Football Focus

[Hobby]

16 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I do find it rather disturbing that these days when someone wishes to buy a company and are asked how it will be financed and they reply by saying using the company as collateral.

 

Same as buying a house, then...

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

Same as buying a house, then...

Except you are using someone else's previous success as your collateral and weighs the business down in debt.

 

I don't see a rosy future for ASDA for example.

[Torper]

15 minutes ago, Hobby said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/celtic-rangers-british-super-league-23959398

 

It is difficult to see how Celtic and Rangers could, initially at least, compete on equal terms with most English Premiership teams.  While their potential is enormous, with each club enjoying average home crowds of 50,000+, their finances just can't compete - even in Celtic's last complete financial year pre-covid their total revenue was considerably less than the parachute payment that Norwich received for finishing last in the Premiership.  On the other hand, many of us here in Scotland would be only too happy to see them leave the Scottish league system.

 

DT

[PhilJ W]

21 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

 

 

I do find it rather disturbing that these days when someone wishes to buy a company and are asked how it will be financed and they reply by saying using the company as collateral.

 

4 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

Same as buying a house, then...

But you don't buy a house with the idea of making a profit, its somewhere to live. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, Mark Saunders said:

The Americans in charge of Manchester United have always had me believe  they were it was always about the money , since day one!

 

The following sums up the situation:-

 

They want to eat their cake and have it and continue to milk the goose that lays the golden eggs.

They bought the club with borrowed money and put the debt and collateral on the club, not themselves ( a leveraged purchase).

i.e. they bought the club without paying a penny for it.

 

Man Utd was very profitable as a business before the Glazers bought it, with no debt and pots of money in the kitty.

Since the Glazers took over, Utd has continued to be a very profitable business its own right, but it has that debt to service (large interest payments every year) and the Glazers have taken “dividends “ out of the club every year, amounting to hundreds of £££ millions over the years.

Free money. Free hundreds of millions.

As long as they can perpetuate this situation, they’re literally laughing all the way to the bank.

Why should they care what the fans think?

 

FSG at Liverpool arrived in completely different circumstances.

They got the club, effectively on the cheap and saved it from the disastrous ownership of the previous American owners and pulled it back from the verge of bankruptcy.

The club had fallen behind, become an also-ran, hadn’t won the league for many years and the club’s infrastructure needed upgrading.

So FSG have put money in to upgrade Anfield, build new training facilities and a new academy, invested in marketing the club, as well as bringing in a top manager and some top players.
But it’s not through altruism they’ve done this.

They're already raking in big profits and the value of the club has soared way above what it was , even 5 years ago.

They are only there for the money, just like the Glazers and many of the other owners of the richest clubs.

 

As already said, several times above, Football has been all about money for years. 
There’s nothing wrong with that in principle. Money and business is part of life and an inevitable aspect of running sport on this level; but what we have here are the naked excesses of business and money making.

An attack on moral principles and the undefined limits of what’s considered “acceptable “.

It’s also a rubbishing of the sporting and competitive ethos that’s still at the heart of the game, no matter how much money and business have “polluted”  it over the years.
In other words, pure Greed.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[Ron Ron Ron]

35 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

Same as buying a house, then...

 

27 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

 

But you don't buy a house with the idea of making a profit, its somewhere to live. 

Maybe if buying the house as an investment or source of revenue, such as a buy-to-let.

You are still expected to put some equity into to it though, as there are not many 100% mortgages around.

However, the debt is on you and not the house, or on the people you bought the house from.

 

 

.

[Hobby]

The debt is secured by the house, if you default then the house is sold to pay for it. Regardless of what people say i see no difference between a BTL and a loan secured on a company to buy it.

 

Going back to Rangers and Celtic their value is on a par with a top English Championship club according to a site which has values for the clubs, though there is much more potential to increase that if they were in the EPL than at the moment, and I suspect a lot more potential than most EPL clubs. As a global brand they are already much bigger than most EPL clubs already, but they just haven't fully harnessed that "income" yet.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Rangers and Celtic?

What would wee Jimmy Krankie say about them being in a union with the EPL?

It could turn her bitter and nasty.......oh wait?

 

 

 

.

[luckymucklebackit]

3 hours ago, Torper said:

 

It is difficult to see how Celtic and Rangers could, initially at least, compete on equal terms with most English Premiership teams.  While their potential is enormous, with each club enjoying average home crowds of 50,000+, their finances just can't compete - even in Celtic's last complete financial year pre-covid their total revenue was considerably less than the parachute payment that Norwich received for finishing last in the Premiership.  On the other hand, many of us here in Scotland would be only too happy to see them leave the Scottish league system.

 

DT

 

This has been discussed at length for many years now, most Rangers and Celtic fans seem to want it, however I would say to them "be careful what you wish for".  Under the current set up both clubs are guaranteed European Football every year, one or other will win the league or be runners up and in most seasons will clean up in cup competitions as well. and the "fans" to not take kindly to failure, witness the scenes last November  when Ross County had the audacity to put Celtic out of the cup.  Imagine then if the Old Firm (OF) did get admitted to the English Premiership and this resulted in a number of seasons of lower to mid table anonymity - that I can guarantee would not go down well with the average entitled OF supporter who thinks success is their God given right.

It would also be interesting to see how it would affect the Scottish Game, initially I think it might have a negative impact as TV money would probably decrease without the OF, however that would be offset by the prospect of several teams starting the season knowing the the Championship is there for the taking instead of the current, "I wonder if we can manage third this year", hopefully that would improve the attendances.  There is of course another OF ploy currently bubbling away and that is the idea for Rangers and Celtic "Colt" teams being admitted to the lower leagues, financial incentives are already being offered for the lower league teams to tempt them to support this.  The scenario being touted is that the Colt teams would initially compete in Division 2 (Tier 4) but would not earn promotion above Division 1 (Tier 3), most non OF fans would put 2 and 2 together and think that if the OF were admitted to the English Premier League then pressure would be put on the SFA to remove that restriction on promotion and allow them effectively to compete freely in both leagues, however I would like to see the EUFA view on this.

 

Interesting times indeed

 

Jim

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by luckymucklebackit
edited to correct tier levels - thanks Melmerby

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, luckymucklebackit said:

 

There is of course another OF ploy currently bubbling away and that is the idea for Rangers and Celtic "Colt" teams being admitted to the lower leagues, financial incentives are already being offered for the lower league teams to tempt them to support this.  The scenario being touted is that the Colt teams would initially compete in Division 2 (Tier 3)

 

Jim

 

Surely Scottish Division 2 is tier 4?

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

They bought the club with borrowed money and put the debt and collateral on the club, not themselves ( a leveraged purchase).

i.e. they bought the club without paying a penny for it.

 

Man Utd was very profitable as a business before the Glazers bought it, with no debt and pots of money in the kitty.

Since the Glazers took over, Utd has continued to be a very profitable business its own right, but it has that debt to service (large interest payments every year) and the Glazers have taken “dividends “ out of the club every year, amounting to hundreds of £££ millions over the years.

Free money. Free hundreds of millions.

As long as they can perpetuate this situation, they’re literally laughing all the way to the bank.

Why should they care what the fans think?

 

FSG at Liverpool arrived in completely different circumstances.

They got the club, effectively on the cheap and saved it from the disastrous ownership of the previous American owners and pulled it back from the verge of bankruptcy.

The club had fallen behind, become an also-ran, hadn’t won the league for many years and the club’s infrastructure needed upgrading.

So FSG have put money in to upgrade Anfield, build new training facilities and a new academy, invested in marketing the club, as well as bringing in a top manager and some top players.
But it’s not through altruism they’ve done this.

They're already raking in big profits and the value of the club has soared way above what it was , even 5 years ago.

They are only there for the money, just like the Glazers and many of the other owners of the richest clubs.

 

As already said, several times above, Football has been all about money for years. 
There’s nothing wrong with that in principle. Money and business is part of life and an inevitable aspect of running sport on this level; but what we have here are the naked excesses of business and money making.

An attack on moral principles and the undefined limits of what’s considered “acceptable “.

It’s also a rubbishing of the sporting and competitive ethos that’s still at the heart of the game, no matter how much money and business have “polluted”  it over the years.
In other words, pure Greed.

It used to be called asset stripping.

[melmerby]

1 minute ago, PhilJ W said:

It used to be called asset stripping.

Still is.

Not confined to footie club purchases

[luckymucklebackit]

11 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Surely Scottish Division 2 is tier 4?

Sorry, my mistake. Sodding silly way they name the leagues.

 

Jim

[Ron Ron Ron]

28 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

It used to be called asset stripping.

 

Not really.

Asset stripping is where you eventually hollow out the shell, until there's nothing left of value to you.

 

This situation is quite the reverse. It's a perpetual cash cow (perpetual as long as they can keep it going).

 

They have to keep the assets healthy so they can keep milking it at will.

They also have to keep the assets intact, to keep the value of the company high, so that they can not only borrow against it, but can sell off the club at a vast profit if they want or need to.

 

The club is valued in excess of £3 billion.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[melmerby]

31 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

The club is valued in excess of £3 billion.

 

How much debt is held against that value?

[Ron Ron Ron]

53 minutes ago, melmerby said:

How much debt is held against that value?

The debt rose from something like £600million to around £700million in 2010, as a result of high interest rates on the type of loans used, but was mostly paid off by the issue of bonds. Since the bonds matured and were paid off, various further refinancing has taken place, including the float on the NY stock exchange ( the Glazers pocketed most of the money raised as well).

Debt was down to around £300million at one point, but has since risen and as a result of the loss of income during the pandemic, is said to risen further to almost £455million .

 

Bear in mind, all this debt is set against a profitable operation and the club is not a loss making business. It just bleeds large amount of money earned, in interest and other payments to service the debt.

 

If the club is put up for sale, unless the value falls for some reason or other, they’ll be looking to sell for the current value, plus the buyer taking on responsibility of taking on the debt.

I don’t understand how these things work, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a new buyer, having taken on the debt in theory, then instantly refinances and moves their liability back on to the club.

Having increased the market value of these “wealthiest clubs” to such high levels, you have to question if anyone would be able to afford, or prepared to pay  what it would cost to buy them outright?

 

 

.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[melmerby]

59 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Having increased the market value of these “wealthiest clubs” to such high levels, you have to question if anyone would be able to afford, or prepared to pay  what it would cost to buy them outright?

 

 

.

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway or similar investment organisation?

It bought BNSF for cash a while back

[TheSignalEngineer]

4 hours ago, luckymucklebackit said:

allow them effectively to compete freely in both leagues, however I would like to see the EUFA view on this.

UEFA made their views clear with regard to Swansea and Cardiff and the Europa League, in that they could not qualify via the Welsh Cup if they played in the English leagues. This would preclude Celtic and Rangers qualifying via the Scottish Cup, they could only qualify for UEFA competitions as part of the English quota based on Premier League position.

I don't know FIFA's stance but wonder if the formation of a British Premier League might jeopardise the four home nations playing individually in international competition. Perhaps that could provide a trump card for Little Jimmy Crankie in her bid for Scottish independence.

 

[Torper]

I've never understood why the rest of the world continues to allow the United Kingdom to have four international teams.  I do tend to agree that if it was decreed that in future the United Kingdom would have to play as the United Kingdom, and there would be no separate national sides, it could well add a few percentage points to the "Yes" vote.  So bring it on!

 

DT

[62613]

8 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

 

But you don't buy a house with the idea of making a profit, its somewhere to live. 

Are you sure bout that? Some people do buy houses to make a profit.

[Enterprisingwestern]

2 hours ago, 62613 said:

Are you sure bout that? Some people do buy houses to make a profit.

 

19% tax on profit as in Spain would make people think twice.

 

Mike.

[kevinlms]

16 hours ago, Torper said:

 

It is difficult to see how Celtic and Rangers could, initially at least, compete on equal terms with most English Premiership teams.  While their potential is enormous, with each club enjoying average home crowds of 50,000+, their finances just can't compete - even in Celtic's last complete financial year pre-covid their total revenue was considerably less than the parachute payment that Norwich received for finishing last in the Premiership.  On the other hand, many of us here in Scotland would be only too happy to see them leave the Scottish league system.

 

DT

I think the point is what will Glasgow & Rangers actually offer the Premier League clubs - not much and quite likely take some revenue. The last point being the killer!

[Hobby]

50K plus fans each week and a worldwide following! I'd suggest they'd offer a lot more than most mid and lower table EPL teams!!

[BoD]

18 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Having increased the market value of these “wealthiest clubs” to such high levels, you have to question if anyone would be able to afford, or prepared to pay  what it would cost to buy them outright?

Which is also the ‘elephant in the room’ when it comes to the 50% + 1 ownership by fans that some people are demanding.  Would you expect the owners of big supermarkets to donate half their shares to the people in the fresh fruit aisles?  Could the government justify using tax payers money to buy half of every club?  The fans certainly couldn’t afford it.  I think that boat sailed a long time ago.

[Hobby]

I doubt those fans could agree on a course of action that they all subscribe to either! Then you end up in the same boat as having one owner, some don't like it, so do, and most couldn't care less as long as he gets results!