Investment

[Marriot Ram99]

50 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Bournemouth is s*******, full of dossers and scrubbers. The beach is ok, but beyond that it’s the biggest cesspit I’ve visited in the UK

Was working nearby there recently and heard there was alot of crime there so probably is dodgy just thought alot of very rich people owned homes there.

[MackworthRamIsGod]

1 hour ago, Ambitious said:

Bournemouth is s*******, full of dossers and scrubbers. The beach is ok, but beyond that it’s the biggest cesspit I’ve visited in the UK

I think unfortunately it is being overun by unsavoury individuals.

There has been 3 incidents in last 12 months of girls being sexually attacked in the sea (not just on the beach), actually in the sea in Bournemouth. One incident on Monday.

[Ambitious]

41 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

I think unfortunately it is being overun by unsavoury individuals.

There has been 3 incidents in last 12 months of girls being sexually attacked in the sea (not just on the beach), actually in the sea in Bournemouth. One incident on Monday.

I had a large project down there that lasted well over a couple of years, which meant I had a few visits and learned quickly to stay out of the centre. The very first night I stayed was like a scene out of the walking dead. A truly disgusting, severely run-down, place with (as you say) some of the most unsavoury individuals I’ve seen. Walking back to my hotel which was on the beachfront from the city centre, there wasn’t much I didn’t see. The thought of ever going back genuinely turns my stomach. There are areas around it that are nice, but Bournemouth itself is as grim as it comes. 

[Bris Vegas]

3 hours ago, Raich Carter said:

The point is that most of those 30 clubs have already got investors whereas we had one but where's the next one. Agreed re: Charlton.

I'm not rushing for it personally but I'm surprised that we haven't had some serious sniffing post Mel.

It wasn't that long ago that Chelsea were a pi55 pot club. Same for a lot of 'em - Bournemouth, Fulham, Leicester - historically smaller clubs than ours but due to investment / smart management, are regarded as decent clubs now. 

Chelsea and Fulham always had location on their side. That they were pi55 pot clubs probably made them easier to buy as well. If you have time on your side, clubs like that likely represent better VFM as opposed to trying to buy more established clubs.

That said, with the increasing number of wealthier clubs about, it makes it even harder to become established. Which means the initial gamble will have greater consequences should they fall short.

You only have to look at Morris, Fawaz and Chansiri. They naively thought they could just invest say $50m-$100m and that would be that, off into the sunshine with the Premier League billions. Yet they were outdone by smarter owners.

And now more have joined the race.

It also will be interesting to see what the Wrexham owners do once they reach the Championship. Their pockets are deep enough to get there, but they will soon discover the Championship is pretty much like a PL2 now with a large majority having wealthy owners all fighting for the same slice of cake. 

 

Edited August 20 by Bris Vegas

[rammieib]

3 hours ago, superfit said:

It’s not about making a profit each season (although that’s the long term goal) it’s about the value of the asset. Man City’s owners have invested 1.8 billion in the club to date, the club is now valued at 4 billion and that’s before accounting for the billions of dollars in investment that has poured into Dubai on the back of the ownership of the club. These clubs are huge global brands. 

Again though - of course I understand this but realistically, how many clubs can you do this with and what’s the investment required in order to get this far. Man City is only worth what someone will pay for it - it’s not publicly listed so no one has any idea how Much they are worth?

Bar the top six, name me another club that’s gone from being a 20-50m purchase and sold (not valued) for 200-500m?

Football clubs are toys for rich people. If you have significant money you don’t get rich by buying football clubs.

[Raich Carter]

9 hours ago, rammieib said:

Football clubs are toys for rich people. If you have significant money you don’t get rich by buying football clubs.

I would usually have agreed with that but I'm not sure it's entirely true any more. If the Mel Morris experiment had worked, he'd have probably sold the club in the following 2 years assuming we stayed up for a handsome profit. I think at some levels, you can make money from football clubs.

Also, the likes of the Glaziers are managing to do ok out of it from what he hear. I think there's a few out there that turn a profit or will have a positive return once the owners cash in - Brighton and Bournemouth seem well ran despite being very small clubs in reality. 

Problem is, as Mel demonstrated, if not done well, as you say, 'investing' in a football club is a very a good way of losing your money - I won't bother quoting the Alan Sugar line but you know what I mean! 🙂

Re: Wrexham - Reynolds is a seriously wealthy guy (Google it - has lots of business interests outside of acting) but again, I suspect he'll sell once it's increased in value. 

Don't get me wrong - the spending is crazy and there's massive debt overall but remembering that fundamentally, the owners are just leveraging the clubs assets, it'll always be the fans that pay one way or another. Football clubs are very, very attractive brands in that they have an almost pathological following from fans (loyalty) that isn't really present in other markets (e.g. if Ferrari produced crap cars for years, their brand would be damaged and value reduced whereas we'll follow Derby regardless). No matter what they do, we'll still turn up (to one degree or another). Highly exploitable, hence lots of... dodgy people trying to get 'in'. 

[superfit]

11 hours ago, rammieib said:

Again though - of course I understand this but realistically, how many clubs can you do this with and what’s the investment required in order to get this far. Man City is only worth what someone will pay for it - it’s not publicly listed so no one has any idea how Much they are worth?

Bar the top six, name me another club that’s gone from being a 20-50m purchase and sold (not valued) for 200-500m?

Football clubs are toys for rich people. If you have significant money you don’t get rich by buying football clubs.

I think your last comment about football clubs being ‘toys’ for rich people is with respect very outdated. Football clubs are becoming like real estate and big business. Football is watched all over the world and this means reaching a global audience and allows businesses to enter new markets. The owners of Man City are perfecting this business model. 
 

In terms of valuations a business does not have to be a public listed company to have a valuation. Privately owned companies sell shares every day and these shares have a valuation. These valuations are reached using a number of factors such as shares previously sold, increase in turnover since previous sales of shares, increase in assets and potential growth etc. Trust me there will be an army of accountants analysing and advising sellers and buyers on valuations. 
 

Man City sold a small amount of shares to Chinese investors a few years and I’m sure I read somewhere that the owners have recouped their total outlay in the club and still remain majority shareholders. 
 

In terms of clubs outside the big six Ipswich were purchased for 40m in 7th position in L1. The new American owners purchased 90% of the club from Marcus Evans. Evans agreed to write off 100m in loans in return for 10% in the new company. Therefore allowing the 40m to be used for players and improving facilities. Therefore valuing the club at around 45m. Since then the owners have sold 40% of the club for around 110m. Incidentally that was well before being promoted to the Premier League, so you would think the shares have increased in value substantially. It turns out that Marcus Evans has probably recovered a large chunk of the 100m he wrote off as his 10% is worth a great deal more today. 
 

We can talk all we want about sustainability and that might make some fans feel better but we’re not going to move forward and if your not moving forward your going backwards. 

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, superfit said:

...In terms of clubs outside the big six Ipswich were purchased for 40m in 7th position in L1. The new American owners purchased 90% of the club from Marcus Evans. Evans agreed to write off 100m in loans in return for 10% in the new company. Therefore allowing the 40m to be used for players and improving facilities. Therefore valuing the club at around 45m. Since then the owners have sold 40% of the club for around 110m. Incidentally that was well before being promoted to the Premier League, so you would think the shares have increased in value substantially. It turns out that Marcus Evans has probably recovered a large chunk of the 100m he wrote off as his 10% is worth a great deal more today. 
We can talk all we want about sustainability and that might make some fans feel better but we’re not going to move forward and if your not moving forward your going backwards. 

This is interesting indeed. We've an accountant running the club, you'd hope he would be looking into a similar model for Clowes Developments, who were after all reluctant purchasers?

[MadAmster]

22 minutes ago, superfit said:

We can talk all we want about sustainability and that might make some fans feel better but we’re not going to move forward and if your not moving forward your going backwards. 

Since my first Rams game in 1961, I can remember 3 times when we have been on the brink of extinction. Throwing huge amounts of money at a club is far from guaranteed to bring the success wanted. especially if several clubs are trying the same thing at the same time.

Ipswich built a squad over four years and had the money to do it. We got out of L1 in 2 seasons and weren't allowed to pay loan/transfer/agent fees. That drastically reduced the pool of players we could sign. Getting out in 2 years was an excellent performance. Until we get some inwards investment from a source David Clowes trusts we are where we are. DC doesn't have limitless liquid assets to pour into the club. he's probably gone as far as he sensibly can as most of his reported "worth" of £250M is tied up in non-liquid assets.

I'm happy for the squad to be tweaked over the next 3 seasons, improving year on year and only spending what we have. Boom and bust is not the way.

[RoyMac5]

19 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

...Boom and bust is not the way.

Who is suggesting it as an option? How many football clubs have gone out of business since 1884 btw? Is there a 100% successful way to keep a football club in business?

[rammieib]

52 minutes ago, superfit said:

I think your last comment about football clubs being ‘toys’ for rich people is with respect very outdated. Football clubs are becoming like real estate and big business. Football is watched all over the world and this means reaching a global audience and allows businesses to enter new markets. The owners of Man City are perfecting this business model. 
 

In terms of valuations a business does not have to be a public listed company to have a valuation. Privately owned companies sell shares every day and these shares have a valuation. These valuations are reached using a number of factors such as shares previously sold, increase in turnover since previous sales of shares, increase in assets and potential growth etc. Trust me there will be an army of accountants analysing and advising sellers and buyers on valuations. 
 

Man City sold a small amount of shares to Chinese investors a few years and I’m sure I read somewhere that the owners have recouped their total outlay in the club and still remain majority shareholders. 
 

In terms of clubs outside the big six Ipswich were purchased for 40m in 7th position in L1. The new American owners purchased 90% of the club from Marcus Evans. Evans agreed to write off 100m in loans in return for 10% in the new company. Therefore allowing the 40m to be used for players and improving facilities. Therefore valuing the club at around 45m. Since then the owners have sold 40% of the club for around 110m. Incidentally that was well before being promoted to the Premier League, so you would think the shares have increased in value substantially. It turns out that Marcus Evans has probably recovered a large chunk of the 100m he wrote off as his 10% is worth a great deal more today. 
 

We can talk all we want about sustainability and that might make some fans feel better but we’re not going to move forward and if your not moving forward your going backwards. 

I agree there are exceptions to the rules, but the vast majority of teams lose money and require on-going investment from owners to keep afloat.

The top six are irrelevant. You talk about the global demand for football which I wholeheartedly agree with you but go into a sports store in Asia and besides the big six, you can’t buy a football shirt of Derby or Stoke or Ipswich etc 

The Ipswich case you refer to is an exception. I agree there exceptions. Tony Bloom at Brighton is another one should he wish to sell the club now. 

What I am saying is the majority of football clubs won’t provide a return. If you were about to invest 20-50m I think you’d want a better bet than a 5-10% probably chance that you make money on the investment. If this was a private business, you absolutely wouldn’t invest in these companies with the ‘business’ markets they operate in.

There wasnt a queue to take is over. One fraudulent US businessman who didn’t have the money and then we were saved by a local businessman (hero to us) who simply couldn’t let his beloved football club go bust. 

I still firmly believe for the majority of people, it’s a toy and a hobby, not a wise business investment.

[CornwallRam]

11 minutes ago, rammieib said:

I agree there are exceptions to the rules, but the vast majority of teams lose money and require on-going investment from owners to keep afloat.

The top six are irrelevant. You talk about the global demand for football which I wholeheartedly agree with you but go into a sports store in Asia and besides the big six, you can’t buy a football shirt of Derby or Stoke or Ipswich etc 

The Ipswich case you refer to is an exception. I agree there exceptions. Tony Bloom at Brighton is another one should he wish to sell the club now. 

What I am saying is the majority of football clubs won’t provide a return. If you were about to invest 20-50m I think you’d want a better bet than a 5-10% probably chance that you make money on the investment. If this was a private business, you absolutely wouldn’t invest in these companies with the ‘business’ markets they operate in.

There wasnt a queue to take is over. One fraudulent US businessman who didn’t have the money and then we were saved by a local businessman (hero to us) who simply couldn’t let his beloved football club go bust. 

I still firmly believe for the majority of people, it’s a toy and a hobby, not a wise business investment.

Not a queue to take is over? Are you forgetting the delusional boxer, the fake Sheikh and the billionaire retailer who's arms were just too short to reach the bottom of his pockets?

[MadAmster]

50 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

1. Who is suggesting it as an option? 

2. How many football clubs have gone out of business since 1884 btw?

3. Is there a 100% successful way to keep a football club in business?

1. Nobody has openly suggested it but, there are several on her who seem to be against the current "sustainable and self sufficient" manner in which Mr Clowes is choosing to run the business. That suggests they want more money sending and, as we have found out to our near extinction in my lifetime, spending loads of money doesn't guarantee success and it doesn't guarantee survival as a business.

2. Look it up.

3. Define success.

The answer is, yes, there is. Don't spend money you don't have chasing money you might get if you manage to get into the GIG League.

Edited August 21 by MadAmster

[rammieib]

38 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Not a queue to take is over? Are you forgetting the delusional boxer, the fake Sheikh and the billionaire retailer who's arms were just too short to reach the bottom of his pockets?

None of them actually succeeded? The first two didn’t even count to me whilst Ashley wanted it for two pence.

If we count none serious people then of course there will be more.

[YorkshireRam]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Is there a 100% successful way to keep a football club in business?

Yes, not spending beyond your means... 

(Kind of set yourself up a bit there 😂)

[RoyMac5]

18 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

The answer is, yes, there is. Don't spend money you don't have chasing money you might get if you manage to get into the GIG League.

If you don't have money how will you pay the debts the Club runs up? Look it up! 😄

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, YorkshireRam said:

Yes, not spending beyond your means... 

(Kind of set yourself up a bit there 😂)

Again, we're supposedly doing that now and are losing money. 😄

[Gerry Daly]

There are a few people repeating the 'fact' that we are losing money. How do you know this? And don't point me to the only accounts so far published which covered the first financial year following the take over or your own back of a fag packet calculations - or anyone else's. I want up to date facts please that support or show this repeated assertion   

[YorkshireRam]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Again, we're supposedly doing that now and are losing money. 😄

Hence why you mitigate losses. Football clubs haemorrhage money, it's how they work. Not splurging on transfers is unfortunately part of managing that.

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but if you acknowledge we're already losing money, and have a working memory of how overspending worked out for us last time, why wouldn't you be wary of advocating financial policy that may get us in bother again?

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

Hence why you mitigate losses. Football clubs haemorrhage money, it's how they work. Not splurging on transfers is unfortunately part of managing that.

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but if you acknowledge we're already losing money, and have a working memory of how overspending worked out for us last time, why wouldn't you be wary of advocating financial policy that may get us in bother again?

We aren't making enough money to break even, so how much money to spend? How much did Longson spend?

When does it become overspending?!

This is about investment.

Edited August 21 by RoyMac5