Usmanov

Status
Not open for further replies.


Cameron Manning said:
I’d love to be one of them!!
Click to expand...

I'd take a pittance off them!

Although having looked again, I'll have to walk back that statement. Most billionaires are wealthy because of non-liquid assets they control, including shares they don't usually sell (because it gives up control). So while I'm not sure Zuckerberg would have $3B in liquid assets, I'm sure Larry Ellison would. Bezos probably does, but maybe not. All of the Kochs and Waltons probably do. Carlos Slim probably has that much in cash buried underground in his various villas.

Buffet probably doesn't, he doesn't take much income and gives away too much to be reasonably expected to have that much cash (although outside of Bezos, he could make a cash call quicker than anyone else, probably). People like him and Gates are oddities, because they control so much wealth, but actively give away so much of it as well, that their balance sheet looks great but their bank account is probably only (only) in the hundreds of millions.

So, anyway, someone upthread made the good point that income is the greatest measure of what Moshiri can add to the club in the short term. If he's raking in £100MM+ a year and has no other serious hobbies, it's not like he needs all of that to live... and he doesn't have to reduce his wealth to add funds to the club's balance sheet. *Although that begs a question that's been on my mind, maybe for another thread: what does an owner owe to a club's balance sheet when he/she purchases a club? As a Yank, I'm predisposed to believe that a club should generate its own revenue. It seems the prevailing belief in England that wealthy people buy clubs and put their money in and never take out (damn you Glazers!). But I digress...
 
SerenityNigh said:
I'd take a pittance off them!

Although having looked again, I'll have to walk back that statement. Most billionaires are wealthy because of non-liquid assets they control, including shares they don't usually sell (because it gives up control). So while I'm not sure Zuckerberg would have $3B in liquid assets, I'm sure Larry Ellison would. Bezos probably does, but maybe not. All of the Kochs and Waltons probably do. Carlos Slim probably has that much in cash buried underground in his various villas.

Buffet probably doesn't, he doesn't take much income and gives away too much to be reasonably expected to have that much cash (although outside of Bezos, he could make a cash call quicker than anyone else, probably). People like him and Gates are oddities, because they control so much wealth, but actively give away so much of it as well, that their balance sheet looks great but their bank account is probably only (only) in the hundreds of millions.

So, anyway, someone upthread made the good point that income is the greatest measure of what Moshiri can add to the club in the short term. If he's raking in £100MM+ a year and has no other serious hobbies, it's not like he needs all of that to live... and he doesn't have to reduce his wealth to add funds to the club's balance sheet. *Although that begs a question that's been on my mind, maybe for another thread: what does an owner owe to a club's balance sheet when he/she purchases a club? As a Yank, I'm predisposed to believe that a club should generate its own revenue. It seems the prevailing belief in England that wealthy people buy clubs and put their money in and never take out (damn you Glazers!). But I digress...
Click to expand...
There is one person ( alledgally ) who put next to nothing into Everton and has taken £M’s out, with a good few more shares to sell.
 

SerenityNigh said:
I'd take a pittance off them!

Although having looked again, I'll have to walk back that statement. Most billionaires are wealthy because of non-liquid assets they control, including shares they don't usually sell (because it gives up control). So while I'm not sure Zuckerberg would have $3B in liquid assets, I'm sure Larry Ellison would. Bezos probably does, but maybe not. All of the Kochs and Waltons probably do. Carlos Slim probably has that much in cash buried underground in his various villas.

Buffet probably doesn't, he doesn't take much income and gives away too much to be reasonably expected to have that much cash (although outside of Bezos, he could make a cash call quicker than anyone else, probably). People like him and Gates are oddities, because they control so much wealth, but actively give away so much of it as well, that their balance sheet looks great but their bank account is probably only (only) in the hundreds of millions.

So, anyway, someone upthread made the good point that income is the greatest measure of what Moshiri can add to the club in the short term. If he's raking in £100MM+ a year and has no other serious hobbies, it's not like he needs all of that to live... and he doesn't have to reduce his wealth to add funds to the club's balance sheet. *Although that begs a question that's been on my mind, maybe for another thread: what does an owner owe to a club's balance sheet when he/she purchases a club? As a Yank, I'm predisposed to believe that a club should generate its own revenue. It seems the prevailing belief in England that wealthy people buy clubs and put their money in and never take out (damn you Glazers!). But I digress...
Click to expand...

Good point you raise SN. It's a moot point how British clubs are funded, but when you look at the likes of Chelsea and Man City over that past few years, it's inconceivable that it is down to just 'revenue'. Abramovic clearly pumped hundreds of millions into Chelsea, and who knows whether that is now deemed to be a loan, capital or whatever - the point is if he suddenly decides to walk away, he either needs to find a buyer that will pay him out, walk away empty handed, or force a repayment and possibly the collapse of the club. That's a bit of a simplistic analysis, but I doubt he's just put a shed load of money in, never to take it out.

The Glazers model was different - they bought control of the club by stuffing the club's balance sheet with debt, highly leveraged. They used the income generated by the club to service the debt, which is now largely paid off or refinanced on a more manageable basis.

And as for City, well who knows!!
 
Blue_Berry said:
Abramovic clearly pumped hundreds of millions into Chelsea, and who knows whether that is now deemed to be a loan, capital or whatever - the point is if he suddenly decides to walk away, he either needs to find a buyer that will pay him out, walk away empty handed,
Click to expand...

I am reasonably sure that the money he has lobbed at Chelsea has been converted to equity, or if not, appears on their balance sheet as an unsecured, interest free loan. Roughly, he has sent £1 Billion their way.

The market cap of Chelsea is said to be just north of £1 Billion, and finding a buyer would be relatively easy.

Whether its equity or club debt, either would be returned to him. Moshiri is doing essentially the same thing here.
 
Blue_Berry said:
Good point you raise SN. It's a moot point how British clubs are funded, but when you look at the likes of Chelsea and Man City over that past few years, it's inconceivable that it is down to just 'revenue'. Abramovic clearly pumped hundreds of millions into Chelsea, and who knows whether that is now deemed to be a loan, capital or whatever - the point is if he suddenly decides to walk away, he either needs to find a buyer that will pay him out, walk away empty handed, or force a repayment and possibly the collapse of the club. That's a bit of a simplistic analysis, but I doubt he's just put a shed load of money in, never to take it out.

The Glazers model was different - they bought control of the club by stuffing the club's balance sheet with debt, highly leveraged. They used the income generated by the club to service the debt, which is now largely paid off or refinanced on a more manageable basis.

And as for City, well who knows!!
Click to expand...

Three good points, and clubs are useful for comparison. All assets have value, and I'm going to bastardize the vocabulary I'm sure, but United, being a publicly traded asset, has a tangible extrinsic value. Who knows what the real value of City or Chelsea may be, but both lag behind in market value, and both had ton(ne)s of cash dumped in prior to FFP slapping the wrists and saying "Stop that!" I don't know how City sells for value, but I really don't think the Sheiks care--what else are they going to spend money on? As far as Abramovic is concerned, he has bigger issues and will sell "at a loss" as well, but Chelsea will still be valuable to a new owner.
 
roydo said:
I am reasonably sure that the money he has lobbed at Chelsea has been converted to equity, or if not, appears on their balance sheet as an unsecured, interest free loan. Roughly, he has sent £1 Billion their way.

The market cap of Chelsea is said to be just north of £1 Billion, and finding a buyer would be relatively easy.

Whether its equity or club debt, either would be returned to him. Moshiri is doing essentially the same thing here.
Click to expand...

I guess that's the issue, he gets his equity out, which is increased over what he bought it for. Can he sell for $1B? That's a lot of money, but I guess it makes sense.

*Forbes thinks they're worth $2.5B, so I guess he can. Just takes the right investment group, and rich, bored people who want to buy a club...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top