Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Latest Takeover Rumour. The Moores / Noell one

Are you For or Against the idea of the possible Moores / Noell takeover ?

  • Total voters
    731
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Esk said:
In terms on new owners coming in and what might be the order of their priorities, I'd guess the following would be the best use of time, resources and capital:

(i)Agree transfer and wage budgets with Roberto Martinez for the summer and season 2016/17.
(ii) clear existing debt
(iii) Improve the executive management team with the focus being on revenue generation through sponsorship, commercial contracts and retail activities. Provide the necessary working capital to fund these programmes.
(iv) Agree a solution to the stadium issue, ie redevelopment or new stadium. Fund and execute solution.
Click to expand...

Don't want to take this off topic, but noted you have the stadium as fourth on the list (perhaps because it's a longer term task rather than order of importance).

I'd be interested if anyone woth more knowledge of this than me can articulate the business case for why a new stadium is so vital to our ability to compete. Match day revenue is going down as a proportion of overall revenue due to the tv deal and increasing commercial deals. I often hear 'yeah but the hospitality boxes' but how useful would they be if we don't have a successful side, will they really be a game changer for us?

One scenario is we spend a load of money on a new stadium and, similar to Arsenal we cut investment in the first team (not that there's been much owner capital anyway in that field) to finance that for a while. We could be looking at a decade of just fighting to stay in the league before the stadium would then start to kick out its extra revenue. How many years of that would you need until you break even?

The other approach could be to pour this effort and money into improving the quality of the first team, qualifying for champions league, improving the commercial deals. With the tv money increasing like it is (not that we should assume this will last forever) why is there such a focus on a new stadium as the only route to success?

The cynic may perhaps know the answer that a new stadium increases the asset value for any future sale and is maybe why owners like FSG were desperate to start work. I don't understand fans though holding out all hope on a new stadium as the only way forward. Ideal world is a owner with the capital and inclination to fund both, a new stadium and a competitive first team maximising all revenue streams. Organically we'd then end up with the stadium matched to the profile of the team. We could very easily though end up financing a stadium with debt, using profits and cutting player investment to service it, and when it's finished having a really poor side that can't attract the expanded capacity or the corporate circus that generates the revenue.
 

magicjuan said:
Rich people are rich because they never risk their own money....unless it dodges tax of course
Click to expand...

That is my suspicion. I feel these 2 have looked at the premier league as the Glaziers did and the RS Americans have done, as a means of making money. Even more so now due to the new TV deal. Lerner at Villa has got his hands burnt by putting his own money in. I don't think these 2 will do an Abramovich or Man City.
 
Most of this is just wild speculation lads.

IF the takeover completes, then the new owners will no doubt set out their vision for the future of the club.

Then it'll be a case of seeing whether or not they can deliver on their strategy.

Their actions will no doubt please and cause fume in equal measure depending on your perspective, but it'll be a long while before we can judge their success or failure.

Success on the pitch will always be the key to long term growth in football. Success breeds new fans, more bums on seats, more merchandising sold, wider global value of the 'brand' etc etc. Success would therefore increase demand and revenue per seat (get ready) and thus make the business case for any stadium development stack up better than it does today, because of waiting lists for both fan and corporate seating.
 

Saint Domingo said:
Don't want to take this off topic, but noted you have the stadium as fourth on the list (perhaps because it's a longer term task rather than order of importance).

I'd be interested if anyone woth more knowledge of this than me can articulate the business case for why a new stadium is so vital to our ability to compete. Match day revenue is going down as a proportion of overall revenue due to the tv deal and increasing commercial deals. I often hear 'yeah but the hospitality boxes' but how useful would they be if we don't have a successful side, will they really be a game changer for us?

One scenario is we spend a load of money on a new stadium and, similar to Arsenal we cut investment in the first team (not that there's been much owner capital anyway in that field) to finance that for a while. We could be looking at a decade of just fighting to stay in the league before the stadium would then start to kick out its extra revenue. How many years of that would you need until you break even?

The other approach could be to pour this effort and money into improving the quality of the first team, qualifying for champions league, improving the commercial deals. With the tv money increasing like it is (not that we should assume this will last forever) why is there such a focus on a new stadium as the only route to success?

The cynic may perhaps know the answer that a new stadium increases the asset value for any future sale and is maybe why owners like FSG were desperate to start work. I don't understand fans though holding out all hope on a new stadium as the only way forward. Ideal world is a owner with the capital and inclination to fund both, a new stadium and a competitive first team maximising all revenue streams. Organically we'd then end up with the stadium matched to the profile of the team. We could very easily though end up financing a stadium with debt, using profits and cutting player investment to service it, and when it's finished having a really poor side that can't attract the expanded capacity or the corporate circus that generates the revenue.
Click to expand...

Good post mate.

There's definitely an investment case for a new stadium and also one for a redeveloped Goodison, particularly when there are significant capacity and revenue constraints on the existing asset. Admittedly the initial return on capital is fairly low, but as you yourself point out it can significantly increase the asset value of the club.

Previously I have shown that a stadium with capacity of 50,000 including around 4000 executive seats could at capacity increase existing revenues from less than £20 million to £35/38 million without eye watering increases in ordinary or concession seating. If you add in the reduced running costs of a new stadium then you begin to see an acceptable return on say investment of upto £250 million.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top