Would professional football clubs still exist without wealthy owners?

[Mr Popodopolous]

30 minutes ago, Red Billy said:

Ah - I see what you’re saying. Weirdly though without the football club it’s probably a better investment.  Lower incomes yes but lower outgoings. Cant see the basketball bringing in the money like it does in the NBA but the home they play in used as a music venue and conference centre could be a nice little earner.  It would probably put of a sole investor but maybe the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund might see it as a nice addition to the airport.

On paper that is how it should work, I don't disagree but it is football that for a myriad of reasons football is the place to be..Just look at those Cash Flow statements I posted, it burns money yet the deal people are after might be football and maybe if costs relatively low basketball.

From a basic business proposition what you say makes sense  but football despite in a lot of cases burning money is the one.

Edited April 5 by Mr Popodopolous

[sh1t_ref_again]

2 hours ago, CodeRed said:

Other clubs - some already mentioned in the thread - have attracted buyers so clearly he's overvalued the club/Bristol Sport

Sorry does not mean that, it's possible he has not had interest from buyers he is prepared to sell to as will not put the club at risk.

I find it laughable that so many on here think they know how much the club is up for sell for or how much SL should sell for. SL is a self made billionaire, so by default a shrewd businessman who will have plenty of professional advisers and will know what price is realistic or how much a hit he needs to take if wants to unload

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

It doesn't work like that though.  Funding is provided through Holdings.  The football club is generally funded with equity investments, at July 2023 the figures were roughly £25 million loans, £190 million equity.  Ashton Gate is almost entirely funded by loans, at £1 million equity and £70 million loans at the same date.

So if SL stopped funding Holdings and wanted his money out the whole structure would collapse immediately.  None of the companies could meet their on going financial obligations.

If he stops funding at Holdings level yes.

But it's BCFC Ltd that trades as the football entity in terms of transfers, holds player registrations, owns the share in the EFL and gets promoted, relegated, and receives that football income. Isn't it possible that an owner could, for some reason, cease to fund that BCFC side of the Holdings group, but continue backing the AG Ltd side?

BCFC then goes into administration, and the stadium isn't involved in that insolvency.

Edited April 5 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

44 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Sorry does not mean that, it's possible he has not had interest from buyers he is prepared to sell to as will not put the club at risk.

I find it laughable that so many on here think they know how much the club is up for sell for or how much SL should sell for. SL is a self made billionaire, so by default a shrewd businessman who will have plenty of professional advisers and will know what price is realistic or how much a hit he needs to take if wants to unload

Tbh comparable Championship club sale prices are a useful metric, up to a point.

The one I cannot get is Ipswich managing to sell 40% of their stake for up to £105m...granted up to could be very flexible but that seems wildly out of keeping with the wider market.

Still comparable prices usually set a bit of a floor and a ceiling to prices.

[sh1t_ref_again]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Tbh comparable Championship club sale prices are a useful metric, up to a point.

The one I cannot get is Ipswich managing to sell 40% of their stake for up to £105m...granted up to could be very flexible but that seems wildly out of keeping with the wider market.

Still comparable prices usually set a bit of a floor and a ceiling to prices.

Don't disagree other sales will give a guide, but we don't know how much the club is really for sale at or what terms. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Don't disagree other sales will give a guide, but we don't know how much the club is really for sale at or what terms. 

From memory, although it could be dated SL said in August 2022 that it would take tens of millions to get a seat at the table. I can't recall the rest without checking.

[Eddie Hitler]

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

If he stops funding at Holdings level yes.

But it's BCFC Ltd that trades as the football entity in terms of transfers, holds player registrations, owns the share in the EFL and gets promoted, relegated, and receives that football income. Isn't it possible that an owner could, for some reason, cease to fund that BCFC side of the Holdings group, but continue backing the AG Ltd side?

BCFC then goes into administration, and the stadium isn't involved in that insolvency.

 

That was precisely the reason for the structure coming into place, the football club company could go bust but the ground wouldn't form part of any liquidation and so a phoenix football club could be started up with a ground already in place.

Of course an unscrupulous or desperate owner could lose the ground as well by borrowing with a charge against it or, in the case of Kevin Healey, property developer and erstwhile owner of Truro City, actually selling the ground without telling anybody.

It is now a a big Lidl. Truro City still have no ground.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/19371372

 

[Oh Louie louie]

I recall Alan sugar being interviewed,in the late 80s, he said the only clubs worth investing in outside the top 2 divisions would be Bristol city cardiff or Burnley, he said something like the rest lose money weekly.

[Oh Louie louie]

A interesting opion I did see was that of Nigel Kennedy the violinist, the only good thing about football hooligans he said was that they kept corporation's out of football in grounds here!

[JAWS]

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'd say yes and no there, because the Championship has increasingly become a money pit. Just a question of how many millions albeit he has been in that context wasted money too.

I agree on the last bit certainly. His asking price whatever that might be is patently too high.

SL making football decisions has probably cost him hundreds of millions

[Oh Louie louie]

The ups and downs of Barnet FC, one of the best documentaries ive seen on owner, ticket tout extraordinare Stan flashman, well worth a watch, Barry fry thinks he's getting his wages one week, instead Stan decides to sack, then knee capp him!

[RollsRoyce]

11 hours ago, cityal said:

If there were no wealthy owners would the "market" just not re-adjust itself in time.

i.e. clubs would eventually end up living within their means and being a bang average championship pro footballer (maybe £10k per week £500K per year) would not pay more than being a surgeon (maybe £100K pewr year)

*big cavbeat here these are googled figures ao could be way off, but the way football pays players is frankly at the point of being gross.

 

This is the essence of the issue. It is perfectly possible to find players willing to play football for the income a club can muster without loss. The problem has been owners over paying players. At all levels. No one is holding a gun to anyones head, yet wage escalation and the search of success has driven the game to the nonsense levels we have today. Clubs need saving themselves from themselves. It is time to introduce squad size and wage caps. How can the top clubs in the coubtry be paying £300m in wages and still losing money. Bonkers stuff. 

As for City, our numbers do not stack up. The playing wage bill vs turnover (again, where is that turnover really derived from) vs our losses, simply does not compute.We must have very high non playing costs, and/or our turnover is inflated by cross party sales. (Or our sales of pies and beer are on another scale) 

Would someone buy it? At the right price, of course they would. Would SL stop funding it? Maybe, but what are the outstanding loans to him? £70m plus? 

[Major Isewater]

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Tbh comparable Championship club sale prices are a useful metric, up to a point.

The one I cannot get is Ipswich managing to sell 40% of their stake for up to £105m...granted up to could be very flexible but that seems wildly out of keeping with the wider market.

Still comparable prices usually set a bit of a floor and a ceiling to prices.

Who could resist the charming man of the people , Mark Ashton. Selling 40% of your stake for up to £105m is a bit like making love to a beautiful woman. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, RollsRoyce said:

This is the essence of the issue. It is perfectly possible to find players willing to play football for the income a club can muster without loss. The problem has been owners over paying players. At all levels. No one is holding a gun to anyones head, yet wage escalation and the search of success has driven the game to the nonsense levels we have today. Clubs need saving themselves from themselves. It is time to introduce squad size and wage caps. How can the top clubs in the coubtry be paying £300m in wages and still losing money. Bonkers stuff. 

As for City, our numbers do not stack up. The playing wage bill vs turnover (again, where is that turnover really derived from) vs our losses, simply does not compute.We must have very high non playing costs, and/or our turnover is inflated by cross party sales. (Or our sales of pies and beer are on another scale) 

Would someone buy it? At the right price, of course they would. Would SL stop funding it? Maybe, but what are the outstanding loans to him? £70m plus? 

Some clubs just seem oddly buyable don't they.

Yes high Commercial Revenue (AGL and Bristol City Holdings) can bring some of its own costs but at the same time the club itself as with clubs..clubs like Bournemouth and Fulham really irritate me. Where would they he without Al-Fayed and Shahid Khan. Accident of location?

One took over in the pre FFP era and inflated the market just a bit, the other guy has put in £550-600m in shares in a decade or something like maybe more and appears to be burning money albeit clearly some on Infrastructure.

A decade of PL and Parachute and all that Cash Flow despite that. How inflationary and pumped up are they...one or two questionable FFP items too I'd say. I remember them mooching about in 3rd and 4th Tier pre Al-Fayed and Russian owner respectively.

As for us the gap is mainly explained by the Bristol City FC Accounts vs Bristol City Holdings- the non-trading Consolidator, Ashton Gate Limited income seems to mainly goes there. Any ground rent e.g. cancels out on consolidation in BCFCH.

Edited April 6 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Fulham under Shahid Khan to the 2021-22 season, the ultimate top co.

People talk about SL putting in a lot. He has...but that seems to span from 2013-14 to 2021-22..Look at that, £677,144,000 in Contribution/Shares!!

Even with 6 Parachute and 3 PL seasons in that time.

Burning money as I say..and Al-Fayed basically bought their way to promotion in pre FFP giving them a platform.

Edited April 6 by Mr Popodopolous

[Red-Robbo]

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

A club like Luton don't have a wealthy benefactor as far as I'm aware. However football at Chamoionship seems to require it.

 

Both David Wilkinson (chairman) and Paul Ballantyne (director) are multimillionaires. There's not a billionaire owner there though and they probably have the poorest board in the PL. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Apparently Fulham want to be sustainable. From this years Accounts (Cougar Holdco Limited aren't out yet).

Not sure how far FFL goes back, if it was an Al-Fayed invention but either way shows just how propped up they have been either in the last decade or possibly if Al-Fayed since 1997.