Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
devilish said:
I am referring to your claim about how Forbes has come out with the club's value.
Click to expand...

How do you think Forbes values a company? You think it just pulls a figure out of their arse?

The Market Method is the most used by forbes, but we can’t for a single second believe PSG’s SDE and nor can we really believe that a smallish French team has a similar size to Liverpool, Manchester United, Madrid or Barca, but their revenue sheet sure makes out they are, thus making any valuation nonsensical.

It’s the same thing with Man City who they value at 4.25bn, roughly the same value they give Manchester United Liverpool & Bayern Munich :lol:

If City or PsG were to hand ownership “back” to their fans now and disappear, do you really think for a single second either could continue as they have? With revenues matching United, Barca, Real?
Once the ridiculously inflated sponsorship deals vanished, the club’s ability to buy top players would quickly diminish without the ability to fool ffp and their propped up valuations would drop like lead. That simply wouldn’t happen at Liverpool, United, Barça, Bayern, Real etc.
 
Last edited:
Red in STL said:
So what if they do, they make 2 billion profit even with that
Click to expand...
Plus with, what, another £5bn from us? That's not going to be easy to maintain. Are they going to want to add more debt from other ventures? Soon adds up and then they'll be looking to alleviate all that debt somewhere.

Alternatively, you could have the club bought and infrastructure improved with no debt at all.

That choice is a no brainer for me, I'm afraid.
 
devilish said:
I am referring to your claim about how Forbes has come out with the club's value.

Owners had always helped clubs prop their revenue through sponsors. Juventus are sponsored by JEEP who are owned by the Agnelli family. If we're bought by SJR I'd expect INEOS to do the same. Also note that non Qatari linked sponsors had helped increase revenue. In 2021-2022 sponsorship money had increased by 13% because of new deals with GOAT (50 million euros for the season), Crypto.com (10m euros), and Gorillas ( 10 million euros). Other sponsors include Accor Live Limitless, EA sports, Visit Rwanda, Orange, Autohero and Coca Cola.

Revenue increases had also been seen thanks to merchandising and matchday revenue

https://www.getfootballnewsfrance.com/2022/psg-set-to-generate-e700m-in-revenue-this-season/
Click to expand...
GOAT is $50m over 3 seasons, or $17m per season. None of those smaller deals add up to Mbappe+Neymar+Messi+Ramos money. They're incredibly sponsorship heavy (relative to Matchday and Broadcast) when you compare it to United, and the main deals are with Qatari sponsors.

The fact that owners do prop up their clubs with inflated deals does not add any value to a prospective buyer of the club. Why would you pay for a future revenue stream that will be gone once you buy the club? Or do you think Qatar would continue to pay a few hundred million a year to sponsor PSG if the club became owned by someone else?

I've been trying to explain this on the basis of logic and information. If you'd prefer just claims of expertise, I am an investment analyst for a living. So I feel very comfortable arguing that Forbes is valuing all of the clubs in the list at face value of revenues. The fact that PSG is in a 2nd tier league is the main cap on their valuation, because that limits their TV money, and means they have to overpay market rates to attract players (the #1 expense of a football club).
 
Tom Cato said:
Nice to see so many of you who just do not give a shit who owns the club as long as they give you players and money. Im certain the womens team will be excited to be owned and funded by the regime that do not allow women do live life without permission from a male guardian. You lot have the backbone of a jellyfish and Im happy to take a account warning for the truble of telling you as much.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% and happy to take account warning too for agreeing
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
How do you think Forbes values company’s? You think it just pulls a figure out of their arse?

The Market Method is the most used by forbes, but we can’t for a single second believe PSG’s SDE and nor can we really believe that a smallish French team has a similar size to Liverpool, Manchester United, Madrid or Barca, but their revenue sheet sure makes out they are, thus making any valuation nonsensical.

It’s the same thing with Man City who they value at 4.25bn, roughly the same value they give Manchester United :lol:
Click to expand...

I am asking you since you're making the claim. I am only relying on what is written by reputable companies like Forbes and Bloomberg. There's no reason to doubt their knowledge and I see no reason as of why PSG president would lie about an offer they had received either. I'd rather trust them then someone whose only argument of Nice FC success is based on their form in the past 10-20 games.
 
MTF said:
GOAT is $50m over 3 seasons, or $17m per season. None of those smaller deals add up to Mbappe+Neymar+Messi+Ramos money. They're incredibly sponsorship heavy (relative to Matchday and Broadcast) when you compare it to United, and the main deals are with Qatari sponsors.

The fact that owners do prop up their clubs with inflated deals does not add any value to a prospective buyer of the club. Why would you pay for a future revenue stream that will be gone once you buy the club? Or do you think Qatar would continue to pay a few hundred million a year to sponsor PSG if the club became owned by someone else?

I've been trying to explain this on the basis of logic and information. If you'd prefer just claims of expertise, I am an investment analyst for a living. So I feel very comfortable arguing that Forbes is valuing all of the clubs in the list at face value of revenues. The fact that PSG is in a 2nd tier league is the main cap on their valuation, because that limits their TV money, and means they have to overpay market rates to attract players (the #1 expense of a football club).
Click to expand...

Please post the information that prove that your claim regarding Forbes is true. Bloomberg has also confirmed that value and had claimed of a potential buyer valuing PSG at that price

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rs-for-minority-stake?leadSource=uverify wall
 
devilish said:
I am asking you since you're making the claim. I am only relying on what is written by reputable companies like Forbes and Bloomberg. There's no reason to doubt their knowledge and I see no reason as of why PSG president would lie about an offer they had received either. I'd rather trust them then someone whose only argument of Nice FC success is based on their form in the past 10-20 games.
Click to expand...

Are you playing daft now? A club or company valuation is directly linked their revenue and bottom line.
Nothing about that is a secret.

Now if you believe their revenues and bottom line, more fool you.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Are you playing daft now? A club or company valuation is directly linked their revenue and bottom line.
Nothing about that is a secret.

Now if you believe their revenues and bottom line, more fool you.
Click to expand...

Not really. For example United's revenue doesn't justify our 4.5b-6b price tag.
 
Plant0x84 said:
INEOS I believe won’t ‘talk big’ because that’s not their MO. They will invest for sure, but I don’t see them splashing the cash because they want to be sustainable and smart with their investment.
The statement said they want to put United back at the top with the clear aim of winning the champions league. Thats all we can ask.
Click to expand...
Seems like Ratcliffe has starting his charm offensive with spreading some mumbo jumbo that means everything and nothing. Red flag again.
 
stevoc said:
So it seems that sportwashing is so strong not only are some people defending everything Qatari before they've even bought the club it now extends to defending their ownership and running of PSG.
Click to expand...
Or, there's so much shit and bile being posted by those against that some feel the need to (try and) put them right.
 
Plant0x84 said:
INEOS I believe won’t ‘talk big’ because that’s not their MO. They will invest for sure, but I don’t see them splashing the cash because they want to be sustainable and smart with their investment.
The statement said they want to put United back at the top with the clear aim of winning the champions league. Thats all we can ask.
Click to expand...
Not worried about their intention to put the bike bloke in charge of changing everything?
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Bike bloke or so random bloke called Jassim that no-one has ever heard of.

Why is one better?
Click to expand...
Jassim wouldn't be managing the club, he'd hire the relevant people with (hopefully) actual footballing experience.

Is Sheikh Mansoor doing the transfers or dictating the recruitment policy at City?
 
Kaos said:
Jassim wouldn't be managing the club, he'd hire the relevant people with (hopefully) actual footballing experience.

Is Sheikh Mansoor doing the transfers or dictating the recruitment policy at City?
Click to expand...

Boom!!! :)

Bike bloke doesn’t manage Nice either, in fact, he hired Florent Ghisolfi to do just that.

At every club, someone has to hire their Sporting Director, such as Florent. It’s either Jassim doing it, or bike bloke. Why is one better?
 
Plant0x84 said:
INEOS I believe won’t ‘talk big’ because that’s not their MO. They will invest for sure, but I don’t see them splashing the cash because they want to be sustainable and smart with their investment.
The statement said they want to put United back at the top with the clear aim of winning the champions league. Thats all we can ask.
Click to expand...

"With some sensible, measured investment, we want to establish OGC Nice as a team that competes in European club competition on a regular basis. And importantly, sustain it."
 
devilish said:
Please post the information that prove that your claim regarding Forbes is true.
Click to expand...
I don't have to prove anything if they're not showing their work. The information I was referring to are the same numbers about PSG's total revenue of EUR 700 million and its sources (over half sponsorship) that you posted, and the NYT article about the prior investigation into why Qatari companies were in some cases paying EUR 100 million not to even be the shirt sponsor.

I've tried explaining that traditional valuation is done on the basis of Free Cash Flow, of which PSG has close to zero to comply with FFP, and negative if the sponsorship deals they have were at market value. In that case the fundamental value of a business is negative. That Forbes found a positive value of $3.4B means they almost certainly used a 5x revenue multiple on the revenues of PSG, but that is not a fundamentally correct valuation of any company.

Lastly, if you want to fall back on some sort of claim of expertise ("Forbes are the experts"), then I have stated that I have at least an equal claim to expertise which is the basis on which I'm explaining the above to you.

devilish said:
Not really. For example United's revenue doesn't justify our 4.5b-6b price tag.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it doesn't. But at least in the club's recent history there are years of positive free cash flow generation. So there's a start of a valuation argument there, and a large prestige premium on top of it.

But PSG has no viable model for generating free cash flow in their current model, if they were to be sold to a different owner. If they were to lose Qatar then that's hundreds of millions of sponsorship revenue gone, which either leaves a gaping annual loss that would quickly bankrupt the club, or they have to sell/release all of their star players to bring down the wage bill, at which point they most likely don't compete solidly in the UCL anymore.
 
MTF said:
I don't have to prove anything if they're not showing their work. The information I was referring to are the same numbers about PSG's total revenue of EUR 700 million and its sources (over half sponsorship) that you posted, and the NYT article about the prior investigation into why Qatari companies were in some cases paying EUR 100 million not to even be the shirt sponsor.

I've tried explaining that traditional valuation is done on the basis of Free Cash Flow, of which PSG has close to zero to comply with FFP, and negative if the sponsorship deals they have were at market value. In that case the fundamental value of a business is negative. That Forbes found a positive value of $3.4B means they almost certainly used a 5x revenue multiple on the revenues of PSG, but that is not a fundamentally correct valuation of any company.

Lastly, if you want to fall back on some sort of claim of expertise ("Forbes are the experts"), then I have stated that I have at least an equal claim to expertise which is the basis on which I'm explaining the above to you.


Indeed, it doesn't. But at least in the club's recent history there are years of positive free cash flow generation. So there's a start of a valuation argument there, and a large prestige premium on top of it.

But PSG has no viable model for generating free cash flow in their current model, if they were to be sold to a different owner. If they were to lose Qatar then that's hundreds of millions of sponsorship revenue gone, which either leaves a gaping annual loss that would quickly bankrupt the club, or they have to sell/release all of their star players to bring down the wage bill, at which point they most likely don't compete solidly in the UCL anymore.
Click to expand...

Ok. Argument is over I guess!
 
Plant0x84 said:
Rather someone with sporting experience than a random banker in charge. We’ve been down that road and it doesn’t go too well……
Click to expand...

Just because one person with banking experience didn't work it doesn't mean every person from that field is pre destined to fail, does it?

And the opposite is true, just because Brailsford has sporting expertise it doesn't mean he's going to succeed in football either, why try and put a potential square peg in a round hole, surely it's common sense to get the best in the field?
 
devilish said:
How many times had NICE entered the CL since they were bought by INEOS?
Click to expand...

Do you really wanna have the same dog shit debate every second day?

Nice have been in the CL once in their history, and in the European cup twice in the 1950’s. They are a pretty small French club, dwarfed by the likes Marseille, Monaco, Lyon.

Their one CL qualification in 2017 started going pear shaped instantly, finishing 8th and 7th with the CL campaign going to 2 losses, 2 draws and 0 wins.

Making them a regular CL team in a time where money can’t be spent as freely as PSG did will take some smart moves. Until they hired Florent Ghisolfi this past October, I don’t think they had made many really good ones, but this one looks excellent and the next few transfer windows with him running the club are very interesting.

But feck me, we’ve spoken about the above in length a billion fecking times now man. :lol:
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Do you really wanna have the same dog shit debate every second day?

Nice have been in the CL once in their history, and in the European cup twice in the 1950’s. They are a pretty small French club, dwarfed by the likes Marseille, Monaco, Lyon.

Their one CL qualification in 2017 started going pear shaped instantly, finishing 8th and 7th with the CL campaign going to 2 losses, 2 draws and 0 wins.

Making them a regular CL team in a time where money can’t be spent as freely as PSG did will take some smart moves. Until they hired Florent Ghisolfi this past October, I don’t think they had made many really good ones, but this one looks excellent and the next few transfer windows with him running the club are very interesting.

But feck me, we’ve spoken about the above in length a billion fecking times now man. :lol:
Click to expand...

You haven't answered my question. Ratcliffe has promised regular CL football. How many times had that been achieved?

This is what they said about Lausanne FC

“INEOS is excited about taking this major step into top-class football as part of our wider commitment to encourage youth sport in Lausanne and Canton Vaud. We hope and expect that this new investment in the team will take Football Club Lausanne-Sport forward to further success, and we see no reason why this could not mean playing in Europe.”

Do you think getting relegated twice in the Swiss league is equivalent to playing in Europe?

These 'smart owners' seem to be quite good in selling snake oil.
 
alexthelion said:
Plus with, what, another £5bn from us? That's not going to be easy to maintain. Are they going to want to add more debt from other ventures? Soon adds up and then they'll be looking to alleviate all that debt somewhere.

Alternatively, you could have the club bought and infrastructure improved with no debt at all.

That choice is a no brainer for me, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
That's how business works, that's how INEOS got to be what it is today, there are big tax advantages to having some debt, that's how Donald Trump got to be a billionaire and paid very little tax

I'm not saying UNEOS is the answer but they got to where they are by doing what they appear to be proposing here
 
Lecland07 said:
Manutd dividends are pathetic compared to Ineos. Ineos paid out €3.3bn in dividends over less than four years. Manutd's dividend is about $20m per year; there is no reaping dividends. It is a grain of sand compared to what the owners of Ineos already pull in.
Click to expand...

People won't listen to reasonable posts such as this, they're here to post anything that makes the Ineos bid look shit its almost like there is an agenda.

The lack of real business acumen on here is startling to me, the binary thinking of all debt is bad debt, if Apple or Amazon bought us they would finance it with debt just for the tax break alone it makes financial sense and then not to burn liquidity through acquisitions when you can finance through other means and reap the benefits of doing so
 
Ahriman said:
Just because one person with banking experience didn't work it doesn't mean every person from that field is pre destined to fail, does it?

And the opposite is true, just because Brailsford has sporting expertise it doesn't mean he's going to succeed in football either, why try and put a potential square peg in a round hole, surely it's common sense to get the best in the field?
Click to expand...
No you are right. Woodward was great.

I’ve seen it now, Jesus wept.
 
alexthelion said:
Plus with, what, another £5bn from us? That's not going to be easy to maintain. Are they going to want to add more debt from other ventures? Soon adds up and then they'll be looking to alleviate all that debt somewhere.

Alternatively, you could have the club bought and infrastructure improved with no debt at all.

That choice is a no brainer for me, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
That’s fortunate! ;)
 
devilish said:
Ok. Argument is over I guess!
Click to expand...
You've been an arse here. @MTF has taken the time to go over the minutiae for the laymen in here and for you to disregard what he's said like that is shitty. They work as an investment analyst - I think it's fair to say their opinion and take on this is worth listening to.
 
redcucumber said:
You've been an arse here. @MTF has taken the time to go over the minutiae for the laymen in here and for you to disregard what he's said like that is shitty. They work as an investment analyst - I think it's fair to say their opinion and take on this is worth listening to.
Click to expand...

I've asked him of proof of what had been said (ie that Forbes rely solely on club revenue) and he couldn't provide it. I am aware that the guy claim to be as much of an expert as Forbes is. That doesn't mean that I have to believe that. But sure, you can believe it if you want to.
 
Last edited:
Can't wait for this to be over to be honest. The endless bollocks debate is doing my nut in. I come into this thread hoping for some kind of factual developments being reported and discussed. Instead the same old bickering and bullshit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.