United top world's 20 most valuable football club again
-
Manchester United are world's richest club ahead of Real Madrid and Arsenal
Heads, you win: Paul Scholes scored a late winner against rivals City on Saturday
Manchester United scored another title success late on Wednesday night by being valued as the biggest football club in the world.
Despite a turbulent year for British clubs, the Old Trafford side held on to top spot in Forbes Magazine's list of the world's 20 most valuable football teams.
Seven of the 20 teams featuring in the table hailed from England - despite the Barclays Premier League being the most indebted in Europe, according to governing body UEFA.
United, who have now topped the table for six years, were valued by Forbes at £1.19 billion after a 2% fall from last year.
Newcastle, rated as 20th most valuable, were a surprise inclusion after being relegated last year. Arsenal came third, ahead of Liverpool in sixth, Chelsea in ninth and Tottenham at 12th. Big-spending Manchester City trailed in 19th place.
Peter Schwartz, a business sports writer for Forbes, praised Manchester United's resilience as 'one of the world's biggest sporting brands'.
Third best (again): Arsenal are behind United and Real Madrid on the list
He said: 'The club has really established itself as one of the top brands in world sport. 'New kit deals and great marketing has seen them maintain their status despite all the problems of the global recession.'
Real Madrid were forced to settle for second place - despite signing Cristiano Ronaldo from United last summer.
The world's 20 most valuable clubs generated a combined £422million in operating income last season, a Forbes spokesman said.
Combined revenues grew by £23.4million to £3.57 billion for the 2008-09 season, Forbes said.
'The top five clubs took in 86% of the total because their worldwide following allows them to grab much more sponsorship and media revenue,' a spokesman added.
- Manchester United
- Real Madrid
- Arsenal
- Barcelona
- Bayern Munich
- Liverpool
- AC Milan
- Juventus
- Chelsea
- Inter Milan
- Schalke 04
- Tottenham Hotspur
- Olympique Lyonnais
- Hamburg SV
- AS Roma
- Werder Bremen
- Olympique Marseille
- Borussia Dortmund
- Manchester City
- Newcastle United
-
titles to financials - man u is definitely the best managed club.
chelsea won a few silverwares but they are not profitable.
arsenal is profitable but has nothing to show for it.
man u is the most balanced. they win lots of titles and make money along the way.
-
yup u are bloody correct.liverpool???nah,they corrupt!!
-
Originally posted by dragg:
titles to financials - man u is definitely the best managed club.
chelsea won a few silverwares but they are not profitable.
arsenal is profitable but has nothing to show for it.
man u is the most balanced. they win lots of titles and make money along the way.
ManU is certainly not the best managed club, even though it was #1 in Valuation and Operating Income, but it is also #1 in Debt.
1) Man U: 1,835 x 46%= USD844.1mils
2) Real Madrid: 1,323 x 54%= USD714.4mils
3) Arsenal: 1,181 x 41%= USD484.2mils
4) Liverpool: 822 x 47%= USD386.3mils
As for Chelski, it is believe that they have a high internal debt to owner which is not revealed.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/34/soccer-10_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Rank.html
So from the above, one could see why the top 4 in EPL did not strengthen the squad becos of high debts, and in fact we could see weaken top 4 this season.
In reality , the best managed club is Spurs , at least in UK.
It has a debt of only USD107.9mils(29% in value) which is manageable for it's size, but the best is, Spurs is 4th in UK and 10th in the world in term of Operating Income surrounded by clubs that are/were in CL or EL last year whereas Spurs were not even involved in any European competitions where the big money lies.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/34/soccer-10_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Income.html
So from the above , that why I said Spurs is the best managed club in UK.
-
And that is not just one off thing for Spurs,
In 2009,Spurs were 3rd in UK in term of Operating Income(USD70mils).
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/34/soccer-values-09_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Income.html
In 2008, Spurs were also 3rd in UK in term of Operating Income(USD64mils).
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/34/biz_soccer08_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Income.html
And all of them w/o CL football!!!
-
Yup, Spurs was ranked top by Deloitte in terms of cost effectiveness in 2008.
Here's a 2008 club by club report by Deloitte. The 2009 report is out but full report can only be had for £600.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html
-
Originally posted by gary1910:
ManU is certainly not the best managed club, even though it was #1 in Valuation and Operating Income, but it is also #1 in Debt.
1) Man U: 1,835 x 46%= USD844.1mils
2) Real Madrid: 1,323 x 54%= USD714.4mils
3) Arsenal: 1,181 x 41%= USD484.2mils
4) Liverpool: 822 x 47%= USD386.3mils
As for Chelski, it is believe that they have a high internal debt to owner which is not revealed.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/34/soccer-10_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Rank.html
So from the above, one could see why the top 4 in EPL did not strengthen the squad becos of high debts, and in fact we could see weaken top 4 this season.
In reality , the best managed club is Spurs , at least in UK.
It has a debt of only USD107.9mils(29% in value) which is manageable for it's size, but the best is, Spurs is 4th in UK and 10th in the world in term of Operating Income surrounded by clubs that are/were in CL or EL last year whereas Spurs were not even involved in any European competitions where the big money lies.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/34/soccer-10_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Income.html
So from the above , that why I said Spurs is the best managed club in UK.
Your point of how debts were incur over the last 3 yrs record is rather too naive. You fail to take into account how these clubs got into debts in the first place...
I guess by now almost everyone knows how United's debts came about, it was from the purchased by their owners rather than operating loss incurred over the years...
How are Spurs in debts to the tune of USD107.9mils or (29% of the club value) I am not sure but I don't think it was laid onto them by any owners. So it could be operating loss made over the years? Perhaps you should take this into consideration when you decide that they are the best managed club in the UK.
And from the datas you provided, the valuation of Tottenham Hotspur the football club have dropped by more than 16% from 2009 to 2010 alone. From a sum of $445m in value to $372 today. While United the club have fallen by less than 2% during this same period or US$35m.
And there are more areas to look at too... Their latest operating income is only 18% compare to last year's of 30% and the year before of 30% as well. So in general, they have earned lesser by 12% year on year. All these compare to United's on 23% two years ago, 31% Last year and 32% for this... So, still the best managed club in UK for you? I doubt many can agree with...
When you mentioned that the best thing is Spurs are 4th and 10th in the world in terms of operating income despite not being involved in any European competitions where the "big money" are. Again you fail to notice one crucial area... Clubs that take part in "big money" European competitions, also requires big expenses... Like a bigger squad, more quality players and of course higher wages... That could explain their drop in income from $70m to $35m this year where they have more quality in their squad... But that is also a huge 50% less income before interest and tax deduction, and they are still not there yet... Imagine when they do get there... phew...
On why United are valued as the biggest football club in the world which can kind of equal best manage... Simple. Just take away the foreign debts laid on to them. As a going business, their profits margins are far more impressive than Spurs. So I believe that is more than sufficient to suggest otherwise...
-
tio liao tio liao
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong like before
-
Originally posted by zocoss:
Your point of how debts were incur over the last 3 yrs record is rather too naive. You fail to take into account how these clubs got into debts in the first place...
I guess by now almost everyone knows how United's debts came about, it was from the purchased by their owners rather than operating loss incurred over the years...
How are Spurs in debts to the tune of USD107.9mils or (29% of the club value) I am not sure but I don't think it was laid onto them by any owners. So it could be operating loss made over the years? Perhaps you should take this into consideration when you decide that they are the best managed club in the UK.
And from the datas you provided, the valuation of Tottenham Hotspur the football club have dropped by more than 16% from 2009 to 2010 alone. From a sum of $445m in value to $372 today. While United the club have fallen by less than 2% during this same period or US$35m.
And there are more areas to look at too... Their latest operating income is only 18% compare to last year's of 30% and the year before of 30% as well. So in general, they have earned lesser by 12% year on year. All these compare to United's on 23% two years ago, 31% Last year and 32% for this... So, still the best managed club in UK for you? I doubt many can agree with...
When you mentioned that the best thing is Spurs are 4th and 10th in the world in terms of operating income despite not being involved in any European competitions where the "big money" are. Again you fail to notice one crucial area... Clubs that take part in "big money" European competitions, also requires big expenses... Like a bigger squad, more quality players and of course higher wages... That could explain their drop in income from $70m to $35m this year where they have more quality in their squad... But that is also a huge 50% less income before interest and tax deduction, and they are still not there yet... Imagine when they do get there... phew...
On why United are valued as the biggest football club in the world which can kind of equal best manage... Simple. Just take away the foreign debts laid on to them. As a going business, their profits margins are far more impressive than Spurs. So I believe that is more than sufficient to suggest otherwise...
All biz entity will some have debts to ensure cashflow and investment, this is called gearing not operating loss.
A right amount of gearing like Spurs will then help in investment of players, properties etc and still able handle the debt and ensure growth, too high a gearing like that of Man U will force them to use all profit on interests and debts and nothing else. And that is bad financial mgt regardless how the debt was incurred.
Last year, Redknapp came in and bought a lot of players, on top of my head are Defoe, Crouch,Bassong, Palacious etc & sold Bent, which is of course eat into the profit last year. Whereas ManU sold Ronaldo for 80mils pound last year & only make a profit of only USD150mils, in fact the profit is shown not so great after all.
Now let look at the size of the club in term of valuation and percentage in profit earn.Afterall ManU have a stadium more than twice the size WHL, more TV money plus CL football.
In year 2009,
ManU 150/1835= 8.17%, Spurs 35/372=9.41%
In year 2008,
ManU 160/1870=8.56%, Spurs 70/445=15.73%
In year 2007,
ManU 111/1800=6.17%, Spurs 64/414=15.46%
Looking at the above it seem that Spurs is still more profitable than ManU, if one buy ManU, you are looking 8~9% returns, for Spurs, will be likely to be above 10% returns.
-
ZOCOCK ZOCOCK ZOCOCK ZOCOCK ZOCOCK ZOCOCK AT IT AGAIN.......YAHOOO...ANOTHER GRANDMOTHER STORY..GO ZOCOCK SUCK COCK.FUCK LIVERPOOL FUCK POOLMAN
-
wah, got 5 German clubs ah................that's surprising.
-
Originally posted by gary1910:
All biz entity will some have debts to ensure cashflow and investment, this is called gearing not operating loss.
A right amount of gearing like Spurs will then help in investment of players, properties etc and still able handle the debt and ensure growth, too high a gearing like that of Man U will force them to use all profit on interests and debts and nothing else. And that is bad financial mgt regardless how the debt was incurred.
Last year, Redknapp came in and bought a lot of players, on top of my head are Defoe, Crouch,Bassong, Palacious etc & sold Bent, which is of course eat into the profit last year. Whereas ManU sold Ronaldo for 80mils pound last year & only make a profit of only USD150mils, in fact the profit is shown not so great after all.
Now let look at the size of the club in term of valuation and percentage in profit earn.Afterall ManU have a stadium more than twice the size WHL, more TV money plus CL football.
In year 2009,
ManU 150/1835= 8.17%, Spurs 35/372=9.41%
In year 2008,
ManU 160/1870=8.56%, Spurs 70/445=15.73%
In year 2007,
ManU 111/1800=6.17%, Spurs 64/414=15.46%
Looking at the above it seem that Spurs is still more profitable than ManU, if one buy ManU, you are looking 8~9% returns, for Spurs, will be likely to be above 10% returns.
Whatever you like to call it, a debt is still a debt ultimately and repayment with interest will still need to be paid on it at the end of the day.And there is no right or wrong amount of debts in any business venture. The most important aspect of it here is... First, is the company profitable? Can the company sustain? Will profits continue to grow in future? You can be a debt free company but if it's not a profitable one or not a very profitable one, it's still a poor company to one with debts but very profitable.
How did you arrive with such figures are quite amazing. Technically it isn't wrong but it's like a financial massage of the figures cos you fail to take into account many things like the different brand names for one... Potential earnings... Football clubs today is like a brand. It's like buying Coca Cola and RC cola. Which one have the potential to go further? Or why is Liverpool FC a lot more valuable than Spurs one might ask? They both haven't won much titles this last 20 yrs, their stadium size is about the same... Spurs should actually be more being a 'Big London' club but they aren't and why? It's because of the brand name. Liverpool is a brand name, so is United.
And when we talk about best managed club, we are not talking about the ownership yet but how were they manage business wise in the duration of the last 2, 3 yrs... or maybe even 20 yrs.
How the debt was incurred is of most important here. Cos it will show you whether the management during this last 10 years have been competent or not, the club been profitable or not... The club had been debt free before the takeover by the Glazers or when they were a PLC.
I have mentioned earlier on my post, the valuation of Tottenham Hotspur football club which you claimed to be the best manage dropped by more than 16% from 2009 to 2010 alone. Just one year. And during this same period, United's brand felt by less than 2%. Can you see the difference the different brands manage to distinguish themselves?
When we talk about best manage epl clubs, the United club isn't consecutively rank top for a few years by Forbes for no reason... I am not responsible for it, it came from a reputable international organization... Think about it... Think real hard about it before you decide to throw more figures around...
Years back, A certain Michael Knighton wanted to purchase the club for only £20 million and it was accepted by the club... Spurs as a London club, probably valued about the same or maybe more during that period as with Arsenal. But today, Look where is Arsenal? They are also in the billion dollar valuation range. Then look where are United... Not best manage? Spurs are 3x lesser in value to Arsenal and 5x to United.
And you are indeed correct that United do have a stadium twice in capacity to Spurs... This is due to the good management with foresight over the years to increased their capacity... Just imagine, Spurs will have to spend a minimum of $300m to $400m Pounds to build another stadium... will it's debts get bigger? From a current USD107.9mils or (29% of the club value), add in the $350m pounds convert to USD... I wonder what is the exchange rate currently... What sum their debt might be is anyones guess... And if they wish to continue to challenge for the top 4 position next year, they will have to take risk. Expenses will definitely increase for sure. So I think a 10% return is rather unlikely in the short term... But if they are not careful, spend and try to get CL but falls out like Leeds... You might not even get a 1% return if they go into the red. Something not unlikely with their current marginal profits before before interest and tax deduction...
-
Whatever you like to call it, a debt is still a debt ultimately and repayment with interest will still need to be paid on it at the end of the day.
And there is no right or wrong amount of debts in any business venture. The most important aspect of it here is... First, is the company profitable? Can the company sustain? Will profits continue to grow in future? You can be a debt free company but if it's not a profitable one or not a very profitable one, it's still a poor company to one with debts but very profitable.
No, there is right amount of debt(or gearing) and the wrong amount of debt(gearing).
The right amount of gearing is when a company has sufficient cashflow to run the biz and invest for future growth.
The wrong of amount of gearing is when most of the company profit went into payment of interest and debt with no fund for investment.
For example Liverpool, they want to invest in a new & bigger stadium but they do not have the funds, banks are concerned about their current debt and the ability to svc new loan,till now they still don't have the fund for it.
How did you arrive with such figures are quite amazing. Technically it isn't wrong but it's like a financial massage of the figures cos you fail to take into account many things like the different brand names for one... Potential earnings... Football clubs today is like a brand. It's like buying Coca Cola and RC cola. Which one have the potential to go further? Or why is Liverpool FC a lot more valuable than Spurs one might ask? They both haven't won much titles this last 20 yrs, their stadium size is about the same... Spurs should actually be more being a 'Big London' club but they aren't and why? It's because of the brand name. Liverpool is a brand name, so is United.
You talk about profitability in absolute number which is totally wrong, ManU profit are USD150mils, Spurs are USD35mils, therefore you conclude that ManU is more profitable.
For investment, we should talk about profitability based on return, for example you buy over Man U for USD1,835mils, you get profit of USD150mils in 2009 which means a return of 8.17% for your investment, If you buy over Spurs for USD372mils and get profit of USD35mils which means a return of 9.41% for your investment.
I did the above for 3 years for to show which is more profitable, if you average the figures, you will see that Spurs is actually more returns (ie.profitable & t)herefore better managed than Man U.
As for one do valuation for a company, future earnings are also included in the calculation, there is no 2 way about.
As for brand name , is like goodwill generated by the company, for football club,it is equivalent to the size of the fan base is it not?
As for the size of the fan base will determine the future earnings of that football club right?
So since future earnings of that football club is already included in the valuation,therefore your assertions are all wrong.
And since you talk about Liverpool , let look at the number again,now using only absolute profit instead of returns.
Pool profit for the last 3 years were 60, 50,37 mils. Spurs were 64,70,35mils.
Pool actually has a larger stadium than Spurs(slightly less than 9K), has CL football for the last 3 years, as you said has much better brandname(ie.larger fanbase) and yet Spurs has overall earned more profit than Pool, & if I calculated based on returns , Spurs will be very even much higher than Pool, this show how well Spurs is managed.
And when we talk about best managed club, we are not talking about the ownership yet but how were they manage business wise in the duration of the last 2, 3 yrs... or maybe even 20 yrs.
How the debt was incurred is of most important here. Cos it will show you whether the management during this last 10 years have been competent or not, the club been profitable or not... The club had been debt free before the takeover by the Glazers or when they were a PLC.
Glazers are the owner and make high impact decision for the club, therefore you could say they are part of mgt of the club, in fact they behave like CEO of the club. The loan is still a mgt decision.
I have mentioned earlier on my post, the valuation of Tottenham Hotspur football club which you claimed to be the best manage dropped by more than 16% from 2009 to 2010 alone. Just one year. And during this same period, United's brand felt by less than 2%. Can you see the difference the different brands manage to distinguish themselves?
When we talk about best manage epl clubs, the United club isn't consecutively rank top for a few years by Forbes for no reason... I am not responsible for it, it came from a reputable international organization... Think about it... Think real hard about it before you decide to throw more figures around...
You are wrong again, Spurs did not shrink, it is british pound that shrank 17% against the USD!
Forbes reports is based on USD , therefore Spurs look it has shrank, but in reality in pound, Spurs actually grew slightly larger. As for why it did not grew as much as ManU, it could be due to large outlay of players by Spurs last year and Man U sold Ronaldo for 80mils pound.
Years back, A certain Michael Knighton wanted to purchase the club for only £20 million and it was accepted by the club... Spurs as a London club, probably valued about the same or maybe more during that period as with Arsenal. But today, Look where is Arsenal? They are also in the billion dollar valuation range. Then look where are United... Not best manage? Spurs are 3x lesser in value to Arsenal and 5x to United.
That is becos they have CL football for years, whereas Spurs don't, 30mils pounds per year, that is a lot of money when multipke by # of years of CL football.
And yet w/o CL football, Spurs profit is either higher or almost equal to Pool, and have been higher than Chelsea most of time, that is good mgt!
And you are indeed correct that United do have a stadium twice in capacity to Spurs... This is due to the good management with foresight over the years to increased their capacity... Just imagine, Spurs will have to spend a minimum of $300m to $400m Pounds to build another stadium... will it's debts get bigger? From a current USD107.9mils or (29% of the club value), add in the $350m pounds convert to USD... I wonder what is the exchange rate currently... What sum their debt might be is anyones guess... And if they wish to continue to challenge for the top 4 position next year, they will have to take risk. Expenses will definitely increase for sure. So I think a 10% return is rather unlikely in the short term... But if they are not careful, spend and try to get CL but falls out like Leeds... You might not even get a 1% return if they go into the red. Something not unlikely with their current marginal profits before before interest and tax deduction...
Spurs already has a large squad, and I believe Levy will be prudent on spending on transfers and wages, that is his mgt style, no point having CL football and incur a large amount of debt just to stay in CL.
As for the new stadium , it is an investment for the future, with Spurs profitability and low debt, it should not be a problem.
-
Originally posted by gary1910:
i am speaking in terms of trophies and financials.spurs may be financially sound. but like arsenal, they have nothing to show in terms of trophies.
man u is more balanced. they make money and win lots of trophies as well.
-
Originally posted by gary1910:
No, there is right amount of debt(or gearing) and the wrong amount of debt(gearing).
The right amount of gearing is when a company has sufficient cashflow to run the biz and invest for future growth.
The wrong of amount of gearing is when most of the company profit went into payment of interest and debt with no fund for investment.
For example Liverpool, they want to invest in a new & bigger stadium but they do not have the funds, banks are concerned about their current debt and the ability to svc new loan,till now they still don't have the fund for it.
You talk about profitability in absolute number which is totally wrong, ManU profit are USD150mils, Spurs are USD35mils, therefore you conclude that ManU is more profitable.
For investment, we should talk about profitability based on return, for example you buy over Man U for USD1,835mils, you get profit of USD150mils in 2009 which means a return of 8.17% for your investment, If you buy over Spurs for USD372mils and get profit of USD35mils which means a return of 9.41% for your investment.
I did the above for 3 years for to show which is more profitable, if you average the figures, you will see that Spurs is actually more returns (ie.profitable & t)herefore better managed than Man U.
As for one do valuation for a company, future earnings are also included in the calculation, there is no 2 way about.
As for brand name , is like goodwill generated by the company, for football club,it is equivalent to the size of the fan base is it not?
As for the size of the fan base will determine the future earnings of that football club right?
So since future earnings of that football club is already included in the valuation,therefore your assertions are all wrong.
And since you talk about Liverpool , let look at the number again,now using only absolute profit instead of returns.
Pool profit for the last 3 years were 60, 50,37 mils. Spurs were 64,70,35mils.
Pool actually has a larger stadium than Spurs(slightly less than 9K), has CL football for the last 3 years, as you said has much better brandname(ie.larger fanbase) and yet Spurs has overall earned more profit than Pool, & if I calculated based on returns , Spurs will be very even much higher than Pool, this show how well Spurs is managed.
Glazers are the owner and make high impact decision for the club, therefore you could say they are part of mgt of the club, in fact they behave like CEO of the club. The loan is still a mgt decision.
You are wrong again, Spurs did not shrink, it is british pound that shrank 17% against the USD!
Forbes reports is based on USD , therefore Spurs look it has shrank, but in reality in pound, Spurs actually grew slightly larger. As for why it did not grew as much as ManU, it could be due to large outlay of players by Spurs last year and Man U sold Ronaldo for 80mils pound.
That is becos they have CL football for years, whereas Spurs don't, 30mils pounds per year, that is a lot of money when multipke by # of years of CL football.
And yet w/o CL football, Spurs profit is either higher or almost equal to Pool, and have been higher than Chelsea most of time, that is good mgt!
Spurs already has a large squad, and I believe Levy will be prudent on spending on transfers and wages, that is his mgt style, no point having CL football and incur a large amount of debt just to stay in CL.
As for the new stadium , it is an investment for the future, with Spurs profitability and low debt, it should not be a problem.
The question I ask you now is, United don't have funds for investments on new players? You are very sure about this?You are making it sound as though they can't afford to buy any player thesedays... It wasn't too long ago that they splash more than $50m on Nani, Anderson and Hargreaves with Tevez taken on loan all in one season. And did they not spent $30m on a certain Berbatov 2 seasons ago? Cos Spurs were the biggest beneficiary there along with another Robbie Keane... What happen to the $50m?
And were United debt free during this period of transfers? A simple answer to you is No.
Of course everyone would like to have a lower debt sum but if you can't, do you settle for a less profitable company or a very profitable one?
And when you take Liverpool's accounts into the picture it's very simple... The picture gets very much clearer... This is a direct example of a club poorly manage over the last 20 odd years. Why do I say this, cos 20 yrs ago, they were by far the bigger and richer club. Probably the richest to any in England and probably the biggest in the world. Poor management over the years and failure to maximize their brand new is a result for their shortcomings today. Nevertheless, despite the poor management through the years, they are still seen as a more worthy investment than Spurs cos they still do have a bigger brand name.
Anfield and Old Trafford wasn't very much different in terms of capacity those days...
You said, For investment, we should talk about profitability based on return. You are absolutely correct here but you fail to take into account on better or higher potential returns forecast for different entities...
Your example of Pool is rather too straight forward... So Spurs may have about 8k less but they are selling London prices. It's like Arsenal sells 16k lesser in tickets sales than United but they have the biggest gate collection on match days you get it?
Or when a Pool shirt sponsor becomes available, they get a $20m offer from a reputable company while Spurs get a lot lesser and it still has to be from a gambling company .
Yes, Pool indeed have CL football but did you take into account that they have a bigger wage bill to go along with that? It comes with a price that Spurs looks like they are about to get into. What is the highest earner at Spurs may i ask you? Well, at Pool, Glen Johnson is paid $139k per week... How much is Modric earning and how much is Gerrard? Think about it. If Spurs aspire to get into the CL, very soon their players will aspire to be paid like they should or other clubs will take them away... Its inevitable... Already we have seen a 50% lost from their operating income for better showing this season possibly due to more quality in the squad. But they are not even there yet... And even if they do, it will cost them much more to keep them there next year...
You give us the profitability of Spurs and Liverpool for the last 3 yrs for ? To show us Spurs earned more than Pool these last 3 yrs? Base on the figures you provided, their earnings are about the same in their latest financial year.
Let me ask you this question... Why is Liverpool valued almost 2.5 times more than Spurs? They don't have a new stadium to pump up the price either. What's the reason here maybe you can enlighten us all here..
On to the management again, I think you are greatly confused here... Glazers are indeed the owners. But the same management team of David Gills has been there long before the Glazers came. Therefore it is wrong to say the Glazers are behaving like the CEO and the management team are the ones that got the club into debts.
David Gills has been the CEO for a good number of years... The management aspect of the club like looking for new investments, planning for the club's future paths, keeping existing sponsorship going are all down to him... The club isn't paying him millions per annum for nothing. He is answerable to the owners and directors. It's his job to keep them profitable.
The Glazers are behaving like owners, they don't run the day to day activities, the CEO along with his team does so. Have we ever seen the Glazer involve in any transfer of players coming in when its not the manager's choice? Did the Glazer sold Ronaldo despite the big offer the year before he left? No, the players himself wanted to leave and an agreement was made with the manager to let him go a year later which was what happened. Look at the risk the Glazer took in leaving it to the management to decide. Had Ronaldo got seriously injured or Real decided not to get him a year later who is going to give them $60 to $80m? From here we can see this whole episode was left to the management to decide.
Do not be mistaken. The loan is solely the owner's decision and not the management cos as a going club / business, they are very profitable, they don't need a loan. It is the owner who can't afford so laid his own property as collateral to the bank. So you are greatly mistaken to assume the management team are the ones that got them into debts...
Now this is the most ridiculous statement i have came across in this thread... The shrinking of the pounds is inconsequential to the percentage lost... Cos isn't United, Arsenal gauge with the same formula? Both lost only 2% compare to Spurs 16%.
Also your assumption of $30m pounds is overly excessive isn't it? You only get $10m for making the first round and probably $30 winning it... Do they win it that often these last 10, 15 yrs?
Spurs do have a large squad for the premier league... But it will be a step up if they plan to stay in the CL (if they do get there). How prudent Levy could be on their spending I am not sure, it's still open for discussion but 50% dropped in one season where they are only trying to get that 4th place doesn't seem very assuring... Cos it's a big step up to balance the premiership with the CL together...
And for the new stadium... you make is sound like a small problem and brush it off like no big deal... Well, look at Arsenal... They are already a lot weaker from it and have proven it will take a few years for them to get back. But at least they are already enjoying the fruits of their labour. Spurs still has a long way to go before enjoying the first ticket sale in their new stadium... And if their current debts is already US$108m, trying adding another US$540m ($350m pounds) to it for the new stadium... It could potentially cripple the club for a few years or even a decade and if they can't manage it like Arsenal, spend little and rely on young and cheaper players and still get into CL... They could face more problems than the Gunners with no CL football and a high debt to repay not to mention the interest each year...
I am not saying Spurs are poorly manage, just not the best that's all...
-
What a borefest......
-
The question I ask you now is, United don't have funds for investments on new players? You are very sure about this?
You are making it sound as though they can't afford to buy any player thesedays... It wasn't too long ago that they splash more than $50m on Nani, Anderson and Hargreaves with Tevez taken on loan all in one season. And did they not spent $30m on a certain Berbatov 2 seasons ago? Cos Spurs were the biggest beneficiary there along with another Robbie Keane... What happen to the $50m?
And were United debt free during this period of transfers? A simple answer to you is No.
Of course everyone would like to have a lower debt sum but if you can't, do you settle for a less profitable company or a very profitable one?
No, but I can't say that, but Fergie is now more prudent in term of buying player as compare what he used to do.
Last season,Ronaldo(at 80mil) & Tevez left the club, and who did he bought?
Valencia and Owen.
Owen is injury prone, slower and is now 30y.o., b4 that SAF will buy someone like Saha, VN etc who has good track record and at their peak, & at inflated prices so that the other club cannot ignore.Especially after he got windfall from the sale of Ronaldo, it was a surprise that he bought Owen, which tell us that Fergie is not as free spending as he used to be.
Berbatov sales was 2 years ago, Keane was sold abt 20 mils and later bought back which actually not too high profit earn from there & since then we bought in a lot of players, in fact we have so many players out on loan now, O'Hara,Hutton,Santos,Keane & many other youngters. The sqaud is now larger than 2 years ago.
Investing in a company with large debt is taking a higher risk than that with less debt.
One will only invest in such a company when potential return is worthwhile, but if you compare Man U with Spurs, which do one do you want to invest?
Based on track record, Spurs is having higher returns than ManU, & with lesser debt(ie. lower risk), plus the fact that Man U is already right at the top, whereas Spurs is not there yet, what if Spurs can have CL football for next few years?
If that happen, Spurs growth potential will be much higher than ManU, no doubt about it.
Nevertheless, despite the poor management through the years, they are still seen as a more worthy investment than Spurs cos they still do have a bigger brand name
No, as I have already explain above, investment decision are based on potential returns based on track record, risks and growth potential, Liverpool are poorer in all these aspect than Spurs atm.
Let me ask you this question... Why is Liverpool valued almost 2.5 times more than Spurs? They don't have a new stadium to pump up the price either. What's the reason here maybe you can enlighten us all here.
I can't becos I dun have the balance sheet, football clubs in UK do not just have a stadium, they could have owned many properties and other biz other than football plus the fact that when valuation was done, it also included the potential earning from CL football. As I have already explained in my previous posting, potential future earnings is also included in the valuation.
As for the Glazers, eventhough they do not run the day to day activities does not means that they do not make decisions that affect the club, the loan itself affect the books, owners are known to sack football managers that did not perform and look for new mgrs and new deal with them etc, all these decision affect the club, this is all still consider as management, becos the decision they make affect the club in term of profitability,growth etc.
Now this is the most ridiculous statement i have came across in this thread... The shrinking of the pounds is inconsequential to the percentage lost... Cos isn't United, Arsenal gauge with the same formula? Both lost only 2% compare to Spurs 16%.
LOL, what the hell are you talking about?
The Forbes Chart for the year 2008 is b4 the shrinking of the pound against the USD,the Forbes Chart for the year 2009 is after the shrinking of 17% of the value of the pound against the USD, but if the chart were all BP, Spurs will not dropped in value at all.
Now what it has shown is that ManU and Arse actually gone higher in valuation than Spurs last year but we still don't know what is the reason for it because we dun have the balance sheet to compare, we can only speculate .
I have told you that Spurs bought a few more players last years, transfer fee plus higher wages may affect it, likewise ManU has a windfall for the sales of Ronaldo, for Arse, I heard they have sold a plot of property that yearn good profit last year, & there could be more that we don't know.
Lastly, you keep on saying we should look at things in a long run, for example you were saying b4 Glazer, ManU was doing fine financially and now you are looking at just one year Spurs performance! LOL
Now let look at 2005 and 2008 do a comparsion( not 2009, becos I will then have to converted to all BP to be more accurate)
ManU 1,373----1,870 +36%
Arse 841----1,200 +42%
Spurs 214----445 +108% enough said.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/34/Rank_1.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/34/soccer-values-09_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Income.html
Also your assumption of $30m pounds is overly excessive isn't it? You only get $10m for making the first round and probably $30 winning it... Do they win it that often these last 10, 15 yrs?
Spurs do have a large squad for the premier league... But it will be a step up if they plan to stay in the CL (if they do get there). How prudent Levy could be on their spending I am not sure, it's still open for discussion but 50% dropped in one season where they are only trying to get that 4th place doesn't seem very assuring... Cos it's a big step up to balance the premiership with the CL together...
And for the new stadium... you make is sound like a small problem and brush it off like no big deal... Well, look at Arsenal... They are already a lot weaker from it and have proven it will take a few years for them to get back. But at least they are already enjoying the fruits of their labour. Spurs still has a long way to go before enjoying the first ticket sale in their new stadium... And if their current debts is already US$108m, trying adding another US$540m ($350m pounds) to it for the new stadium... It could potentially cripple the club for a few years or even a decade and if they can't manage it like Arsenal, spend little and rely on young and cheaper players and still get into CL... They could face more problems than the Gunners with no CL football and a high debt to repay not to mention the interest each year...
I am not saying Spurs are poorly manage, just not the best that's all...
Regardless, with CL football , they still earn much higher than Spurs could.
As for Levy, whether he could be prudent in spending I will say yes, becos he has demonstrated it very well but having low debt, low wages to turnover ratio and at the same time earning good profit year in year out.