Dan1983
Prediction champion 2012-2013
City fans don't come in here and troll all the time.
BenRobbins
New member
Good point!
Jair Ventura
New member
I don’t know if some of you realize this yet but supporting a club other than Barca doesn’t make you a troll. And given I don’t speak negatively about Barca or La Liga, this whole “he’s a troll” act because I participate on this board is tired.
Givenchy
Senior Member
only problem with ignore is we still get to see the shite he spews via people replying to him.
regarding City i do think its tainted by the oil money. i gotta respect what Pep has turned them in to though, he bought in the players he wanted specifically and they are reaping the rewards. most of my family are United fans so i was hoping Pep would be going there after Bayern. I'm sure we'd be heaping the KdB praise on Pogba if he was United manager. haven't come across a bad City fan on here yet and i remember some guy used to post on here Blueduck or something, good poster.
Flemischduck
New member
Ill make an attempt as a city fan and investor to adress the oil money, do take in mind it's a subjective view ofcourse.
- Money is a key aspect in the sport, all teams want more money so they can get better players, and all teams that have the money will try to use it to get an edge over the opposition. I presume that in the vast majority of cases that the wealthier team tends to win the match, so the criticism that "they have much better players than us" could be used a lot and typically against the top teams. Hypocritical might not be the best word, but the point is that any weaker team that would suddently find itself in a money bonanza would likely do the same.
However
- A lot of teams have found themselfs at the top trough year on year improving performance's and increased revenue's, aka they have grown their own financial base rather than they received a huge monetary injection, and this would be regarded as more of an ideal from a sportivity p.o.v , but it's hardly the end of that matter, as many of those teams that have grown their monetary base often did it trough succesfull transfer management. It's typically regarded as "well played" if a team manages to pick up cheap players and sell them for multi millions. But then..
- As an investor, ideally i would like to see all my investments used in a reasonable way, so that my investment leverage's the company to be able to perform better, sometimes all a good company needs is some extra capital to make big gains. I typically think that investors will shy away from a company if it looks like the investment would be wasted, and vice versa that they would be motivated to invest even more if it looks like the money is being well spend.
Those 2 last points combined: City could have blown all that money to overrated players and be left at the bottom still, but it's fairly apparent that the money has succesfully leveraged them into being a far better team able to dominate the league. I'm pretty sure that the valuation of city is a multiple of what it used to be, and that the sjeiks would make a big profit when they sell it.
How big of a profit though? Investors will always seek a certain "return on investment", depending on the risk involved. Typically you want more return than ther eis inflation, more return even than a savings account or investment in bonds would return, and when it's risky like football then you'd want it to return more than say investing in real estate. So something like atleast a 10% gain per year. I presume that the yield for the sjeiks is better than that. That begs the question the for me: Why arn't more teams being leveraged to succes? Normally if an investment shows great prommise then investors will jump on it in drove's, whats keeping them to gain similar rewards with so many other teams? City however isn't the firt team owned by billionaire's.
Just looking at the players, they have plenty who they picked up for a fair sum that would be worth a multiple today. And the remark is made here "who was in for KDB when he was at Wolfsburg?", a player sold by Chelsea and Mourinho, a player that was lauded by some as the "60 million reject" when he joined city. He'd be worth 200+ million today.
Conclusion for me: the remark on the investments made would seem hypocrit if people wouldn't also recognise how well the money had been spend, Manchester United is even more rich but i'd say their transfer policy hasn't looked half as good as ours with their position in the premier table as a result. This point is no criticism to anyone here, just my way to put the oil money in context.
- Money is a key aspect in the sport, all teams want more money so they can get better players, and all teams that have the money will try to use it to get an edge over the opposition. I presume that in the vast majority of cases that the wealthier team tends to win the match, so the criticism that "they have much better players than us" could be used a lot and typically against the top teams. Hypocritical might not be the best word, but the point is that any weaker team that would suddently find itself in a money bonanza would likely do the same.
However
- A lot of teams have found themselfs at the top trough year on year improving performance's and increased revenue's, aka they have grown their own financial base rather than they received a huge monetary injection, and this would be regarded as more of an ideal from a sportivity p.o.v , but it's hardly the end of that matter, as many of those teams that have grown their monetary base often did it trough succesfull transfer management. It's typically regarded as "well played" if a team manages to pick up cheap players and sell them for multi millions. But then..
- As an investor, ideally i would like to see all my investments used in a reasonable way, so that my investment leverage's the company to be able to perform better, sometimes all a good company needs is some extra capital to make big gains. I typically think that investors will shy away from a company if it looks like the investment would be wasted, and vice versa that they would be motivated to invest even more if it looks like the money is being well spend.
Those 2 last points combined: City could have blown all that money to overrated players and be left at the bottom still, but it's fairly apparent that the money has succesfully leveraged them into being a far better team able to dominate the league. I'm pretty sure that the valuation of city is a multiple of what it used to be, and that the sjeiks would make a big profit when they sell it.
How big of a profit though? Investors will always seek a certain "return on investment", depending on the risk involved. Typically you want more return than ther eis inflation, more return even than a savings account or investment in bonds would return, and when it's risky like football then you'd want it to return more than say investing in real estate. So something like atleast a 10% gain per year. I presume that the yield for the sjeiks is better than that. That begs the question the for me: Why arn't more teams being leveraged to succes? Normally if an investment shows great prommise then investors will jump on it in drove's, whats keeping them to gain similar rewards with so many other teams? City however isn't the firt team owned by billionaire's.
Just looking at the players, they have plenty who they picked up for a fair sum that would be worth a multiple today. And the remark is made here "who was in for KDB when he was at Wolfsburg?", a player sold by Chelsea and Mourinho, a player that was lauded by some as the "60 million reject" when he joined city. He'd be worth 200+ million today.
Conclusion for me: the remark on the investments made would seem hypocrit if people wouldn't also recognise how well the money had been spend, Manchester United is even more rich but i'd say their transfer policy hasn't looked half as good as ours with their position in the premier table as a result. This point is no criticism to anyone here, just my way to put the oil money in context.
City made some good investments but let's not pretend they had regular investors ("always looking for a return") behind them. What about your stadium name rights?
Flemischduck
New member
No, more like that investment into city has proved to be sound bussiness for the Sjeiks. But i still ask myself the question, why wouldn't more big investors go for this sort of investment if it would be relativly easy like this?
I do believe though that being manchester based was part of the equasion when choosing that team to invest in.
Last edited:
Yannik
Senior Member
Investors like the ones at City, PSG, Chelsea etc don't really seek profit when buying a football club. We are talking about the kind of power obsessed elite who build skyscrapers to name them after their fiance. The investments into such clubs is in the heights of millions. The revenue gained is reinvested into the club (taxes, infrastructure, wages, transfers, interests, stadium). Clubs will at some point become self sustainable, yet an investment like this wouldn't see the break even point in decades. Even more so when you keep pumping in money disguised in a sponsorship deal from your own company.
The point is rather just really the symbolic dick you can wield. Having built something with your name. Hence why the owners also have little chances to sell their clubs for this much. Hard to find someone who wants an already established club. No point in that. You don't pay a fortune to be the 2nd on the Everest.
Last edited:
Flemischduck
New member
City IS self sustainable. Revenue has risen so much to allow that. There is no requirement from outside financial injection to fund transfers for ex.
It's not even such a big part of revenue nowadays, they could easily get a similar if not better deal with another sponsor i'd think.
City sold about 10 % of their shares recently to a chinese group for over 200 million, puts the valuation of city over 2 billion. The easyness by which they can sell shares only depends on the dividend really, if the yield of divident would would turn the return of investment over 6% investors will flock to buy those shares as thats known as easy money.
George_Costanza
Active member
Ever heard of intangible benefits? Marketing, brand image and market share is now 25-30% of big corporation value which in a long run will be converted into tangibles. Like a Coca-Cola or Apple logos, they are highly valuable but quite intangible.
Mitchell1978
Senior Member
Compared to PSG City have the advantage of playing in the Premier League which off course generates far more tv money then Ligue 1.
Jair Ventura
New member
PSG has the advantage of being in Paris, which generates far more international traffic. On the other hand, one of Ligue 1's largest broadcasters is beINsports. Also a project/investment of QIA, the same financial entity that owns PSG.
JamDav1982
Senior Member
Pretty much none of that generates money for PSG in any comparable way to being in EPL.
What the fuck relevance does 'intl traffic' have?
DonAK
President of FC Barcelona
International traffic as in....people visiting the city for vacations or modeling assignments? I don't see the relevance of that here?
When it comes to international viewership, the EPL unfortunately dwarfs everyone else. Bigger and better overall brand as they've been long established internationally and obviously the language helps too.
Also, beIN Sports are not going to put up money comparable to what the EPL get, or even what the La Liga get in broadcasting rights. It's still a business so they won't be handing out freebie money for a product that's valued a lot lower and where they'll get little from their investment
Last edited:
Jair Ventura
New member
I’m not sure traffic was the word I was looking for. Visibility perhaps? Basically, what I’m saying is Paris is one of the most recognizable cities in the world, so any brand associated with it will benefit from that visibility. Sort of like Ney York City and it’s sports franchises. I’ve never followed baseball in my life, but I know who the Ney York Yankees are. I believe PSG benefits similarly from being the flashlgship club of Paris.
As for viewership and the EPL? You’re exactly right, and PSG’s handlers were aware of this. At some point after purchasing PSG I think they even contemplated buying Tottenham as well for that reason, but were denied by UEFA. As an alternative, they decided to start indirectly investing in French football through bein sports. People underestimate this aspect of PSG’s project, but beIN has grown exponentially since they last sat at the table and negotiated French football rights. The network is now present in most of the developed world and will soon be expanding to SA as well. While you’re correct in saying they won’t match what the EPL is getting, French clubs don’t need similar levels of investment to find success because their academies are such they don’t need to spend hundreds of millions to buy talented players, they develop them themselves. This being so, French clubs only need enough resources to upgrade their facilities and pay competitive wages. They’re getting there, hence the rise of quality in French football as a whole.
Home of Barca Fans
