Latest Takeover Rumour. The Moores / Noell one

[Goat]

Manchester City are currently minus approximately £1 billion since the owners took over, Chelsea about the same. Liverpool owe their owners over £100 million. Newcastle will probably be relegated and worth nothing. Southampton only make a profit as they sell players every year, their profit in total was half what they made in sales, so without sales they lose about £30 million a year. Stoke are minus about £300 million since Peter Coates took over.

Football clubs do not make money for owners. Luckily for most of those you mention they have rich benefactors.

The teams you mentioned.

City and Chelsea, their owners have ZERO interest in making money, its a hobby for both of them.
Ashley will make money on Newcastle when he sells.
Not 100% on the owners structure at Southampton so wont comment
The owners of the vermin "bought" the club for buttons and will make a vast profit when it comes to selling

Premiership clubs, as long as they remain premiership clubs are worth vast sums of money.

 

[Ihaters]

Do you not think that this limits the pool of potential investors quite substantially?

BK has been (correctly) criticised for the time it has taken him to not find an investor. But as someone said earlier even City had to go through their Shinawatra stage and Chelsea had Ken Bates of all people.

Ah but we had Johnson and Kenwright, isn't our turn for a good one yet?

 

[The Esk]

No need, we all know what will happen. Transfer fees and wages will go up, clubs will compete against each others, players and agents will get richer, football clubs will continue to lose money.

Let's agree to disagree, the situation is changing rapidly - if I get time over the next few weeks I'll go through each of the clubs to demonstrate why I stated what I stated.

 

[hallamblue]

Let's agree to disagree, the situation is changing rapidly - if I get time over the next few weeks I'll go through each of the clubs to demonstrate why I stated what I stated.

I understand that with some clubs having new owners who wish to try and make money why you might think that. But as long as there are clubs like City and Chelsea who have owners with ridiculous amounts of money, and Utd and Arsenal who have massive turnover, the rest will have to bankrupt themselves just to stay competitive.

 

[toffee matt]

Manchester City are currently minus approximately £1 billion since the owners took over, Chelsea about the same. Liverpool owe their owners over £100 million. Newcastle will probably be relegated and worth nothing. Southampton only make a profit as they sell players every year, their profit in total was half what they made in sales, so without sales they lose about £30 million a year. Stoke are minus about £300 million since Peter Coates took over.

Football clubs do not make money for owners. Luckily for most of those you mention they have rich benefactors.

The Sheikh just made £265 million for selling only 13% of City. I suspect they could recoup a large percentage of their loses if they ever sell.

 

[Goat]

Let's agree to disagree, the situation is changing rapidly - if I get time over the next few weeks I'll go through each of the clubs to demonstrate why I stated what I stated.

Well look at it this way, over the last 5 years only 5 clubs have spent more than 100m NET.

City - Owners have no interest in making money 322m
Chelsea - Owner has no interest in making money 224m
United - Owners bought the club with loans, makes an unreal amount of money each year 300m
Vermin - Owners bought the club with loans, makes big money each year, bought for buttons 162m
Arsenal - Owners structure is a bit complicated, makes vast sums from its stadia, business side is immense 99m

Then theres West Ham, whos price will have sky rocketed due to the "free" stadia 93m

The next team is then Newcastle which stands at 68m

I think its safe to assume that every club in the leagues value has risen by at least 68m in the last 5 years.

Theres not a single owner that will lose money currently if they sold the clubs they bought.

 

[SerenityNigh]

This season you can attually see the under investment in Utd.

?

 

[Ihaters]

I understand that with some clubs having new owners who wish to try and make money why you might think that. But as long as there are clubs like City and Chelsea who have owners with ridiculous amounts of money, and Utd and Arsenal who have massive turnover, the rest will have to bankrupt themselves just to stay competitive.

There's crazy money to be had from best of the rest because of the increasing sky deals.. 5th and 6th spots is where the safer money will be made imo.
If you want CL, you must invest heavily AND do well.
If you want the title, you need to bankrupt yourself or have a Varney AND a defence.

I'd expect a new owner to be aiming for 5th - 8th and hoping for more.

 

[The Esk]

I understand that with some clubs having new owners who wish to try and make money why you might think that. But as long as there are clubs like City and Chelsea who have owners with ridiculous amounts of money, and Utd and Arsenal who have massive turnover, the rest will have to bankrupt themselves just to stay competitive.

Alternatively they could decide that there is a minimum level of investment required to ride the PL gravy train and be on the edge of CL competitiveness whilst focusing on growing the global brand.

It's no longer about being in the top 4, for fans yes, for owners it's nice but not strictly necessary.

@Ihaters sorry we posted at the same time.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Yes I think it clearly does, but I do not think that is a bad thing to be honest. It's critical that whoever becomes the next owner does things correctly for the interests of the club, not just a function of financial engineering.

Having said that time is also a critical issue if we want to become truly competitive on the pitch. The window of opportunity is closing steadily.

What do you think are the critical mistakes to avoid? Off the top of my head, these stick out:

Create a negative financial arrangement such that players need to be sold (again) to balance the books
Relegation
Building a terrible new ground

Of all these, I'd worry about building a bad ground; the others can I think could be turned around with new owners within 10 years.

 

[hallamblue]

Alternatively they could decide that there is a minimum level of investment required to ride the PL gravy train and be on the edge of CL competitiveness whilst focusing on growing the global brand.

It's no longer about being in the top 4, for fans yes, for owners it's nice but not strictly necessary.

@Ihaters sorry we posted at the same time.

But with all clubs having the money, and chasing the same players there will just be massive escalation in fees and wages. It will be the same as when the Premier League started.

 

[SerenityNigh]

But with all clubs having the money, and chasing the same players there will just be massive escalation in fees and wages. It will be the same as when the Premier League started.

It's a big world, and wages are escalating across Europe slower than in England.

 

[davek]

What do you think are the critical mistakes to avoid? Off the top of my head, these stick out:

Create a negative financial arrangement such that players need to be sold (again) to balance the books
Relegation
Building a terrible new ground

Of all these, I'd worry about building a bad ground; the others can I think could be turned around with new owners within 10 years.

Whomever comes in as new owner will at least have the disastrous schemes of the Kenwright years to guide them as a "How not to build a stadium' guide.

This issue though is probably the only thing they'll have going for them if the possible buyers are as woeful as we're led to believe. They'll come in with a big song and dance about a state of the art stadium with bells and whistles and most wont stop to look beyond all that at the details of acquisition.

 

[The Esk]

But with all clubs having the money, and chasing the same players there will just be massive escalation in fees and wages. It will be the same as when the Premier League started.

There cannot be mate, Premier League profit and sustainability rules.

 

[blueblue]

Has the scenario around Premiership ownership not changed within the last 3-5 years.

Previously, the new owners of football clubs generally fell into two distinct categories. The super wealthy who wanted to own a trophy club and were prepared to sink vast amounts of their own wealth to obtain the status that a really successful club can bring.
The other and more common category were those who(in spite of the rhetoric) were interested in getting rich themselves and very often found out they simply could not make money and ended up as a disaster for owner and club.

The new wealth pouring into football possibly offers the opportunity for a new category, the investor who wants to make a gain(who doesn't) but realises that prudently running a successful club offers the greatest opportunity of all to make enormous profits.

Bill Kenwright is probably an example of an owner with relatively little resources who took over a club , stabilised it's affairs over a relatively prolonged period and now it would appear may make a capital gain greater than he could ever make from his theatric operation.

The example of Liverpool is being quoted here as well as owners who are prudent and appear to be prepared to gradually build the club over a period of time.

Hopefully, our new owners will be of a similar mind in taking a long term view of our club , realising that in the long term the greatest gain comes from owning a successful club.