Why did you have to bring the dozy old **** rhc into it lol
Sheikh: our booty?
- Thread starter Milk not bear jizz
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
If you want to make money there are easier ways than football. Reminds me of what Branson said about becoming a millionaire in the airline industry - easy, if you start off a billionaire. They can park their dosh in art and gold, I should imagine.
For all the money that football leaches out FSG haven't done too badly buying for 300 million squid and now valued at 650 million squid.
Considering that RBS trumpeted that a condition of the distressed sale was the immediate progress on a new (or developed) stadium, and that FSB did **** all for years, then no, they've not done badly. Hicks is a **** and deserved what happened to him (especially as he allegedly got an improved offer of £500m from DIC - that Gillet wanted to accept - a year before the forced sale) but he sort of has a point about the epic swindle thing.
Not really.
They've covered 3 years of £50m losses and have now put a further £150m into the ground development
Their net profit at a £650m sale price would be a marginal return on the capital employed over their period of ownership
- May 22, 2011
- 73,289
- 27,978
- 113
No one really makes money in owning a football club. Breaking even is probably classed as a good result. People shouldn't get into it to make money. Doesn't mean throw cash around like some owners have done, but running it like a business to keep costs down but being mindful that you must invest.
Can't really fault FSG for what they've done, got it cheap sure and although net spend hasn't been huge, they've put the transfer funds back into the club which plenty of other owners haven't done. Shoving money into the stadium now, yes it may make the club more appealing if they sell but is that a bad thing? If they make a bit of money form us, we get a new stand and some new players and then they sell on to someone willing to invest as well then everyones a winner really.
Can't really fault FSG for what they've done, got it cheap sure and although net spend hasn't been huge, they've put the transfer funds back into the club which plenty of other owners haven't done. Shoving money into the stadium now, yes it may make the club more appealing if they sell but is that a bad thing? If they make a bit of money form us, we get a new stand and some new players and then they sell on to someone willing to invest as well then everyones a winner really.
Many have made and are making money from investing in football clubs.
FSG invested in Liverpool for precisely that reason as well.
Of course they do, it's just rare because the club needs to be successful to do it.
That or the owners can put all the debt in the club like the Glazers did with Man Utd.
90% are not making any money.
No way.
It's done for other reasons.
Fsg are trading on the fringes using lfc to open markets to them.
The Arabs are doing it for image and advertising.
No way.
It's done for other reasons.
Fsg are trading on the fringes using lfc to open markets to them.
The Arabs are doing it for image and advertising.
They are doing it to be relevant to the western market and find ways of making money without oil (granted a football club doesn't do that, but as you say advertising).
In the lower leagues many do it either for love or the hope of one day hitting the PL jackpot.
The PL is completely different, the vast majority are in it for a profit.
You're confusing operating profit with a vast increase in the equity value due to the rapid PL inflation driven primarily by the TV revenues
FSG are in it for an exit profit, not 'other markets' opportunities. It's always about a long term ROI when talking about sums of cash like this
It will suck if the bubble bursts. If TV revenues ever suddenly decreased. Multiple clubs will go under.
700m? Must being buying a majority 49% stake
And they have to promise FSG get to keep their jobs at the club
that include massive glut of tv moeny there tobes?
you should have bought everton when you had the chance then tobes.
Only if they've structured long term debt on the current revenue streams
What'll happen is the short term player spending and wage contracts will more or less mirror the current level of revenue. Players values i.e. purchase price, are amortised over the length of their contract, so the liability only lasts 4 or 5 years tops.
If the TV revenues took a nose dive, then the clubs would just cut their cloth accordingly and the transfer values and contract wages would fall in line with the revenue level.
Well obviously mate.
that include massive glut of tv moeny there tobes?
you should have bought everton when you had the chance then tobes.
It's virtually every clubs prime revenue stream, and an incremental £40m dropping into the coffers will ensure a profit. They'll then no doubt increase their spending over time to mirror the income, as that's the crazy world of football, but in the short term there's going to be some healthy accounts in the PL next year.