we pay nat phillips 6mil a year

comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)

Abhishek Raj whoever that is, free link for article here

https://archive.is/ulNdS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for sharing.

Think this highlights what we already know tbh, FSG have improved our performance as a business and club without putting their own money in - like any VC would, and I'm thankful it wasn't a leveraged buyout like Utd's was. Surprised to see them mention dividends as I was positive FSG hadn't drawn any, which makes me wonder if that net figure is down to loan repayment.

If they sell then we hope it's an owner willing to invest in the business too or improve our commercial performance further. Securing outside investment also viable and seems to be our current thinking.

"Think this highlights what we already know tbh, FSG have improved our performance as a business and club without putting their own money in - like any VC would, and I'm thankful it wasn't a leveraged buyout like Utd's was."

The problem I have with this is they walk away with around 4bn while we (the club) get left with nothing despite us taking loans from FSG and other credit facilities in order to grow this asset

comment by The Duality of Van (Dijk) (U21747)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)

Abhishek Raj whoever that is, free link for article here

https://archive.is/ulNdS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for sharing.

Think this highlights what we already know tbh, FSG have improved our performance as a business and club without putting their own money in - like any VC would, and I'm thankful it wasn't a leveraged buyout like Utd's was. Surprised to see them mention dividends as I was positive FSG hadn't drawn any, which makes me wonder if that net figure is down to loan repayment.

If they sell then we hope it's an owner willing to invest in the business too or improve our commercial performance further. Securing outside investment also viable and seems to be our current thinking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I stopped reading as soon as I saw "EBITDA is a good proxy for operating cash flow"

Standalone that statement is true and is taught in accounting textbooks everywhere. But EBITDA doesn't factor in the need to spend cash on transfers so it's completely flawed when analysing a football club.

comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 15 minutes ago
we pay nat phillips 6mil a year
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bs, so hes on 115k a week?

Is that true though? When they sell-up, the loans they provided will leave us with an improved stadium which will generate more revenue in the future. Some of those loans (I know not all) were interest free too. It's not like those loans were to fund our initial purchase which could quite easily have happened.

Their MO from the beginning was improving our commercial performance and it just so happens that also ties in with a lot f sporting success too

comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 15 minutes ago
we pay nat phillips 6mil a year
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bs, so hes on 115k a week?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
looked it up hes on 3,360,000, 65k a week. sounds about right.

comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 15 minutes ago
we pay nat phillips 6mil a year
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bs, so hes on 115k a week?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
oh crap i mathed wrong, hes on 65k so 3.4mil, adrian on similar

The stadium loan they tried raising ticket prices for, turns out there was no need at all it paid for itself and some in no time.

comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 15 minutes ago
we pay nat phillips 6mil a year
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bs, so hes on 115k a week?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
oh crap i mathed wrong, hes on 65k so 3.4mil, adrian on similar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbf hes worth it more than Adrian, he also still has resale value prob valued by us at 10-15m.

Ticket prices going up this season though. We did well as a club freezing prices as long as we did

Not sure if there's anything to read into this but there's a video circulating of a stadium tour where in the dressing room every single player had their name on next seasons kit except for Thiago, Matip and Gomez.

Would find it hard to believe we'd get rid of Matip and Gomez at the same time, but still, could be something.

Anyone seen our goal of the season selection?

Slim pickings! Plus a couple of obligatory bang average goals from the women's team.

comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 15 minutes ago
we pay nat phillips 6mil a year
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bs, so hes on 115k a week?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
oh crap i mathed wrong, hes on 65k so 3.4mil, adrian on similar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbf hes worth it more than Adrian, he also still has resale value prob valued by us at 10-15m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We've tried to get that price for Phillips for three years. No-one wanted him, not even Bournemouth.

Yeah we sometimes price our deadwood too high and shoot ourselves in the foot when they leave for free

Changing topic... What do we think of our rivals business so far?

Kovacic looks a good buy IF City can keep him fit which I'm sure they will somehow manage
Arsenal seem to be spending big on Rice and Havertz... Not sure how that'll work out for them
United seem hell-bent on Mount. Can't be bothered to bring up that discussion again
Nkunku to Chelsea is one to watch. Think they've got a good buy there for a reasonable price. Slightly concerned about how they'll be able to flog their deadwood to Saudi for inflated fees... Nothing to see here
Spurs...

If Chelsea play Nkunku as a lone striker...they'll encounter the same problems like with Werner

Though the prices are inflated, I think Arsenal have done okay for what they require

I remain to be convinced by Rice. Get a weird Scott Parker kinda vibe from him. Happy being the big fish in a small pond. No doubt he'll prove me wrong. Havertz is a weird move for them though.

comment by Alisson Wonderland (Formerly LGT) (U13718)
posted 5 minutes ago
Changing topic... What do we think of our rivals business so far?

Kovacic looks a good buy IF City can keep him fit which I'm sure they will somehow manage
Arsenal seem to be spending big on Rice and Havertz... Not sure how that'll work out for them
United seem hell-bent on Mount. Can't be bothered to bring up that discussion again
Nkunku to Chelsea is one to watch. Think they've got a good buy there for a reasonable price. Slightly concerned about how they'll be able to flog their deadwood to Saudi for inflated fees... Nothing to see here
Spurs...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kovacic - as a stand alone signing, he's a very tidy player with league experience so likely to deliver performances from the get-go. As a replacement for Gundogan, I think City are weaker - IG is the better player imo.

Rice - I know he divides people but I think he's a great player, seems to be getting better year on year. He's probably not worth what Arsenal are going to pay but he's a definite upgrade on any of Partey, Jorginho or Xhaka.

Havertz - rotating him with Jesus adds depth to their attack. Arsenal definitely gassed last year, adding Havertz and Trossard (from Jan) means they have a much improved squad.

Mount - decent signing, improves their squad.

Nkunku - I've seen little of him but even if he looked a world beater, can he beat the Chelsea striker curse....

£50m for Mount is already way too much.

Can see United being taken to the cleaners by Chelsea there.

Havertz makes more sense as a midfielder than a striker, playing behind Jesus but who knows.

comment by Michael Edwards 7-0 FC {Proud owner of the 5 000 000th comment} (U2720)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
"Think this highlights what we already know tbh, FSG have improved our performance as a business and club without putting their own money in - like any VC would, and I'm thankful it wasn't a leveraged buyout like Utd's was."

The problem I have with this is they walk away with around 4bn while we (the club) get left with nothing despite us taking loans from FSG and other credit facilities in order to grow this asset
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why it’s a problem though. They’ve done what they said they were going to do, and I don’t know what you mean by the club get nothing. They’ve grown the club commercially, overseen the expansion of the stadium and we’ve had on field success. Wishing for a sugar daddy besides, I’m not sure there’s much more we have the right to expect.

comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Michael Edwards 7-0 FC {Proud owner of the 5 000 000th comment} (U2720)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
"Think this highlights what we already know tbh, FSG have improved our performance as a business and club without putting their own money in - like any VC would, and I'm thankful it wasn't a leveraged buyout like Utd's was."

The problem I have with this is they walk away with around 4bn while we (the club) get left with nothing despite us taking loans from FSG and other credit facilities in order to grow this asset
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why it’s a problem though. They’ve done what they said they were going to do, and I don’t know what you mean by the club get nothing. They’ve grown the club commercially, overseen the expansion of the stadium and we’ve had on field success. Wishing for a sugar daddy besides, I’m not sure there’s much more we have the right to expect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When Klopp leaves and their running of the club remains the same then we'll see

comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Michael Edwards 7-0 FC {Proud owner of the 5 000 000th comment} (U2720)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
"Think this highlights what we already know tbh, FSG have improved our performance as a business and club without putting their own money in - like any VC would, and I'm thankful it wasn't a leveraged buyout like Utd's was."

The problem I have with this is they walk away with around 4bn while we (the club) get left with nothing despite us taking loans from FSG and other credit facilities in order to grow this asset
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why it’s a problem though. They’ve done what they said they were going to do, and I don’t know what you mean by the club get nothing. They’ve grown the club commercially, overseen the expansion of the stadium and we’ve had on field success. Wishing for a sugar daddy besides, I’m not sure there’s much more we have the right to expect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Owner spend more with less success, no expansion of stadiums and no commercial growth and yet that seems to be seen as what we need to aim towards because they have spent more to achieve less. They're left the club with nothing comparatively speaking and have spent money to leave the club with nothing. FSG when they sell will have left the club in a much better position and not had to spend copious amounts to do so, which is what they would have set out to do. A mutual benefit.