5m leaving the remaining 21 first team squad players to share £44.5m which is approx £40k per week per remaining player...if the club has a total of 35 players on their books it would lower it to approx 30k per week per player. It would stop clubs stock piling all the best players and if done across UEFA would lead to a much higher level of competition as rich clubs would not be able to keep raiding smaller clubs for their best players.
If that list is based on the wealth of a sports team perhaps you could explain to me why Citeh are not on the list.Most people do accept they are the world's wealthiest club. Have a look at the heading again.It mentions the word valuble not wealthiest.There is a big difference between the two words http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbad...ops-the-worlds-50-most-valuable-sports-teams/
As I pointed out. The club itself is not wealthy. Their earning and spending power is not that great when taken apart from their owners. In the article and the video it mentions that the valuation is based on the ability of the club to generate revenue. Manchester City as a club is not even a viable business without their owners putting in 100 million+ per year from their own pockets. Again this list is created by Forbes who are a respectable financial ratings company. They have a reputation to consider and a very careful to base their estimation on solid facts. This isn't the Bleacher report or some tacky spotty 5-year-old's blog where he can start accusing Kronke of stealing money from Arsenal without any grounds whatsoever. If Forbes say it, then you can be pretty sure it is true. Sorry if that tears down the fantasy world that you have built.
It pretty impressive that we are so far up that list considering our sponsorship deals are pretty poor due to us having to take long term deals to fund the stadium, once that improves in the next few years we should move further up the list. Most premier league clubs have better shirt sponsorship deals that us, even teams like spurs have better deals than us, and we are way behind Man u, Liverpool and Chelsea.
In £'s thats just under 825m, but we all love big numbers . But still, quite a fantastic valuation going against the top American sports franchises. Been following the transfer market lately? Wait 'till all the other clubs go bust and win by default? Not having a go mate but unless FFP becomes a reality (personaly I don't see it holding any water) we'll just have to make the best with what we have.
Chelsea will need to spend a little bit more to keep up with the Torres and Shevchenko years. Of course there may be more to come. (I did say "a little") I don't think the other clubs will go bust, but Machester United clearly can complete with Man City and Chelsea without large sums of money from their owners. The closer we can get to their revenue, the more we will able to compete without cash from our owners. This is the basis for our financial strategy.
Why are you being so rude ? I have not treated you to petty insults so why are are doing so to me but being you're such a ****ing smart arse i notice the title of this thread is Arsenal are now #10 0n the rich list.It isn't a "RICH LIST" it is a list of the most "VALUBLE" sporting clubs Have a look in a DICTIONARY and you will find "RICH" and "VALUBLE" have two different meanings
Sorry, apart from the comment about the fantasy world, I was not aiming the rest of the remarks at you, although having reread them I can see how you might have taken them that way. I was more pointing out that Forbes differs from the rather large number of very poorly written blogs that seem to exist offering "expert" opinion on the worth of Arsenal and their fiancial strategy.
Thank you I do also take your point about the difference between rich and valuable, but in this case they are more equitable as Forbes were valuing sports franchises as a business, not calculating book value. The author states in reply to one of the questions about how Forbes did the valuations with, "We typically value sports teams on multiples of revenues as <do?> most sports investment bankers, but <we?> also account for future revenue opportunities." Revenue generating potential formed a large part of the valuation, it wasn't based solely on assets.
No absolutely we do not, but revenue generation indicates money coming in, which hopefully means more money in the bank in the future. In fact the valuation indicates that Forbes think we will generate more money in the future than any other club in England, except Manchester United.
Apparently one of the the reasons Gazidis was employed was to increase Arsenal's commercial revenues.What ever people think of him he is starting to have success on this front.He has renewed the sponsorship with Citroen and signed new deals with Indesit,Bettson and Carlsberg.There is also a deal with an African telecoms company.Sometimes we as fans should give Gazidis a little bit of credit
Well, as managers, he and Wenger are given a strategy by the owner/board. Argue the strategy all you want, but once that strategy was decided, then Wenger and Gazidis have both done the best they could with that strategy. I came across this blog http://www.7amkickoff.com/2012/how-...to-bring-arsenal-level-with-the-big-spenders/ I have to admit the financial stuff was too much for me (Ok - yes even me!), but if there isn't a trick in the numbers it seems to indicate that the strategy is correct and Wenger is a genius. Only problem being he is slightly less of a genius than SAF. In any case, as you say, Gazidis needs credit as well as Wenger because the gap is closing.
Rumours last week were indicating that Adidas will replace Nike as our kit manufacturer.You would assume that Adidas have offered more money than Nike.The naming deal for the stadium and Emirates sponsorship of the club are due to end in the next few years so you would expect more money for replacing those contracts,The thought has always been that our stadium and shirt sponsorships were undersold
