FanchesterCity Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 fair point but Id say Villa are half the club we are.... That really is a quite daft statement. Sorry mucker, but Villa deserve more respect than that. Over 100 years in the top flight, (yes, just behind Everton). European Cup winners... ,comparable gates over the decades, they've been around a bit, they've done a bit. If people are (rightly) to be respectful of Everton FC for their proud history, you have to accept that Aston Villa are hardly half the club you are. Just saying like. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 That really is a quite daft statement. Sorry mucker, but Villa deserve more respect than that. Over 100 years in the top flight, (yes, just behind Everton). European Cup winners... ,comparable gates over the decades, they've been around a bit, they've done a bit. If people are (rightly) to be respectful of Everton FC for their proud history, you have to accept that Aston Villa are hardly half the club you are. Just saying like. ;-) I was joking, to explain how our supposed 100m price tag could be justified.... Or course Villa deserve respect, theyve got a long and relatively impressive history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 I was joking, to explain how our supposed 100m price tag could be justified.... Or course Villa deserve respect, theyve got a long and relatively impressive history. Thank God for that! I was beginning to start the 'deluded' post! haha - people DO come out with stuff like that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcopaulo Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 A penny for your thoughts? as stevo said this argument has been around a bit..gone in circles..and it's such a non-point in my eyes and i ain't gonna argue it out again..if you wanna see my thoughts you can trawl through the threads about it...these arguments repeat themselves so often it won't be hard to find Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Once you factor in the extra revenue now compared to 2006 and the inflated player prices double 2006 Villa value would be about the right price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Once you factor in the extra revenue now compared to 2006 and the inflated player prices double 2006 Villa value would be about the right price. Can't agree with that pete , Villa increased their revenue from £71m per year to £109m - from 2006 - 2010 respectively. Their operating costs have increased also in line with this. Take into account Villa also had their own training complex etc and stadium was not mortgaged. Double the price of villa is way way overpriced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Can't agree with that pete , Villa increased their revenue from £71m per year to £109m - from 2006 - 2010 respectively. Their operating costs have increased also in line with this. Take into account Villa also had their own training complex etc and stadium was not mortgaged. Double the price of villa is way way overpriced. I mean double the value Villa were bought for in 2006. They're value is probably more than double since then. We easily have £100m worth of players/assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 I mean double the value Villa were bought for in 2006. They're value is probably more than double since then. We easily have £100m worth of players/assets. assets - goodison, with about 14 mortgages, not worth a lot. players - the players arent valued in terms of transfer value, massively less than transfer value when it comes to club valuation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 StevO's right Players don't really count for much (and some simply can't count!). They are worthless in 3 years. It's a bit of a touchy subject players - but for all intents and purposes - you may as well discount them when valuing the business. I know it sounds stupid - but take Mr Tevez... worth 40 million one night... 20 the next. You can't value a business onunpredictables.. They do actually have a value, but not in the way folks think with their "he's worth 10 million of anyone's money etc etc" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Players are valued on their contracts. Evertons wage bill is approx £50m x length of contracts(most have had extensions recently with only Fellaini not secured) so say 3 years avg. Asset worth £150. Price of the club £150-debt(rumoured/guessed/is £40m). Price of the club £110m + how ever much we value brand 'Everton F.C.' http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/34/soccer-values-09_Everton_340028.html 2 years old but still interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) Intangible assets (such as players) are often completely omitted from financial reports, as there is no standard way of accounting for them. Moreover, to the potential buyer, SOME 'assets' can be seen as liabilities too. So if you have Messi - most of would see him as an asset with a worth (but no accurate way to account for his worth). If you take Tevez - it can be argued he's a liability in the accounting sense of the word, since you have agreed to pay him a salary and other costs for the next 5 years. IF you can't sell him, you must still honor that contract. If you're the buyer - you'll use that to your advantage. Seller says "he's worth 20 million", and the buyer says "only if I can sell him, which isn't proven, but I KNOW he's costing me 250K a week regardless" When the selling business presents their assessment of their worth, it's only to help substantiate their claim. The buyer is then entirely at liberty to deconstruct it and 'pick holes' that suit his own valuation. Fellaini's worth 10 million say Everton - and the buyer says "perhaps - if I sell him now, then I have to replace him, like for like, at market value - that's erm... 10 million" For this reason, player worth holds little sway Edited September 30, 2011 by BlueSky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) Stupidest thing i've ever seen on here. I done Business Studies in the past and wondered why the hell it was even being taught. It is all common sense, but now I know why. Edited September 30, 2011 by pete0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 oi! behave! it IS just like saying saying "I spent 40K on my house extension it's worth 40K" and the buyer saying "I don't care". A player's contract can be accounted for in multiple ways. Sometimes they'll account for it as a 10 million purchase up front, and amortize that over 3 years, but in other cases, they haven't actually PAID for the player yet, that IS accountable as a liability - no ifs no buts. Of course that's not the actual player, it's the contract / due payment that's a liability. Do you disagree on this? and can you point me to anything substantiating a different view? I'm happy to provide material from my side -- I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's certainly not my understanding that there's any formal rule for the representation of specific intangible assets. Alas, I'm not an accountantant. Chancery Division's not my forté either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) Stupidest thing i've ever seen on here. I done Business Studies in the past and wondered why the hell it was even being taught. It is all common sense, but now I know why. i know hes a manc pete, but unfortunately on this occasion he is right. players are not valued at transfer rate. they are valued at a much lower rate when they are an asset in a business sense. what other assets do you pay a wage? say if a player is worth a few million, you also have to pay it a few million a year. its not like a property worth £10m and you dont have to pump money into it, a player you pump money in to everyday. Edited September 30, 2011 by StevO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 oi! behave! it IS just like saying saying "I spent 40K on my house extension it's worth 40K" and the buyer saying "I don't care". A player's contract can be accounted for in multiple ways. Sometimes they'll account for it as a 10 million purchase up front, and amortize that over 3 years, but in other cases, they haven't actually PAID for the player yet, that IS accountable as a liability - no ifs no buts. Of course that's not the actual player, it's the contract / due payment that's a liability. Do you disagree on this? and can you point me to anything substantiating a different view? I'm happy to provide material from my side -- I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's certainly not my understanding that there's any formal rule for the representation of specific intangible assets. Alas, I'm not an accountantant. Chancery Division's not my forté either. Players asset worth is based on their contracts. Man u were going to be in big trouble with the banks over their balance sheet. They had to create 'x' amount of millions to balance the books. The transfer window was closed, so they were screwed. However to get round this they gave Rooney a huge boost in wages so that the increase in assets balanced the books. (Sorry to any one who's already seen this example i've used it a lot) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Players asset worth is based on their contracts. Man u were going to be in big trouble with the banks over their balance sheet. They had to create 'x' amount of millions to balance the books. The transfer window was closed, so they were screwed. However to get round this they gave Rooney a huge boost in wages so that the increase in assets balanced the books. (Sorry to any one who's already seen this example i've used it a lot) yes but the contract has a time limit. so everyday the players value decreases if that was the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 i know hes a manc pete, but unfortunately on this occasion he is right. players are not valued at transfer rate. they are valued at a much lower rate when they are an asset in a business sense. I'm sorry you've misunderstood me, i haven't been so clear. Am not basing their value on the transfer potential value as its too volatile, but by their contacts as the lenders do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm sorry you've misunderstood me, i haven't been so clear. Am not basing their value on the transfer potential value as its too volatile, but by their contacts as the lenders do. as in my other post, its not a direct contrast to the value of the contract, as the contract value decreases daily as it comes closer to the end of the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 yes but the contract has a time limit. so everyday the players value decreases if that was the case. That is the case, and the reason why it's so important to tie Fellaini down as soon as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Crossed wires it seems So according to my accounts you owe me a beer and I owe you a packet of pork scratchings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 That is the case, and the reason why it's so important to tie Fellaini down as soon as possible. Slight spanner in the works though: Let us assume Fellaini's worth 10 million now. and he's worth nothing tomorrow (cos he can go on a free). Just getting him to sign a contract is not necessarily the right move. If you offer him a 3 year deal, he will still depreciate (to say 2 million in 3 years), AND you've committed yourself to his salary for 3 years. If his salary comes to more than 8 million over 3 years, you could be losing out vs just letting him go now. Of course IF you're absolutely sure you want and need him for 3 years, it's good business. But often clubs cut these deals, then his form drops off quicker than you'd imagined. you're 18 months in and want to off load him... can't find a buyer, he's not playing... now you're not getting the value from him (on the pitch) and still paying his wages whilst he depreciates. This is one of the chief failings of many clubs. Securing 5 year deals on high salaries only for players to fall out of favour 1-2 years in. I can cite instances of players (and managers) still being paid by previous clubs some 7 years after they left!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Would i be right in thinking a player worth £10m being paid £60k per week is actually worth £7m when offsetting wages in year one?. If he doesn't play and his value inevitably falls he's actually worth £1m in year four??..Arguably then the Arteta sale assisted the club to the tune of £13.25m?.. If I'm being thick lads please let me know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c1982 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Fellaini is 23 - players peak in their late 20's. Add to this he's playing nationally for a real emerging power in world football. He needs a 5 year contract - barring injury he's worth upwards of £20m for the next 5 years at least. This is totally different to Arteta as he got injured in his 'peak' years and hasn't regained the level where he should have been - a gamble that didn't pay off and we cut our loses. Fellaini however, we must go all out to keep him, I'd be happy with a CM trio of Felli, Rodwell, Barkley for the next 5 years - build on what we've got. On the other hand, if Felli's not signing then we need to cash in Jan while we can still get a premium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 For Everton, as things stand... a long term contract for a player is a gamble... (actually it's always a gamble) but the banks will be telling you to be risk averse (avoid the risk). In some ways, it's like you being on the edge of bankruptcy and having 100 quid left, and deciding to bet it on Man U coming higher in the table than say... Aston Villa. Pretty sound bet, BUT it's a bet all the same. When you're loaded, you can afford the gamble. When you're skint, you'd be strongly advised not to do it. He could get injured - (ok he'll be insured, but then you're forking out insurance for him). He might go off the boil. Fall out with the manager. All manner of things could go wrong with him. I swear this is like losing your bloody job... just when you need the most help, you get the least amount of it. So 5 year contracts will be harder work when you're skint. How many times have we seen great prospects and thought "this guys gonna be worth a fortune"... and got it wrong. That said, you do want to keep your best assets! it's catch 22 every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Would i be right in thinking a player worth £10m being paid £60k per week is actually worth £7m when offsetting wages in year one?. If he doesn't play and his value inevitably falls he's actually worth £1m in year four??..Arguably then the Arteta sale assisted the club to the tune of £13.25m?.. If I'm being thick lads please let me know! The maths looks about right - you're spending 3 million a year on him, plus he's falling in value - like a car! in 3 years you'll have spent 9 million on him, and he's lost 9 million, so that's actually 18 million gone. (if you sold him tomorrow, you'd be 18 million better off over 3 years). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 In terms of the valuation of everton? My opinion is this - look at the clubs standing, it's commercial value, assets (players not included), attendances, current performance, turnover. We can't expect any more than £70m - and at that bill and co will get a tidy return on the money they paid for the shares. (not that they deserve it, what have they invested in the club?!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 In terms of the valuation of everton? My opinion is this - look at the clubs standing, it's commercial value, assets (players not included), attendances, current performance, turnover. We can't expect any more than £70m - and at that bill and co will get a tidy return on the money they paid for the shares. (not that they deserve it, what have they invested in the club?!) a lot of time and effort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 a lot of time and effort Is that the fishing rod Matt? Or are you having a giraffe? Time (as in years sat stagnating) yes, effort as in attempting and failing to secure new stadium, investment, Increased debt etc? What have they done exactly? Please let me know. Shall we say nigh on doubling their money based on that pile of steam is a joke. I suggest they hand mr moyes a brown envelope for making the sale of a premier league club possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Is that the fishing rod Matt? Or are you having a giraffe? Time (as in years sat stagnating) yes, effort as in attempting and failing to secure new stadium, investment, Increased debt etc? What have they done exactly? Please let me know. Shall we say nigh on doubling their money based on that pile of steam is a joke. I suggest they hand mr moyes a brown envelope for making the sale of a premier league club possible. sorry, it was the fishing rod mate. Wasnt in a good mood yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted October 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 I couldn't help but laugh.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.