Usmanov

[gwladysnight]

Nah.

Value of a business is the value in the business. Playing staff easily covers that valuation.

Lob in guaranteed (ish) 1/2 Billion in tv money in the next 5 years, plus a £7500000 valued stadium, plus the increased income from that. Doing ok like.

Playing staff doesn't really come into the valuation of a club though. If you sell a player then you have to replace him. Players are as much a necessary cost as they are an asset.

Same with TV money. Your TV income has to be balanced against your wage bill and the acquisition cost of players. As for the Stadium the positive value will be balanced out by the Stadium debt.

 

[ToothPlucker]

The laws are flimsy. The PL know this deep down. They won't be pushing this.

I don't think anyone here is worried about a £30m naming rights deal. It is more about having funds for transfers in coming windows and seasons while staying within the £105m losses ceiling per previous 3 seasons.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Playing staff doesn't really come into the valuation of a club though. If you sell a player then you have to replace him. Players are as much a necessary cost as they are an asset.

Same with TV money. Your TV income has to be balanced against your wage bill and the acquisition cost of players. As for the Stadium the positive value will be balanced out by the Stadium debt.

The value of the club could never be less than the value of the tangible plus intangible assets though.

The stadium debt will be more than covered by the naming rights deal, so it’ll be cost positive from the day it opens.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Playing staff doesn't really come into the valuation of a club though. If you sell a player then you have to replace him. .(QUOTE)

Did we replace Lukaku?

 

[mahermi1]

The value of the club could never be less than the value of the tangible plus intangible assets though.

The stadium debt will be more than covered by the naming rights deal, so it’ll be cost positive from the day it opens.

Don't upset him pal.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Everton TV should be upgraded to the standard of Chelsea TV etc and should be on the Sky EPG as a subscription channel 40,000 subscribers at £6.99 a month plus advertising revenue will certainly add to our income.

 

[mahermi1]

Everton TV should be upgraded to the standard of Chelsea TV etc and should be on the Sky EPG as a subscription channel 40,000 subscribers at £6.99 a month plus advertising revenue will certainly add to our income.

Great post can't think why we've never done that pal, haven't we still got a fans forum ? Wish someone would get in touch with them and get the ball rolling.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Playing staff doesn't really come into the valuation of a club though. If you sell a player then you have to replace him. Players are as much a necessary cost as they are an asset.

Same with TV money. Your TV income has to be balanced against your wage bill and the acquisition cost of players. As for the Stadium the positive value will be balanced out by the Stadium debt.
[/QUOTE}

 

[Rob17896]

Just a couple of added things on that. Everyone would have known he wanted to sell his shares. By making a counter offer he chaged the narrative.

Dont underestimate fan pressure on Kroenke if he let the offer stand. He knew he then had to act. All of it put pressure on him then to act.

As an aside, do you think these sponsorship deals are meant to help benchmark the clubs value at a higher level?

Usmanov did not set the value with his offer. His offer valued the club at that point in time. Any later offer to buy him out would value the club at that precise time. The only way Usmanov could have set a value was if he had competition to buy Arsenal shares when he made his offer, then his competitor would have to meet or exceed that value, there was no competitor, only the potential of a counter offer to buy his shares.

 

[maccavennie]

Everton TV should be upgraded to the standard of Chelsea TV etc and should be on the Sky EPG as a subscription channel 40,000 subscribers at £6.99 a month plus advertising revenue will certainly add to our income.

I think if we were successful Steve it would be a great idea, but hand on heart as things stand... We can get all things Everton from this forum. Videos, news, discussion, written content, lifestyle, taking the piss out of the rs and so on.

I use this forum more than anything and when Everton release content, someone will post about it here and we are redirected anyway.

The reason the rs, Utd, Chelsea have them is because of their global fan base.

In time Steve let's hope its an avenue we can explore but for now I don't think it's an option they would consider.

 

[magicjuan]

In this context it was about the stupidity of footballs laws and how they crumbled when put under pressure. This process has happened before and it will happen again.

This is exactly what they do. Why do they know more about what a "market value" is than the market itself? Why are they restricting shareholders rights to have their businesses invest in who or what they wish?

Your last point kind of sums it up. You are going out of your way to argue fiction is fact. The League Cup is not of the same importance as a League title. That is the the basis of judging domestic size. We are 4th. It is not a half truth, it is a fact. We are also 2nd in terms of overall points, we won the 20th century, we have held the domestic title for as many years as any other club, we had the most points from 1967 to 2006. There are not 6 bigger clubs than us. We are the4th biggest and share a city with the 2nd biggest. Any reasonable market test would measure us to them.

But do explain to me, how Everton sitting 4th on the list of Leagues won is a "half truth" (without equating League cups as equivalent trophies).

As for your poker analogy, in a poker match, you pay your fee and you get given a set amount of chips. Under FFP, you pay your Fee and get given more or less chips depending on who you are. And when someone tries to improve their lot by negotiating a better deal, they are then told this is unfair. You then have people who support it, and try to make out it is about fairness. It's not. It's about entrenching inequality.

Unfortunately for you, the objective measure is that Everton are in the top 4 for leagues won. They are the only club to be a founder member of both the Football League and sustained members of the PL. In a legal sense, they will be able to negotiate sponsorship deals commensurate with that history, from a legal standpoint. If the PL want to hold us down from having deals commensurate with our market value, they will suffer a heavy penalty in the legal courts. Just as football has suffered before (despite you thinking litigation was an impossibility).

The laws are flimsy. The PL know this deep down. They won't be pushing this.

There is a legal argument that underpinned TTIP and it's forerunner, that any governing body that imposes sanctions on a business thereby preventing it from operating and making a profit, is open to litigation, lawsuit etc. That is what terrifies most sports, which is ironic as they themselves shifted that emphasis from sport to business.

 

[PeregrineT]

If you do option A and put all 500 million in to the asset, at the end of it you don’t have 500 million and the asset, you have the value of the asset. Unless we are talking about having a 1bn investment ?

Thats why it says "cash and asset", to simplify and make clear that 500 million is the total combined value of the two of them.

 

[Exeter_Gently]

Everton TV should be upgraded to the standard of Chelsea TV etc and should be on the Sky EPG as a subscription channel 40,000 subscribers at £6.99 a month plus advertising revenue will certainly add to our income.

Send Sky and The Club an email about this....and they'll email back laughing their head off.

 

[catcherintherye]

There is a legal argument that underpinned TTIP and it's forerunner, that any governing body that imposes sanctions on a business thereby preventing it from operating and making a profit, is open to litigation, lawsuit etc. That is what terrifies most sports, which is ironic as they themselves shifted that emphasis from sport to business.

Yes, I mean you are basically going to really struggle, unless it's an extreme example if your policy is to restrict the rights of shareholders to do as they please. Courts will not look favourably on you if you start telling them who they can sponsor and for how much.

Calling the people making the decisions to do that "professionals" is not going to cut it.

It's a matter of time until someone brings FFP down legally.

In the intervening time, we sort of get on with it, whole knowing it doesn't have much legal veracity. It means the PL acts with restraint. That will ot mean punishing Everton for acquiring sponsorships consistent with their historic role. Nor does it mean drawing fanciful conclusions of Evertons place (a d failing to acknowledge the fact they've won the 4th most leagues). Legality doesn't operate on fiction.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Our previous major shareholder invested precisely £0 into the club coffers, we operated on a shoestring and worries about complying with FFP were a pipe dream.

Fast forward to now, and we’ve got an owner who’s already put £350m on the balance sheet, wiped out our debt and has pushed forward with a waterside stadium plan that seemed impossible only a few short years ago.

Yet we’ve still got fans who are crying about our supposed current malaise.

Everton that.