Man City - the new bitters?

[Scott_M]

On 20/06/2022 at 13:54, The Midnight Rambler said:

Nice.

Who’s the Charity? Is it Barcelona?

 

#savebarca

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Scott_M said:

Who’s the Charity? Is it Barcelona?

 

#savebarca

Spotify have helped 

[Scott_M]

12 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Spotify have helped 

 

It was in The Athletic that the Spotify deal isn't that great for Barca. Normally they have various companies, spread over multiple contracts, paying for what Spotify are paying for and Barca make more money by selling all the sponsorships individually.

 

The benefit with Spotify is they've paid it all up front. 

[Bjornebye]

6 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

 

It was in The Athletic that the Spotify deal isn't that great for Barca. Normally they have various companies, spread over multiple contracts, paying for what Spotify are paying for and Barca make more money by selling all the sponsorships individually.

 

The benefit with Spotify is they've paid it all up front. 

Yeah which has helped them out….

[Barrington Womble]

12 hours ago, Freddo said:

Surely other clubs will and come together to rail against these oil state clubs. They have moved the goalposts so far that it is impossible to go back.

Uefa, Premier League and Ligue un have allowed these clubs to change the landscape forever.

That isn’t fair to other clubs and it’s almost like fuck the clubs that have made the game what it is, it’s new money so fuck em.

Lets start a league that doesn’t involve any of them. Not one of the fuckers. 
And what happened to the PL investigation against the fuckers? Surely these sponsorship deals have to pass some regulatory test. 

Why would other clubs chase them out of town? Nearly all too clubs (certainly in this country) are owned by people who are here for an investment. If you chase away sovereign, oil and other similar people of vast wealth, you are reducing the value of your asset by removing a large part of the interest from the pool of active buyers. The success of PSG and City is in the interests of the people who own the likes of us, Manchester United and arsenal. They are here to increase their wealth, no other reason. 

[Jose Jones]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

Why would other clubs chase them out of town? Nearly all too clubs (certainly in this country) are owned by people who are here for an investment. If you chase away sovereign, oil and other similar people of vast wealth, you are reducing the value of your asset by removing a large part of the interest from the pool of active buyers. The success of PSG and City is in the interests of the people who own the likes of us, Manchester United and arsenal. They are here to increase their wealth, no other reason. 

The success of City obviously isn’t in the interests of our owners, that’s silly, because having won 3 more league titles and been the obvious dominant force in the game would have been much better for the value of the club.

 

They do want the option open to sell the club to sports washers down the line though. You’re right there.

[Barrington Womble]

2 hours ago, Jose Jones said:

The success of City obviously isn’t in the interests of our owners, that’s silly, because having won 3 more league titles and been the obvious dominant force in the game would have been much better for the value of the club.

 

They do want the option open to sell the club to sports washers down the line though. You’re right there.

It absolutely is in their interests. The value of our club has increased regardless of finishing 1st or 2nd. But if all of the sovereign funds and oligarchs were banned from owning clubs, it would leave nothing but real investors like already own them. When FSG (and the other owners of clubs in this country) get to the point where they believe they've reached the limit of exploiting revenue streams around the club (and the purchase of Chelsea shows these guys don't think we're there yet), they'll want someone to sell to. That's pretty unlikely to be more VC/PE type people, because maximum value will have already been reached and only modest growth will be achievable. Sovereign funds and oligarchs will undoubtedly form part of the exit strategy of most if not all of the American owned clubs. 

[TheHowieLama]

25 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

 Sovereign funds and oligarchs will undoubtedly form part of the exit strategy of most if not all of the American owned clubs. 

American sports do not reflect that strategy tbh.

NFL teams are passed down generations. I think one MLB team has sold in the last 10 years.

The TV contract is all that matters - as long as that stays at the top of the global market there is no reason to sell.

They (FSG) are generating a "billion" dollar revenue stream with 80% house money. 

 

What they (FSG) would really like to do is gain individual TV rights and sell their own package - that's the real dosh. Chelsea will undoubtedly aggressively pursue the same.

[Barrington Womble]

23 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

American sports do not reflect that strategy tbh.

NFL teams are passed down generations. I think one MLB team has sold in the last 10 years.

The TV contract is all that matters - as long as that stays at the top of the global market there is no reason to sell.

They (FSG) are generating a "billion" dollar revenue stream with 80% house money. 

 

What they (FSG) would really like to do is gain individual TV rights and sell their own package - that's the real dosh. Chelsea will undoubtedly aggressively pursue the same.

I don't dispute that (the US ownership model) but I assume in those cases that's the ego thing. They're not here for that, in most cases, they're not here. Their loyalty lies only in the investment. That's certainly the case with the new owner at Chelsea, because bohley is just the face, the real money is PE funding and they've been clear they expect a return on investment even if it's over a longer period than they would normally expect (I think I read 10 years rather than 7). As part of that Chelsea piece, I read they believe they've only exploited the tip of the iceburg with commercial partners (I don't know how this compares to US sports) - their attack is 2 fold. Individual TV deals as you say and increasing sponsorship revenues. I also guess super league or some similar format is on the cards still too. 

[Freddo]

5 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

Why would other clubs chase them out of town? Nearly all too clubs (certainly in this country) are owned by people who are here for an investment. If you chase away sovereign, oil and other similar people of vast wealth, you are reducing the value of your asset by removing a large part of the interest from the pool of active buyers. The success of PSG and City is in the interests of the people who own the likes of us, Manchester United and arsenal. They are here to increase their wealth, no other reason. 

The success of city is in Liverpool football clubs interests? Not sure about that, in fact it is plain wrong. Surely the owners would want their own club to be winning everything and being the dominant club. 

Or do you mean having city in the league as they are now boosts the value of the league and with that TV deals? 

If so I don't think the TV firms would be top bothered about a club like City being unsuccessful or having owners that actually players by the rules 

 

[Reckoner]

6 hours ago, Scott_M said:

 

It was in The Athletic that the Spotify deal isn't that great for Barca. Normally they have various companies, spread over multiple contracts, paying for what Spotify are paying for and Barca make more money by selling all the sponsorships individually.

 

The benefit with Spotify is they've paid it all up front. 

It’d be a bit worrying for me if I was a Barca fan. 
Spotify looks strong now but look at how quickly technology develops. Almost everyone was on iTunes ten years ago, it has now disappeared due to streaming, improved Wi-Fi availability etc. New platforms are starting up that are fairer to artists.

If Spotify went tits up the fat lady would be singing for Barcelona and no doubt she’d get fuck all royalties.

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Freddo said:

The success of city is in Liverpool football clubs interests? Not sure about that, in fact it is plain wrong. Surely the owners would want their own club to be winning everything and being the dominant club. 

Or do you mean having city in the league as they are now boosts the value of the league and with that TV deals? 

If so I don't think the TV firms would be top bothered about a club like City being unsuccessful or having owners that actually players by the rules 

 

The success is broadly irrelevant. The existence of those types of owners is. What I mean is every PE investor will have an exit plan. It doesn't mean they'll execute it, but they'll have measures on if/when they should get out. There will come a time when the owners who are here for monetary business will have taken the product to its maximum value. The nature of football, that's not individual, most of the value comes from the collective. When they need to sell, they need someone to sell to. If we get to a point where owners believe they've got all they can (via media and commercial relationships) and then there can only be modest growth. Who do they sell to if we've banned all the sovereign funds and oligarchs? 

 

Edit... As an example, our owners have always been very clear. They don't need dividends, their profit is in improving the value of the club. Any asset is only worth what someone is willing to pay. The pool of people willing to pay however many billion that will be decreases by the year due to how quickly the value of football clubs increases. And PE guys won't be interested because all the value will have already been taken. 

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Reckoner said:

It’d be a bit worrying for me if I was a Barca fan. 
Spotify looks strong now but look at how quickly technology develops. Almost everyone was on iTunes ten years ago, it has now disappeared due to streaming, improved Wi-Fi availability etc. New platforms are starting up that are fairer to artists.

If Spotify went tits up the fat lady would be singing for Barcelona and no doubt she’d get fuck all royalties.

Didn't Spotify pay it all upfront? I thought that was the magic of the deal for Barca? 

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

There will come a time when the owners who are here for monetary business will have taken the product to its maximum value. 

Are there any other kind - except for the sportswashers?

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

11 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Are there any other kind - except for the sportswashers?

 

 

Exactly! There are sportswashers, and possibly more down the line. Without those fellas at the table - as they they need to extract value in a different way - then there isn't someone to sell to.  Because it's got beyond most individuals otherwise. So PE investors today absolutely need the sportswashers and oligarchs at the table to take assets down the line. Owning a football club to clean the image of a state, even at 10bn, is fuck all. 

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Exactly! There are sportswashers, and possibly more down the line. Without those fellas at the table - as they they need to extract value in a different way - then there isn't someone to sell to.  Because it's got beyond most individuals otherwise. So PE investors today absolutely need the sportswashers and oligarchs at the table to take assets down the line. Owning a football club to clean the image of a state, even at 10bn, is fuck all. 

TBH I don't know if there are 16 more buyers that fit your description. That is before you get to the fact that there is a tipping point where "sportswashing" will even be necessary.

[Barrington Womble]

11 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

TBH I don't know if there are 16 more buyers that fit your description. That is before you get to the fact that there is a tipping point where "sportswashing" will even be necessary.

I think sportswashing will never end now it's a thing and states have realised they can clean their image and there's always a country who needs to be seen in a new light. And I expect when Ukraine is done, the Russian oligarchs will be back on the block. The pool of individuals without oligarchs and states is even smaller. Which is my point. If the existing owners take European football to the value of US sports, plus whatever TV can add globally. Where do they go to realise their profit? 

[TheHowieLama]

6 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

 states have realised they can clean their image 

Russia is already in the game. How many "states" do you think need to clean their image?

[TheSire]

4 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

It absolutely is in their interests. The value of our club has increased regardless of finishing 1st or 2nd. But if all of the sovereign funds and oligarchs were banned from owning clubs, it would leave nothing but real investors like already own them. When FSG (and the other owners of clubs in this country) get to the point where they believe they've reached the limit of exploiting revenue streams around the club (and the purchase of Chelsea shows these guys don't think we're there yet), they'll want someone to sell to. That's pretty unlikely to be more VC/PE type people, because maximum value will have already been reached and only modest growth will be achievable. Sovereign funds and oligarchs will undoubtedly form part of the exit strategy of most if not all of the American owned clubs. 

Capitalism isn't about selling on your assets though.

[Barrington Womble]

32 minutes ago, TheSire said:

Capitalism isn't about selling on your assets though.

You better tell that to the entire capital markets industry then! 

[Barrington Womble]

40 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Russia is already in the game. How many "states" do you think need to clean their image?

It'll change all the time obviously. It's not like there thousands of top level football clubs. ESL was going to be 20 clubs and some of them were various forms of fan held. It doesn't need loads. It needs a few at the top end. 

[TheHowieLama]

15 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

It doesn't need loads. It needs a few at the top end. 

Done.

[Aventus]

Just had a look on bluemoon to see what those loveable wee scamps are getting up to lately and I noticed they haven't sold all their community shield tickets yet. 

 

Fucking hell, I'm further back in our waiting list than their entire allocation, while they're hoping they'll finally sell the rest of theirs next week. I'm not surprised they didn't bother to put it in Wembley or another big stadium now, I don't think they would have had any flags big enough to cover their end. 

[Rushies tash]

Just now, Aventus said:

Just had a look on bluemoon to see what those loveable wee scamps are getting up to lately and I noticed they haven't sold all their community shield tickets yet. 

 

Fucking hell, I'm further back in our waiting list than their entire allocation, while they're hoping they'll finally sell the rest of theirs next week. I'm not surprised they didn't bother to put it in Wembley or another big stadium now, I don't think they would have had any flags big enough to cover their end. 

They'll "sell out". Have no worry about that.

[an tha]

To be fair i can't knock them for saying fuck off to what is a meaningless game - played at a fucking stupid venue.

 

Nearly all their support cones from in and around manchester and a lot of the poorer working class areas, a lot of people simply don't have money to spend on paying £50 or whatever it is to go and watch a glorified training session plus travel costs etc.