Usmanov

[degsy]

Where did you get that information from? Had a conversation with a shareholder a couple of weeks back who was considering selling, and was interested to know the going price

Surprisingly enough I googled 'everton share price'

 

[havrey0123]

The true value of the club is what somebody will pay for it.
The last share traded went for £3500
3,500 x 35,000 = £122M.
An assumed value of say £250M = £7,142 per share.

So 250m +350m (moshiri loan) + 500m+ (stadium probably closer to 600m).

So add 1.1billion + 100m for profit.
That's 1.2 billion moshiri will sell for in around 5 years time when he is in his 70's

 

[catcherintherye]

They run their football clubs as businesses
Usmanov has a different agenda

The real issue is that the benefits that they may seek to get are unlikely to show up on a surface level profit and loss account. I know there was the lad who going on about my conspiracy theories, which I suppose he's completely entitled to say, I would counter though and say it's in my view extremely naive to assume some wealthy individuals (indeed most wealthy individuals) haven't got their fingers in all sorts of pies many of which are not really designed to be for public consumption.

Asking someone to prove this is very difficult. Firstly because their intention is to avoid ever having most of the transactions they have known about but also because if I knew (which I don't) it would be really stupid for me to lift the lid all over a football forum. At best you'd open yourself up to a whole world of litigation or at worst there may be other methods sought to prevent such information being made publicly available.

I mean even a cursory glance at just a fraction of the stuff in the panama papers (I believe the journalist who disclosed that passed away shortly after it's release) is very interesting when you look at half the stuff wealthy people are involved in. It doesn't fit the dominant narrative built around wealthy people, that essentially they are thoroughly honest, stand up citizens who make their money through hard work, while you have evil criminals in another category and neither the two shall meet. From my experience of life, things are rarely black and white, and within the grey areas things cross over.

None of this is conclusive proof of anything, and is really me just throwing out a particular hypothetical set of circumstances. It is also important to say that none of this proves anything about anyone (beyond what has been disclosed in leaks such as the Panama papers). However if you accept as I do that there are links between the legit economy and the "dark economy" then you would also have to accept that those links are in all likelihood facilitated and moulded by certain individuals who have credibility in each sector (you can also throw in the state to this as well). If an individual were able to liaise between individuals who's creation of wealth was prohibited, sections of the state who are aware of it but wish to control it but behind closed door, and more orthodox individuals who want to make money in a more orthodox way then they would be a very powerful individual. It's also fair to say, many of their business dealings would not make sense if you viewed them from the vantage point of comparing how an orthodox business person would operate.

I think it's an open secret that the US drugs squad has ongoing dialogue with Mexican cartels. They made a massive hollywood blockbuster showing this to be the case. In the film they take out 1 cartel, to work with another, on the basis that you can't eliminate things, but you can regulate them. If thats your approach you need fixers. The fixers in the middle may take decisions that if viewed in the abstract don't look sensible business decisions.

We know that Russia, China and to a degree the Arab states are looking to "sports wash" money. We have seen Saudi consortiums buying into Sheffield United, probably Newcastle and Leeds. The days are gone when they try to "do a City" but they will happily take shares, control and influence in key sporting institutions. My view is that is one of the key goals in this. Soft power, a top PL club, access to a prime location UK UNESCO location. In such a scenario a figure like Usmanov or Moshiri are just adept middle men for broader consortiums. We know this has happened already with the Liver Building, which was purchased from a company represented by Moshiri (though I should say there's no suggestion of anything untoward from them).

For Everton we are a means to an ends. I think it's helped that they both love football. It's also helped that they are traders and can see lots of value being added. I get the sense of very little urgency that the club is losing lots of money. In a scenario that might resemble anything of the above, that soft power is the key, Everton are a useful vehicle for that. Why do people think Russian oligarchs bought up half of London's wealthy properties to leave many of them empty? Why are they allegedly donating obscene amounts of money to the Conservative Party? They don't expect a return on that narrow investment, in a simple profit loss manner. There is a much bigger game at play.

Of course thats just one potential scenario. And it could be that Moshiri's spending on Everton is nothing like the above whatsoever. It could be that Usmanov feels Everton's training ground is actually worth 12m a year in sponsorship to his business. People have to make their own minds up, there's not really a right or wrong answer. I am a natural cynic but if people are less cynical than me, good for them.

 

[degsy]

So 250m +350m (moshiri loan) + 500m+ (stadium probably closer to 600m).

So add 1.1billion + 100m for profit.
That's 1.2 billion moshiri will sell for in around 5 years time when he is in his 70's

Not the worst plan in the world.
I suspect the 350M will be converted, via accounty wounty magic, into shares...at 'a low price'.
The whole shebang will be offered to the next fool buyer (see 'the greater fool' theory) at whatever price higher than the 1.1or 1.2 Billion that can be managed.
iirc, Arsenal is valued at 2.4 or 2.8 Billion, so plenty of wiggle room there.

All in the future though so who knows.

 

[catcherintherye]

Not the worst plan in the world.
I suspect the 350M will be converted, via accounty wounty magic, into shares...at 'a low price'.
The whole shebang will be offered to the next fool buyer (see 'the greater fool' theory) at whatever price higher than the 1.1or 1.2 Billion that can be managed.
iirc, Arsenal is valued at 2.4 or 2.8 Billion, so plenty of wiggle room there.

All in the future though so who knows.

My own theory on that would be they would seek some equity as opposed to the whole club. I don't foresee a world where Moshiri wouldn't have involvement at Everton, though I know others think do.

In the numbers, whatever the stadium costs the club will pay back. He has bought the club for around 100m and may end up putting 4-500m in. If Everton were to become a champions league club, with the ground where it is the Arsenal valuation is not a wholly unrealistic one. I believe City are valued over a billion now. I think thats where we would be approaching.

I also agree that the debt will be converted into shares, and the formal price (as discussed above) being kept low will probably be utilised at that point to be bought by Usmanov. This only makes sense to do once we are in the ground. We know Moshiri has a pre-agreed price with Bill and others (I suspect) at the price the original sale was made at. I am not certain on FFP but I imagine a lot of this new investment could count against taking debt down too. So there is the potential that Usmanov may buy into the club over perhaps a 2-3 instalment process (similar to what Moshiri did) and use each instalment to pay down debts and ensure compliance with FFP.

I would suggest if the ground gets build, and we stay where we are in terms of performance, a value of the club would be around 6-800 million currently. If we can improve on the field it would go up.

Lets take a value of say 1.5bn, maybe 10 years down the line to work from as a more cautious starting point. Usmanov and Moshiri will have paid in around £600m in terms of shares and investment into the club. They can sell maybe 35% of it to cover their initial investment, bring on a silent minority partner who would also be keen to continue to invest in the team. Maybe Russian billionaires, maybe Chinese billionaires who Usmanov is close too. They get their money repaid, and benefit from any further investment into the club while maintaining a significant stake.

I see that as a potential more viable option, especially with rumours of Usmanov's son potentially becoming involved.

 

[Toffeelover]

So 250m +350m (moshiri loan) + 500m+ (stadium probably closer to 600m).

So add 1.1billion + 100m for profit.
That's 1.2 billion moshiri will sell for in around 5 years time when he is in his 70's

Are you thinking of making an offer in 5 years?

 

[Brisan123]

Where did you get that information from? Had a conversation with a shareholder a couple of weeks back who was considering selling, and was interested to know the going price

I thought Moshiri had agreed a fixed price for the shares with Kenwright and the board when he took over
That price cannot vary ,and Moshiri said he has no desire to buy out the smaller shareholders,so Moshiris price is the price.
unless someone wants to buy a share for sentimental reasons or as a sense of belonging I cannot see any business reason to purchase a share
You certainly wont make a profit and I cannot see dividends being paid out any time soon

 

[Brisan123]

The real issue is that the benefits that they may seek to get are unlikely to show up on a surface level profit and loss account. I know there was the lad who going on about my conspiracy theories, which I suppose he's completely entitled to say, I would counter though and say it's in my view extremely naive to assume some wealthy individuals (indeed most wealthy individuals) haven't got their fingers in all sorts of pies many of which are not really designed to be for public consumption.

Asking someone to prove this is very difficult. Firstly because their intention is to avoid ever having most of the transactions they have known about but also because if I knew (which I don't) it would be really stupid for me to lift the lid all over a football forum. At best you'd open yourself up to a whole world of litigation or at worst there may be other methods sought to prevent such information being made publicly available.

I mean even a cursory glance at just a fraction of the stuff in the panama papers (I believe the journalist who disclosed that passed away shortly after it's release) is very interesting when you look at half the stuff wealthy people are involved in. It doesn't fit the dominant narrative built around wealthy people, that essentially they are thoroughly honest, stand up citizens who make their money through hard work, while you have evil criminals in another category and neither the two shall meet. From my experience of life, things are rarely black and white, and within the grey areas things cross over.

None of this is conclusive proof of anything, and is really me just throwing out a particular hypothetical set of circumstances. It is also important to say that none of this proves anything about anyone (beyond what has been disclosed in leaks such as the Panama papers). However if you accept as I do that there are links between the legit economy and the "dark economy" then you would also have to accept that those links are in all likelihood facilitated and moulded by certain individuals who have credibility in each sector (you can also throw in the state to this as well). If an individual were able to liaise between individuals who's creation of wealth was prohibited, sections of the state who are aware of it but wish to control it but behind closed door, and more orthodox individuals who want to make money in a more orthodox way then they would be a very powerful individual. It's also fair to say, many of their business dealings would not make sense if you viewed them from the vantage point of comparing how an orthodox business person would operate.

I think it's an open secret that the US drugs squad has ongoing dialogue with Mexican cartels. They made a massive hollywood blockbuster showing this to be the case. In the film they take out 1 cartel, to work with another, on the basis that you can't eliminate things, but you can regulate them. If thats your approach you need fixers. The fixers in the middle may take decisions that if viewed in the abstract don't look sensible business decisions.

We know that Russia, China and to a degree the Arab states are looking to "sports wash" money. We have seen Saudi consortiums buying into Sheffield United, probably Newcastle and Leeds. The days are gone when they try to "do a City" but they will happily take shares, control and influence in key sporting institutions. My view is that is one of the key goals in this. Soft power, a top PL club, access to a prime location UK UNESCO location. In such a scenario a figure like Usmanov or Moshiri are just adept middle men for broader consortiums. We know this has happened already with the Liver Building, which was purchased from a company represented by Moshiri (though I should say there's no suggestion of anything untoward from them).



For Everton we are a means to an ends. I think it's helped that they both love football. It's also helped that they are traders and can see lots of value being added. I get the sense of very little urgency that the club is losing lots of money. In a scenario that might resemble anything of the above, that soft power is the key, Everton are a useful vehicle for that. Why do people think Russian oligarchs bought up half of London's wealthy properties to leave many of them empty? Why are they allegedly donating obscene amounts of money to the Conservative Party? They don't expect a return on that narrow investment, in a simple profit loss manner. There is a much bigger game at play.

Of course thats just one potential scenario. And it could be that Moshiri's spending on Everton is nothing like the above whatsoever. It could be that Usmanov feels Everton's training ground is actually worth 12m a year in sponsorship to his business. People have to make their own minds up, there's not really a right or wrong answer. I am a natural cynic but if people are less cynical than me, good for them.

Quelle surprise

 

[Onwards Evertonians]

How much will we reasonably expect to get for naming rights, around 20m a year over 10/15 years?

 

[Brisan123]

How much will we reasonably expect to get for naming rights, around 20m a year over 10/15 years?

40-50 m a year for 15-20 years
no one knows ,but it will be up the top end of naming rights if Usmanov has his way
USM are paying 12 m a year for the training ground naming rights , so that's your starting point

 

[Onwards Evertonians]

40-50 m a year for 15-20 years
no one knows ,but it will be up the top end of naming rights if Usmanov has his way
USM are paying 12 m a year for the training ground naming rights , so that's your starting point

Even 30m would be amazing, that's your stadium paid for right there.

 

[sam17]

I thought Moshiri had agreed a fixed price for the shares with Kenwright and the board when he took over
That price cannot vary ,and Moshiri said he has no desire to buy out the smaller shareholders,so Moshiris price is the price.
unless someone wants to buy a share for sentimental reasons or as a sense of belonging I cannot see any business reason to purchase a share
You certainly wont make a profit and I cannot see dividends being paid out any time soon

Agree entirely with the reason for not wanting to buy, but thats the same reason for wanting to sell. If they are worth £3.5k ea, which is questionable given there not sold on a on open market, then someone may prefer the money over the sentiment.

 

[sam17]

Surprisingly enough I googled 'everton share price'

I thought you may have had more tangible evidence to that number. The information on the web is nothing more than a guide, theres no specifics as there not traded on the open market., hence why I asked.

 

[blueblue]

Not the worst plan in the world.
I suspect the 350M will be converted, via accounty wounty magic, into shares...at 'a low price'.
The whole shebang will be offered to the next fool buyer (see 'the greater fool' theory) at whatever price higher than the 1.1or 1.2 Billion that can be managed.
iirc, Arsenal is valued at 2.4 or 2.8 Billion, so plenty of wiggle room there.

All in the future though so who knows.

Depends on the level of success at the club in the meantime.
If Everton were lucky enough to get back into the very top of Premiership football in that time. At present day prices the value of the club would be in excess of 2bn.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

there is 15 trillion of negative yielding debt in the world...Everton should be able to issue at 0-0.5% interest rates. That is a very high yield for yield hungry investors. I note Austria issued a 100 year bond...if Everton could issue 100 year zero coupon debt (say half a billion present value) at 0.5%, I think that would be a great deal for an investor. (NB I would insist on a zero coupon deep discount, as this ameliorates interest payment considerations throughout the issues existence)

Any investor would want at least 7% on Everton debt. You're not seriously comparing our covenant strength to that of a government bond now are you?