• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

SpurMeUp said:
Not sure about that.

1. Following your logic the investment is worth it only if the club is sold for more than the investment. It is possible that might occur, but not certain. While there may be entities with more money than sense who want a vanity project, it is hard to present buying chelsea at £2-3b as an attractive business proposition. Because you need to spend and subsidise the business, just to keep it standing still. How will you make the money back!? Especially for those concerns who are looking to leverage the buyout. How will they actually generate money to pay back the purchase?

2. What makes you say Saudi Sportswashing Machine have more fans attending because their stadium is bigger? Chelsea hasn't sold out their smaller ground once this season....

Sure fans attending games is far less important than TV money, everyone knows that, but if you fall outside the CL, or you hit the rocks (for whatever reason) having a loyal fan base who'll get 50k supporters through the turnstiles while you're fighting relegation, that is a strong foundation. The revenue that brings and 'proof of concept' locally, is a nice foundation to have. Security you could call it. If chelsea can't sell out their ground while doing well, how would the stadium revenue fare if they did hit a rocky patch? Not as well as say Saudi Sportswashing Machine who were also a fraction of the sale price. I don't think there is any doubt that Saudi Sportswashing Machine represents the more savvy purchase. Not least because owning a football club is all about progression. That is the excitement. Use your money to develop and advance the club, watch it grow and make a difference.

Chelsea on the other hand - just to maintain its status quo you need to pump in money, and the foundations of a strong fanbase are not there. Twitter followers won't be putting their hand in their pocket either, so are SM followers meaningful, can you monitise them?
Click to expand...
1. You are assuming that the value of football clubs has peaked. I think there is still a large upside.
2. You are also again forgetting that Chelsea’s fans pay far higher prices than Saudi Sportswashing Machine’s so they still generate significantly more match day revenue than Saudi Sportswashing Machine (where the City also holds limited value for upping prices and big money corporate entertainment packages). Chelsea’s global support dwarfs Saudi Sportswashing Machine’s. Can you monetize social media followers?…. I bet clubs will start to do do in the not too distant future, additionally large social media followings, equate to higher sponsorship deals so in some ways the social media followers are already being indirectly monetized. I saw today that Jim Ratcliffe has now made a bid for Chelsea, does the fact such a very clever and hugely successful businessman has bid for Chelsea not suggest to you that perhaps Chelsea FC is probably worth the money after all?

re: Attendances, I expect Chelsea haven’t sold out in the same way that we haven’t.. I.e. a few single seats for sale up in the top corners. It is folly to suggest that Chelsea don’t have a large demand for their tickets, I’d love them to be a small club without much support but those days are now 20 plus years ago unfortunately.
 
Finney Is Back said:
1. You are assuming that the value of football clubs has peaked. I think there is still a large upside.
2. You are also again forgetting that Chelsea’s fans pay far higher prices than Saudi Sportswashing Machine’s so they still generate significantly more match day revenue than Saudi Sportswashing Machine (where the City also holds limited value for upping prices and big money corporate entertainment packages). Chelsea’s global support dwarfs Saudi Sportswashing Machine’s. Can you monetize social media followers?…. I bet clubs will start to do do in the not too distant future, additionally large social media followings, equate to higher sponsorship deals so in some ways the social media followers are already being indirectly monetized. I saw today that Jim Ratcliffe has now made a bid for Chelsea, does the fact such a very clever and hugely successful businessman has bid for Chelsea not suggest to you that perhaps Chelsea FC is probably worth the money after all?

re: Attendances, I expect Chelsea haven’t sold out in the same way that we haven’t.. I.e. a few single seats for sale up in the top corners. It is folly to suggest that Chelsea don’t have a large demand for their tickets, I’d love them to be a small club without much support but those days are now 20 plus years ago unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying PL clubs values have peaked fwiw. I think your point was that investing billions should make a profit. And actually you are likely correct. But its a risky strategy, no one would pump in 2b, £1m a week (under Abramovich), expecting to realise a profit. Too may variables to guaranteed a profit and far easier ways to generate more money with 2b sloshing around.

Sure chelsea are the more attractive proposition. I think being in west London, home to the rich and famous, is also a big draw. The point was simply that for 300m you can buy a big club with a loyal fanbase. Results can change, fortunes can change, but fans tend to be more constant. I remember sitting in the 'home' section of a game at Stamford Bridge, and unlike being at other clubs where you have to sit on your hands and play it cool, it turned out I was surrounded by lots of other Spurs fans! For chelseas levels of success, you'd expect a far stronger fanbase.

It will be interesting to see how they fare. Short term they will probably get an injection of cash. Longer-term, will the owners wish to subsidise them? Hopefully not. Radcliff making a bid over a month later than the deadline is odd, maybe he was helping someone to get the sale over the line with some external pressure, who knows. If he did bid 4b it is not a statement of his acumen but his wealth. He doesn't invest in sports to make money, but to spend it!
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
I wasn't saying PL clubs values have peaked fwiw. I think your point was that investing billions should make a profit. And actually you are likely correct. But its a risky strategy, no one would pump in 2b, £1m a week (under Abramovich), expecting to realise a profit. Too may variables to guaranteed a profit and far easier ways to generate more money with 2b sloshing around.

Sure chelsea are the more attractive proposition. I think being in west London, home to the rich and famous, is also a big draw. The point was simply that for 300m you can buy a big club with a loyal fanbase. Results can change, fortunes can change, but fans tend to be more constant. I remember sitting in the 'home' section of a game at Stamford Bridge, and unlike being at other clubs where you have to sit on your hands and play it cool, I was surrounded by other Spurs fans! For their levels of success, you'd expect a far stronger fanbase.

It will be interesting to see how they fare. Short term they will probably get an injection of cash. Longer-term, will the owners wish to subsidise them? Hopefully not. Radcliff making a bid over a month later than the deadline is odd, maybe he was helping someone to get the sale over the line with some external pressure, who knows. If he did bid 4b it is not a statement of his acumen but his wealth. He doesn't invest in sports to make money, but to spend it!
Click to expand...
Again, I think you misunderstand the reasons why people want to own a big football club and therefore why Chelsea FC represent decent value at 2 or 3 billion £
 
Finney Is Back said:
Again, I think you misunderstand the reasons why people want to own a big football club and therefore why Chelsea FC represent decent value at 2 or 3 billion £
Click to expand...

Yep I definitely do not understand why anyone would think the chavs are decent value at 2-3b. A huge sum for a business that needs top-up money added to maintain its status and brand.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Probably best we leave the argument there then to avoid going round and round….
Click to expand...

Agreed! In summary, you've pointed to the chavs social media following and their global brand as justification for a valuation that is X billion more than Saudi Sportswashing Machine's. And you are probably right. I highlighted a few other factors - chelsea's high-class location, the 'fire sale' drumming up interest and publicity. To me they seem expensive - potentially the most expensive sale of a sports team ever.

To bring the discussion back on topic - what is interesting is Enic are probably closer than they have ever been to selling because of this chelsea sale. There are ready-made buyers who have dipped their toe in, and you can make a case for Spurs being a stronger business, if not brand. There is more latent potential in Spurs to invest and progress. Chelsea will aspire to be the Real Madrid of London, but I don't see it personally.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Agreed! In summary, you've pointed to the chavs social media following and their global brand as justification for a valuation that is X billion more than Saudi Sportswashing Machine's. And you are probably right. I highlighted a few other factors - chelsea's high-class location, the 'fire sale' drumming up interest and publicity. To me they seem expensive - potentially the most expensive sale of a sports team ever.

To bring the discussion back on topic - what is interesting is Enic are probably closer than they have ever been to selling because of this chelsea sale. There are ready-made buyers who have dipped their toe in, and you can make a case for Spurs being a stronger business, if not brand. There is more latent potential in Spurs to invest and progress. Chelsea will aspire to be the Real Madrid of London, but I don't see it personally.
Click to expand...

Or enic might want to hold on for the same reasons that others want to buy chelsea? They see room for growth.
 
Lilbaz said:
Or enic might want to hold on for the same reasons that others want to buy chelsea? They see room for growth.
Click to expand...

No doubt. Plus you don’t invest decades of hard work and care and want to step away before you hit the heights.

on the flip side, there is no better time to have Spurs valued. Using the Chelsea valuation to peg a price against, we must be looking far more attractive. plus there are interested parties who are focused on a PL purchase. Everyone knows football clubs don’t really make money, so Chelsea’s giddy valuation may not look justified later in a year or two.
 
SpurMeUp said:
No doubt. Plus you don’t invest decades of hard work and care and want to step away before you hit the heights.

on the flip side, there is no better time to have Spurs valued. Using the Chelsea valuation to peg a price against, we must be looking far more attractive. plus there are interested parties who are focused on a PL purchase. Everyone knows football clubs don’t really make money, so Chelsea’s giddy valuation may not look justified later in a year or two.
Click to expand...

It all depends on why the buyer wants to spend that type of money on chelsea? What do they want?
 
Bedfordspurs said:
The fact it’s a consortium means the risk is shared like any returns would be
I’d guess there all after a profit
Click to expand...

Agree. But how do they think they'll achieve it? Is it the property? Growing revenue through stadium expansion? Broadcasting? Being more successful?

Dunno.

Funny how no journalist has asked the bidders that question.
 
How about the consortium copying Levy's ideas : Upgrade the Chelsea stadium and surroundings through long term debt to get new revenue from some hotels and f&b, hosting concerts and boxing matches. Save costs by having a less complicated pitch and let Levy to monopolise the occasional NFL games.

Only stickler now is interest rates.
 
metalgear said:
How about the consortium copying Levy's ideas : Upgrade the Chelsea stadium and surroundings through long term debt to get new revenue from some hotels and f&b, hosting concerts and boxing matches. Save costs by having a less complicated pitch and let Levy to monopolise the occasional NFL games.

Only stickler now is interest rates.
Click to expand...

They can't buy up the surrounding area. They are boxed in by a traintrack. It's why their original proposal for a stadium was such a weird shape and so expensive.
 
Lilbaz said:
Agree. But how do they think they'll achieve it? Is it the property? Growing revenue through stadium expansion? Broadcasting? Being more successful?

Dunno.

Funny how no journalist has asked the bidders that question.
Click to expand...
Putting the club in debt like united to get some to their money back and skim off the top
That’s the fear Chelsea fans have already
 
metalgear said:
How about the consortium copying Levy's ideas : Upgrade the Chelsea stadium and surroundings through long term debt to get new revenue from some hotels and f&b, hosting concerts and boxing matches. Save costs by having a less complicated pitch and let Levy to monopolise the occasional NFL games.

Only stickler now is interest rates.
Click to expand...
The consortium wouldn’t be rich enough to do that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back