Simply fact is we are not a good prospect for making money.
... good thing almost no takeovers are about making money then.
I think I will retire this rant after this one but for one last time (then I can just link back to this for future people who still say things about football being a profit motivated business).
Why do people continue to think this is a money making business when they had to invent a rule to prevent people from deliberately losing money? Do they need to have that rule in any other business? Yes some people have made money -- far more people have lost money (and done so knowing they would lose money going in).
City and Chelsea owners aren't in it for a profit. RS just posted a massive loss. Barca lost money for a few years in a row then had a record profit of something like 40m (while having a debt around 400m). The revenue figures are big but it rarely translates to consistent profits. There is a limited pool of buyers for high-end teams so buying for 1.5b and selling for 2.5b is a dubious goal. What if the team's performance slips? What if the bubble bursts? What if just nobody wants to spend 2-3b on a football club when they can "make" a CL team from scratch for way less? Man U are clearly an exception at the high-end rather than the rule.
Buying a CL team (or at least one close to qualifying) for 1.5b and then sitting back and collecting a 20-30m p/year "profit?" Even at 500m that deal wouldn't be a wise investment. Buying a CL team and trying to increase their status for a future sale for more money? Easier ways to make money that bettering the likes of Barca, Real Madrid, City, United and Chelsea (which is what you'd need to raise Arsenal's profile and therefore price above current levels). Especially difficult when you pay that much for a club and you are still starting from behind. I know the article was likely nonsense but 1.5b for a club which might not qualify for the CL this year? How is that going to end in a profit?
Revenue is valid from a FFP standpoint I suppose but largely it's the brand and status of the "big" clubs which attracts buyers ... not the potential to make a load of money. Some of this goes hand in hand sure but I think it's an important distinction. We have the pedigree for a takeover (especially to a US buyers -- teams like ours are ripe takeover material in the US) based on brand (if it was ever promoted properly). This notion that without a stadium it's *impossible* to get anyone to buy us is just helping the current board retain control.
This is what I meant by "investors" not existing. Buyers? Maybe. Investors? Nobody in their right mind would "invest" in a football club. If I were a millionaire and wanted to make money with a football club I'd be constantly selling all my best players and constantly getting relegated and then spending enough to get promoted again (but never increasing my wage bill to the Prem level and just cashing in the leftover TV money). That's the only remotely logical plan a financial advisor would suggest for "investment" (and even that would be about 10,000th on his list of ideas for your millions). We lose our minds if the team doesn't re-invest all money from a sale back into the team. Where's the ___ money Bill? Well why can't they "take a profit" if this is a business?
It's not about making money. It's status. If we were truly considered a "grand old team" outside of Goodison we'd have a buyer. The good news is that making us an appealing brand is easier than making us an appealing investment. The bad news is the current owners probably don't want to sell and aren't good at promoting the club.
