2015 - 2016 Football Thread - Page 422

On August 12 2016 02:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:


What do "regular businesses" have to do that football clubs don't? Regulation is not limited to the government, the FA regulates things like home-grown players, which influences price.

Who's talking about debt financing? What does that have to do with anything?

On August 12 2016 04:21 mahrgell wrote:
Imho, it would already be a huge step forward, and potentially actually reduce the insanity, if the FAs would demand all contracts to be public.
You don't even have to regulate those contracts. (even though this could obviously the next step, if just making them public doesn't work) It would massively reduce the power of agents and it would create way more public pressure...

I don't blieve the salaray cap stuff etc from the US sports is in any way possible in european footie, but the public contracts are really nice in the US sports.

On August 12 2016 04:35 Rebs wrote:


yeah caps are great in theory but you can get leagues to regulate uniformly so thats not a solution. Never will be. But there are plenty of things they can do to make it so that clubs are more responible with their money.

And to Pandes point. Fans are paying the gate fees but find me one person who thinks its fair.

On August 12 2016 03:30 Rebs wrote:


Debt financing has everything to do with it. Almost all PL clubs are in the red.

Regular businesses would never be allowed to operate under such debt levels (refer to article). There have been dozens of decent English clubs going into administration in the last 2 decades. The only ones you hear about are the higher profile ones like Portsmouth or Leeds.

Leeds is an excellent example that played the we got money card and then lost the revenue stream because it went out of the league and it is literally done and this is a club with a fantastic history.

The debt that these teams hold is offset but artificial valuations of various assets that no one is ever going to pay for its literally the same speculative risk taking (in this case for the sake of competition) that the banking sector did.

Home grown player regulation has a marginal effect at best. Teams will find ways to skirt around it. Im not sure why that point even matters though. British players are not expensive because clubs require a minimum amount of them on rosters. They are expensive inspite of that. The good ones anyway. Or maybe you were making some other point. Not sure.

The debt that these teams hold is offset but artificial valuations of various assets that no one is ever going to pay for its literally the same speculative risk taking (in this case for the sake of competition) that the banking sector did.

On August 12 2016 06:19 zulu_nation8 wrote:


There are no laws that regulate how much debt private businesses can carry, there are barely any for public companies. The FFP and even home-grown regulations are far more aggressive than any financial regulations that corporations of the same size face from the government. Man Utd is a publicly traded company that has both debt (banks) and equity financing in the form of stocks. The Glazers made a bet that the PL would grow like it has, and as a result, Man Utd's revenue has risen by a shitload since they took over. You would have to give some real data to show that PL clubs are overvalued, current growth is unsustainable, and that clubs are borrowing too much, because none of the numbers support what you're saying, and statements like:



are baseless and wrong.

On August 12 2016 06:38 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Football across the board is so general that there's no point discussing. Man Utd's revenue has increased something like 40% since 2009, why are you saying they're spending too much when you've given no data and no credible arguments except for a bunch of fearmongering? Can you find actual data that the bottom clubs in PL are worse off, or that more clubs have gone into administration since Portsmouth than before?

This is an article from the blog you linked:

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/06/when-will-premier-league-bubble-burst.html

and

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/footballs-financial-bubble-set-burst-says-expert

Written 5-6 years ago about how clubs are living dangerously. Look at what's happened.

You are free to argue why Pogba is too expensive, but as soon as you start acting like you know finance, you need to bring up evidence instead of just making accusations.

On August 12 2016 06:26 Rebs wrote:
The Government rarely have to intervene in that scenario because most sensible businesses dont leverage debt like clubs do.

On August 12 2016 06:49 Rebs wrote:
Whats happened ? They are continuing to live to dangerously lol.

Its being offset by money they are getting from markets abroad but the buck is going to stop. Lets ignore football in general and stick to the English footie then so its more homogenous for your liking. Point still stands. PL clubs still retain no profit. They make more money but they keep spending it as if they have it to spare which they dont.

The data is all there, just read it. If your looking for data about how clubs are in a state of financial ruin. Then no I dont have that and should that happen you wont need me to tell you about it

On August 12 2016 07:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:


These are corporations with the most long term debt in S&P 500:

http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/06/04/12-companies-heap-on-the-most-debt/

Company LT debt ($ bils)* LT debt/cap.
General Electric $190.4 50.7 14.9
Verizon $109.3 87.8 3.1
AT&T $92.2 49.2 3.4
Comcast $42.95 42.6 2
Actavis $42.7 36.9 9.4
Kinder Morgan $41.8 51.9 6.9
Apple $40.1 23.2 0.6
Wal-Mart $38.9 33 1.4
Duke Energy $37.2 43.8 5
Int’l Bus. Machines $34.3 67.1 1.7
Medtronic $33.8 37.7 6.2
Oracle $30.3 37.5 1.9

Manchester United, probably the world's most over-leveraged club, would fall somewhere in the middle in terms of Long term debt/Capital with 46.23.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/manu/profile



What happened is that not only did the bubble not burst, but the growth has been unprecedented, please read the article before commenting.

Profit is not an indication of financial health, revenue is, if the clubs are spending the money they make then obviously they're not profiting. It would help if you had some basic financial knowledge before having such strong opinions on a topic such as finance.

On August 12 2016 07:15 Rebs wrote:
FYI Uniteds debt levels are pretty insane still and share values were well below what they wanted until they got bailed out y the TV deal and even now they are passable.

The Glazers bet was garbage. They literally sold bits and pieces to anyone who would take them to finally get over paying that stupid interest rate they were accruing on the loans they hadnt paid back.

On August 12 2016 07:27 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I don't understand how you can have an opinion on debt without understanding how money works. The recent TV deal is part of a long history of growth, again, it would help if you read some stuff before making baseless claims.





Shares sold at lower than expected yes, but the expectations were high. You have no idea what you're talking about with the rest.



They're projected to make something like 580m Euros this year even after Brexit. This is after shitting up the league and CL.

http://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/list/#tab:overall

Look at the debt/value ratios.

On August 12 2016 18:09 Pandemona wrote:


Still, German national team also bodes alot of success with the way it has structured its league, so maybe not the best internationally viewed league but at world cups and euro cups they always place well!