Why would we want to go public and probably have to pay dividends? How is it better than enic owning us?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
ENIC
- Thread starter mattls
- Start date
Why would we want to go public and probably have to pay dividends? How is it better than enic owning us?
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Saudi Sportswashing Machine have got a bigger fan base than Chelsea?…. In the City of Saudi Sportswashing Machine only mate!
Premium brands cost premium money and, though we don’t like it, Chelsea are a premium brand.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
That is the point: the "premium" brand is based on subsidisation. Without adding extra cash their brand is trash. Saudi Sportswashing Machine at least have a loyal 50k attending every game, even when fighting relegation. Would chelsea get 50k fans going to games in a similar situation? Nope. Apparently they haven't even sold out a home game this season. A brand with such a tenuous hold on its elite status is worth top money? Not sure Id advise anyone it was a sound investment! Would you?
Last edited:
Chelseas revenue dwarfs Newcastles. The only way that changes is with dodgy sponsorship deals from Saudi
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
But that revenue hasn't been self sustaining with extra cash having been injected to maintain the access to that revenue. From a business perspective that is a highly concerning premise to buy a company on. Saudi Sportswashing Machine have more fans attending games and at 300m it is the better purchase - even if Chelsea had a £1.5b purchase price.
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
Long term you’re right. Book value of squad must make a difference though.
Injecting extra cash into a business usually results in it being worth more
There's a few things to take into account. If chelsea got the pitch owners to agree to move the ground to earls court. Then built luxury flats at stamford bridge, how much would that be worth?
Secondly, their academy is the best in england producing fantastic players.
Thirdly, the revenue stream from broadcasting can be increased massively. Disney plus has 129m subscribers and has revenue of $21.82bn a year. The premier league could match that or even increase it. It has far more content aswell.
Secondly, their academy is the best in england producing fantastic players.
Thirdly, the revenue stream from broadcasting can be increased massively. Disney plus has 129m subscribers and has revenue of $21.82bn a year. The premier league could match that or even increase it. It has far more content aswell.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Enic have invested in tangible assets - the training ground and stadium. I'm not sure players themselves are always long-term assets. To be fair chelsea did start investing in promising youth players and that has delivered dividends. The more expensive fully-fledged players on 150k+ a week can be a burden as well as an asset. When you don't have £100-200m to pump in every few years, to not worry about the losses, high wages become a heavy burden. How much of our summer transfer business is dependent on shifting Ndombele for example? His wages are circa £10m a year. When you have 3-4 players on similar contracts it can be a millstone around the club's neck. So unless the entity buying chelsea are able to subsidise the club, chelsea will fall back to become similar to us and the goons. But with less secure facilities as a foundation - both us and the goons generate more from the stadium, and we even hire out the training ground at times. I wonder what that brings in? Every little bit helps.
Then you look at Saudi Sportswashing Machine. You save over 1 billion on the purchase price, and can add 10s of millions extra into the club each year for many years to make up the saving, bolstering revenue/transfers. You're getting 50k fans at every game when not in Europe. What is Chelsea's brand worth when not playing in Europe? It is not like its the only club in its resident city.
The only way Chelsea powers ahead is if the group taking them over can spend spend spend. Develop the ground, keep investing in the team, keep riding the wave. But you need deep pockets, and without an oil well at your behest, few will pump in hundreds of millions year in and out.
Last edited:
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Is the land at Earls Court much cheaper than in Chelsea? Both sites seem prime residential spaces.
Not sure a TV streaming service compares to PL streaming. Two different things no? Yes there is potential to monetise football streaming, but its not the same as Netflicks or Disney plus is it? Netflicks has just dipped as people have got their content and unsubscribed. Similar will probably occur with Disney. The potential of PL football, is if you can get yanks hooked. You don't need to invest in content either. The clubs serve up the entertainment, you just pay for the rights. However, how many Americians like watching our game? Is there a trend with more and more getting into it?
I believe they are redeveloping earls court but need an anchor tenant to make it workable.
Why would a premier league streaming service be any different to a tv streaming service? It's just paying a monthly subscription to watch any game you want rather than movies tv shows.
Soccer is in the top 5 sports watched in america now. It's why nbc just paid the prem £2bn for the tv rights.
The premier league are already testing showing their own stuff, called premflix.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...utionary-Netflix-style-streaming-service.html
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Binge watching TV shows is a different thing. But yes the premise of paying to watch games each week, plus all the added content (live training, youth games, interviews etc etc) is tantalising. But it only becomes a meal on the scale of net flicks, Disney if you add other sports I feel. If someone could add say F1, the PL, maybe cricket then it could command a sizable subscription audience. Throw in some sports films, documentries and there is a real global player there. Someone will do it eventually, but they'll need some exclusivity and to put many billions on the line to set it up and seal the rights.
ps I think US viewing figures for the PL dropped off a little. Just under half a million a match, which is sizable, but still not mainstream.
It's not going to happen tomorrow. There are tv deals in place. The nbc deal runs out in 2028, just before the us holds the world cup. Popularity is rising. 9% of us sports fans say they would pay to watch the premier league on tv. 49% said they watch soccer. The cable number of viewers for premier league may average under 500,000 but across all it's platforms it is 879,000 and growing. March 2021 1.76m watched man utd v Emirates Marketing Project (on cable) nbc's highest ratings is for chicago fire with 7m viewers.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...taken-ice-hockey-fourth-popular-sport-US.html
As for other sports. That defeats the object. The main argument for premflix is that it would be much cheaper to watch because you are only paying to watch premier league. But it would still bring in more money for the premier league.
Last edited:
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
50k fans attending a game matter very little…. Chelsea have a HUGE global social media following and a premium brand right now. Anyone taking on Saudi Sportswashing Machine will also have to subsidise Saudi Sportswashing Machine heavily to make them a premium brand. £2b to £3b to own Chelsea is good value in the land of the Uber rich.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
It doesn’t matter…. The level of investment has been far less than the appreciation in the asset…. One would call that good owner investment.
Saudi Sportswashing Machine have more fans attending as their stadium is bigger…. Their higher average attendance generates FAR less revenue than Chelsea’s however.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Not sure about that.
1. Following your logic the investment is worth it only if the club is sold for more than the investment. It is possible that might occur, but not certain. While there may be entities with more money than sense who want a vanity project, it is hard to present buying chelsea at £2-3b as an attractive business proposition. Because you need to spend and subsidise the business, just to keep it standing still. How will you make the money back!? Especially for those concerns who are looking to leverage the buyout. How will they actually generate money to pay back the purchase?
2. What makes you say Saudi Sportswashing Machine have more fans attending because their stadium is bigger? Chelsea hasn't sold out their smaller ground once this season....
Sure fans attending games is far less important than TV money, everyone knows that, but if you fall outside the CL, or you hit the rocks (for whatever reason) having a loyal fan base who'll get 50k supporters through the turnstiles while you're fighting relegation, that is a strong foundation. The revenue that brings and 'proof of concept' locally, is a nice foundation to have. Security you could call it. If chelsea can't sell out their ground while doing well, how would the stadium revenue fare if they did hit a rocky patch? Not as well as say Saudi Sportswashing Machine who were also a fraction of the sale price. I don't think there is any doubt that Saudi Sportswashing Machine represents the more savvy purchase. Not least because owning a football club is all about progression. That is the excitement. Use your money to develop and advance the club, watch it grow and make a difference.
Chelsea on the other hand - just to maintain its status quo you need to pump in money, and the foundations of a strong fanbase are not there. Twitter followers won't be putting their hand in their pocket either, so are SM followers meaningful, can you monitise them?
metalgear
Nayim
How does enic split football and non-football finances?
When the stadium was announced I believe enic said that the costsof construction wouldn't affect outlr transfer budget. But it did.
So we have huge loans to build Cinemas and housing and hosts non-football events. The revenues from these... Will they be used to augment the budget on the footballing side of things?
So, Levy used the Football club to build a stadium and more...to diversify revenue streams. I don't know if/how he will allocate revenue and profits from non footballing sources to improve football performances.
When the stadium was announced I believe enic said that the costsof construction wouldn't affect outlr transfer budget. But it did.
So we have huge loans to build Cinemas and housing and hosts non-football events. The revenues from these... Will they be used to augment the budget on the footballing side of things?
So, Levy used the Football club to build a stadium and more...to diversify revenue streams. I don't know if/how he will allocate revenue and profits from non footballing sources to improve football performances.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Fair to say the extra revenue from the stadium is approximately two extra signings a season, compared to what the club earned in WHL. Of course, we have to pay off debts slowly too. But the new stadium vs old probably equates to something like £50-70m more profit per season? What do others think?
ricky2tricky4city
Jack Jull
It would be interesting to know what other incorporated companies are linked to ENIC/THFC.
If you care to look at the timing of our blank transfer windows you will see it was at a time when the stadium had missed it's opening date, beset with wiring problems, with no set date for these to be remedied. Forecasts are out the window and costs open ended....a risk averse person, not likey.
It funny you use the word 'used', usually reserved for chairman who asset strip or sell off the ground to developers on a promise to the club.
Realistically if ENIC upgrade our stadium and all income from the stadium get used for footballing matters (including interest payments, of course), then anything outside that is frankly no concern of ours. They provide a great training facility and a great stadium (possibly the best)...all that a football team needs and 10x better than we had before.
We have spent plenty since 2019, we need to spend it better.
If you care to look at the timing of our blank transfer windows you will see it was at a time when the stadium had missed it's opening date, beset with wiring problems, with no set date for these to be remedied. Forecasts are out the window and costs open ended....a risk averse person, not likey.
It funny you use the word 'used', usually reserved for chairman who asset strip or sell off the ground to developers on a promise to the club.
Realistically if ENIC upgrade our stadium and all income from the stadium get used for footballing matters (including interest payments, of course), then anything outside that is frankly no concern of ours. They provide a great training facility and a great stadium (possibly the best)...all that a football team needs and 10x better than we had before.
We have spent plenty since 2019, we need to spend it better.
Last edited: