I think the fact Ed Woodward is being bought in to help the sale tells me the potential new owners will be very similar to the Glazers as some have said here - American businessmen who just want to x2 or x3 the value of the club by means of marketing. As people have also said the Glazers probably already know who this consortium is too.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Why do we think Todd bought Chelsea?
If anyone claimed in 2005 that United could sell within two decades for between 4-6bn or that Chelsea would sell for $3.2m, you’ve had thought them utterly bonkers.
People always think it’s the peak, for house prices, and for football clubs.
wait you think he bought Chelsea to make money?
the Dodgers don't make money either, he just wanted to own them
there are no multiples to be made in buying Chelsea
anyway United are going to cost 3x as much, there are so many better investments than that around.. whoever buys us is buying us for prestige and because they want to own us - not to make money
wait you think he bought Chelsea to make money?
he isn't making money from the Dodgers either, he just wanted to own them
Hmmm… something isn’t the same as it was in 2012
It’s almost as though he bought them for the same reason the Glazes bought United, and likely has bought Chelsea for the same reason, the future value.
Last edited:
Hmmm… something isn’t the same as it was in 2012
I said making money, not book value.. Chelsea are not making much money
the book value ship has already sailed
or are you trying to argue they can be sold for 30bn in 10 years time?
Telsa barely make any money, hasn’t stopped them making Musk the richest man on the planet.
The Dodgers has been a great acquisition for him financially, no question. He likely thinks Chelsea will be the same.
Stop making the silly argument that extremely rich owners need to “make money” rather than simply increase value, they don’t.
I have no idea how football will look in 10-15 years time, I’m fairly certain United and Chelsea will increase in value significantly. Just as they have done since their inception.
Yeah which is why I can't see anything other than the Middle East. I'm sure David Beckham will the face.
I think someone buying the club for £6b and investing a further £2b on top of everything gained through operating activities over the next decade is going to struggle to make any real money when compared with the opportunity cost of other investments.
It would certainly be a bold investor who would think they'll make a lot, especially coinciding with the end of cheap finance. Even a rather mild 6% compounded return would see them needing to sell for over £14b in a decade. An 8% annual return would be over £17b.
I can't see those kind of increases and that's with a somewhat mild investment program of essentially building a new stadium and spending solely our c. £100m a year EBITDA on infrastructure, squad investment etc. Add in another £1b of investment on top that would likely be needed to win the coveted trophies and the numbers look even less likely (over £16b and £19b).
Let's be honest; it's likely to be bought either by one of the very few people who could afford it as a vanity project; or as a vehicle to market a nation state in a positive light.
It would certainly be a bold investor who would think they'll make a lot, especially coinciding with the end of cheap finance. Even a rather mild 6% compounded return would see them needing to sell for over £14b in a decade. An 8% annual return would be over £17b.
I can't see those kind of increases and that's with a somewhat mild investment program of essentially building a new stadium and spending solely our c. £100m a year EBITDA on infrastructure, squad investment etc. Add in another £1b of investment on top that would likely be needed to win the coveted trophies and the numbers look even less likely (over £16b and £19b).
Let's be honest; it's likely to be bought either by one of the very few people who could afford it as a vanity project; or as a vehicle to market a nation state in a positive light.
Just noticed this again, so you think Twitter will be worth 400bn in 10 years?
It’s a nonsensical argument at these figures mate, a 2x increase is significant. Football clubs can be a very sound’s investment due to the loyalty of their fan bases.
Football clubs don't make much money. This is just a fact of life. Are you disputing this too? Surely not.
I think Elon Musk thinks he can scale Twitter to Facebooks mcap, yes
I don't think he will though
We will be bought by the middle East for sure. There's not enough in it for the yanks at the prices being quoted.
You don't seriously think the threshold for an investment is a minimum return of 1500% do you?
Absolutely I am.
Chelsea just sold for 3.2m, United is set to make the owners billions.
Are you disputing that buying United hasn’t made the Glazers tonnes of money? Are you disputing that if Todd sold his stake in LA now, he’d make lots and lots of money?
FSG bought Liverpool for 300m, how much money will they now make once sold?
How much was Leicester (now valued at over 1bn) sold for? 30m right?
You keep equating making money to annual profits, when frankly, as with Tesla, or Twitter, Manchester United, Liverpool, the Dodgers, that has little meaning in the grand scheme of things.
Last edited:
Let's hope the Glazers do sell but I am still very sceptical about it. I feel they have an investor lined up, just like they had that Apollo investment company in the summer.
I think you're misunderstanding my point.
Football clubs don't make much profit.
Therefore, if investors are buying them to make money. The only logical conclusion you can derive is they are buying the club to make money through book value.
So, if the asset has increased by 10/20x in the last 10 to 15 years. Savvy investors are not going to look at that and think a similar return is likely. Possible, sure. But likely, no. Capital would be better risked in other sectors like tech.
The only way they'd think it likely is if there is an obvious new revenue stream or opportunity on the horizon. And after the super league got shot down, there isn't anything like that.
you're correct, I don't think that
but they would like there to be a non-zero chance of it
i thought that was a fairly pointless interview, he said nothing of worth. Of course it will be overpriced if people are willing to pay it
Luckhurst connections are with United, not Apple.
Tech investment is much much more volatile than football though, and carries much bigger risk.
And very rarely does anyone buy a 4bn dollar business and expect it to be worth 40 or 80 bn within 10-15 years, that’s fantasy lands bollocks.
Investing in a rock solid industry like sports is popular for that reason, all the examples I gave to you are from the past 10 years (Liverpool, Leicester, Dodgers), al making their owners significant return on their investments.
Arsenal are challenging City without oil money, this idea that we need oil money to compete is nonsense, we just need the right transfer team in place to back ten Hag. As long as the new owners don't take money out of the club, we'll compete, our marketing value has not appreciated yet either.
precisely the point I am making
After years of paying for Emirates though. Our own task with OT still lies ahead.
Arsenal built a new stadium which also meant they couldn't spend so didn't compete at the top. We might get someone who can fund so much that needs doing but it might end up us taking out a mega loan to get any infrastructure improvements. If there is no money going out to the owners, which if we sell to Americans again it might not be the case, it will fund transfers.
The champions league is turning into a hybrid european super league format from 2026 onwards. A proper super league is an unfortunate inevitability. Your either in the elite circle or not. State owned clubs are here to stay. Better to join them than struggle to compete with them.
At the level of state ownership or billionaires, no-ones hands are clean.
It will only get harder to challenge city and eventually newcastle. What happens if a oil state buys liverpool? That would be three clubs with unlimited backing and owners not wanting to take profits out of the club.
The arsenal model currently is very hard to replicate even for them. There is alot of luck involved in getting a group of players together who gel, compliment each other and who fit the right cycle for the club.
I just can't understand how anyone can observe a situation that within 16 years a business man can make a profit in excess of £6bn (in addition to over £550m in dividends along the way) and still suck their teeth and claim there's no money to be made from sports ownership
Getting ahead of yourself mate. They’ve been shit for a decade, this season is 14 games old.
there is a big delta between "money to be made" which is obviously true, and whether or not United is a good investment (which is not obvious at all)
if you're just going to ignore the fact the Glazers invested pre-bubble then I can see why you'd be confused
Or Leicester costing 30m
Liverpool just 300m only 10 years ago.
But there’s no money in it.
People have been talking about this bubble for 25 years ago. It’s nonsense, all football has shown is consistent growth.
People were wrong 25 years ago. They could be wrong again. But the probabilities for investors are much worse now. You see the difference?
Or Leicester costing 30m
Liverpool just 300m only 10 years ago.
But there’s no money in it.
pre-bubble
private equity is not dumb money, like you
You’ve decided it’s a bubble is all.
Your entire argument is based on a “bubble” you’ve invented in your own head.
Exactly, both are achievable without oil money, as long as the owner is invested in a long term gain.
The amount its going to take to bring OT, Carrington and the rest of the infrastructure up to scratch, they'll factor into their finances when purchasing the club.
The likes of Real Madrid and Bayern will still challenge in the new CL format, they're not state owned.
We'd be fine without being backed by an oil state should we purchase the right players, that's the key to our rebuild. And as I said above, should we not take money out of the club and keep it there, we'll have more than enough money to back ten Hag.
The oil state buyer is preferred as there's so much of an outlay on the infrastructure side.
Can only take it on face value to be fair, they're top until the next few PL games as well.
Even Liverpool have pushed City all the way the past 4-5 seasons, they're not state backed neither.
As I say above, people want oil state buyers so we get shiny new infrastructure asap.
Why is it a probability when it’s shown consistent growth over decades, proven to be recession proof etc?
Just saying it doesn’t make it so. That’s not what a bubble is. It wasn’t true then and it’s not true now.
You think Arsenal will be there at the seasons end?
it is by definition a bubble
and as with all bubbles, there are people who think it will just continue indefinitely
but private equity are not those people
it's basic math it's not an opinion
if you invest at a higher valuation, your ROI probabilities decrease
every market has a cap on potential growth.. whether you know what it is or not
They will if it is somebody who intends doing something about it. The Glazers have done as little as was needed to fool people.
You’d have said the same when FSG acquired Liverpool 10 years ago.
There is still room for lots of growth in football, the Super League will come in some form even if under UEFA’a banner. I predict content, proven by the popularity of Amazon prime documentaries and VR will massively increase profitability at the top football clubs over the next 15 years.
But hey, Tarrou’s declared it a bubble.
- Status