Pukki's extension is for £50k per week?

[Badger 2,405]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

God I hate these rules.

They are a UEFA recommendation atm, but it's obviously what the big clubs will want (secure profit; less competition from new entrants) so I'd have thought likely to go through?

[king canary 7,609]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

They are a UEFA recommendation atm, but it's obviously what the big clubs will want (secure profit; less competition from new entrants) so I'd have thought likely to go through?

Likely.

I'm just very anti any 'you can spend x% of turnover' as it just locks in the existing inequalities and makes the game even less competitive.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I posted this some years back:

In 2016, after Brighton had announced a £25.9m loss for a season in which they had failed to get promoted (with the FFP loss £39m over three seasons but some bits of losses are allowable) owner Tony Bloom summarised the dilemma and the subsequent temptation:

"Our ambition remains for the club's teams to play at the highest level possible. As chairman (and lifelong supporter of the club), I will do everything I possibly can to achieve that and remain fully committed. Any Championship club without parachute payments wishing to compete for promotion will inevitably make significant losses. It remains a delicate balancing act for the board as we strive to achieve our ultimate aim."

Brighton then got promoted and have never been charged with breaking FFP, but it is a fair guess that if they hadn’t gone up that next season the cost of another failed attempt would have been problematic.

Just looked it up. Brighton, after that £25m loss, then in that next season made a £36m loss getting promoted...

[Badger 2,405]

55 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

The current majority stakeholder at Leeds paid £60 million for the club in 2017 and has a deal to sell his remaining shares in 2024 which if it goes through will see him make a profit of £300 million+ overall, it can be done.

According to the Daily mail article he paid £45 million for the club and there's an agreed sale of £400 million which could rise to £475 million. It's a bit tentative + they will probably have to spend quite heavily to keep Leeds up, but sounds like Radrizzani could make good money from Leeds. (What happens if they go down next year?)

Getting them for £45 million was good bit of business as they have the potential to be a fully established Premier League team, though the ground only holds 37,000, which although 10,000 bigger than us is a little low. I'd say that selling them for up to £475 million was pretty good  business as well, when you consider Ashley only got £300 million for Newcastle and West Ham were valued at £600 million in the minority deal done last year.

I think that it is possible to make money if you buy cheaply and sell well. Buying Derby out of administration might be a good bet (especially, if they get HMRC to take a haircut) + I think Sunderland has huge potential for a cheap price. The Ipswich buyers obviously thought that there was a chance at the price they got ITFC at as well.

However, as we have agreed pretty consistently it largely depends upon buying a distressed asset, which atm, we are not. You would not be able to buy 100% of Norwich for £45 million and there is no real prospect of us being sold for £400+ million, so this doesn't apply to us - nor indeed many other clubs (our lack of debt makes us less distressed).

The other way of making money as an investor might be having a club big enough to be "make the jump." West ham (London Stadium) + Newcastle fit into this category; Leeds might possibly? West Ham look to be a club with real potential - have a ground that is London-based and with a capacity of £62,500 suggests that they could be as big as any other other London clubs - and bigger than Chelsea (reportedly selling for £3 billion). Again, sadly this does not apply to Norwich.

Getting back to the main theme of the thread, however, this is all highly speculative investment and fail more often than it succeeds. Why would an investor do this and risk losing tens or hundred of millions when they could be like MSD, lend to multiple football clubs at 7+% over the base rate with loans at almost no risk because they are secured against all club assets. Even in a potential success story like Radrizzani, what is his annualised rate of return after 7 years + annual losses - then compare this to MSD?

Ooops wrong thread - I thought this was the investment thread 🤦‍♂️

Edited March 29, 2022 by Badger
Added last sentence

[Badger 2,405]

Back on the question of the thread, Nick Ma****er (spelling?) last night suggested that Pukki was on £60,000 pw.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Badger

[shefcanary 2,409]

44 minutes ago, Badger said:

Back on the question of the thread, Nick Ma****er (spelling?) last night suggested that Pukki was on £60,000 pw.

I read on internet this week (from a relatively decent source) that across the EPL, the average weekly wage will be over £50K this season. On that basis and given he is in the know Ma****er is probably right.  And people still raise questions about the TV money somehow finding its way directly into owners accounts.  

Edited March 29, 2022 by shefcanary