Did Maurice Watkins say...

Clearly no club in tbe premiership could sustain that on gate receipts alone. The purpose of parachute payments (whatever you think of them) is to bridge the gap.

 

Agree JC. But we're talking about a Championship club in a provincial Market town ( weakness) with a population of 250,000
some of whom support Clubs in surrounding towns/ cities ( Weakness/ opportunity/ threat? ) we have an owner with limited resources ( in football terms who unfortunately is in ill health) - (weakness/threat) and not counting away support a loyal fan base of 11,000 plus 1,000 or so walk up on the day fans (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity).
Current sponsorship include a six figure three year deal with Engineering Consultancy CK Beckett ( Grimethorpe) and Bapp for Bolts ( Barugh Green) very grateful for their involvement by the way ( Strength, Opportunity, weakness) and twenty three sundry match day game/ball sponsors most of whom are local ( Strength/weakness/opportunity). We get a grant from the FA and TV money (strength).Last full balance sheet I saw our turnover was £9.1 million the wage bill was £7.7 million, our profit was £ 1.9 million and we carried a debt of £3.6 million. Blackburn same season turnover £26.9 million, wage bill £ 36.6 million, loss £36.5 million, debt £ 54.5 million, Bolton Wanderers ( same season) turnover £ 35 million, wage bill 37.4 million, loss £50.6 million, debt £ 163.8 million. I'll stop there cos my eyes have started wattering.
We've probably done better this season and with the resources available Hecky has done great with the team but
given all of the foregoing what could be done to make us a more attractive take over proposition.?

 

I don't disagree with any of that to be honest. Though the debt of more 'successful' clubs dwarfs those. Howabout Brighton and their £171 million quid.

 

Let's look at it another way.

You have millions and millions to buy a business (any business not football).

You have 2 to choose from.

One has staff and nothing else. The staff work in buildings others own and use equipment others own. You buy the staff and and sales it generates.

Or

The other. Which has staff buildings and equipment with it. If all the staff leave. You still have assets like buildinga and equipment with which you can resurect another business.

I don't think anyone would want the first one.

Imo

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

The rich folk buying clubs now want them for vanity and for entertainment. I'm truly convinced that they aren't arsed about land assets and buildings etc. I'm sure given the choice they'd prefer to own the lot but still.

 

Less debt to clear off from the old company for a start?

 

Rotherham

The Booths insisted the club play at Millmoor after its sale. New owners said no thanks, became nomadic til the new stadium was built.

Nothing stopping that happening with us in future is there?

 

ah yes but they can use it as security to use others peoples money for the investment (loans etc) - look at Glazer at Man Utd he took over whilst hardly ploughing any of is own cash in- it lessens there actual cash input. - rich folk never risk their own cash!!

lifted from the web:
The final purchase price of the Utd totalled almost £800 million. Most of the capital used by Glazer to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans, the majority of which were secured against the club's assets

 

Depends on location but there's a quarter of an acre of land on Oakwell Lane up for sale at £150,000.
Based on that figure with planning permission what must the entire Barnsley FC 2002/ Barnsley MBC estate be worth
without selling anything you build on it off.?

The plot on Oakwell Lane would support the building of five houses.
How many could you build on the land at Oakwell/ Queens Ground.?
Could be worth selling up and moving elsewhere if you could buy 100% of the land.

 

You're comparing apples with oranges.

A football club's biggest assets are the staff's (player's) contracts if structured correctly they dwarf the value of any land assets. Any other company will have staff whose "value" is zero because they can leave with thirty to ninety days notice.

All the companies I have worked for have rented their premises and their it equipment.

 

Is their not some sort of sporting covenant on the ground?


Sent from my iPad using Barnsley FC BBS Fan Forum mobile app

 

See my response to nez.

 

So your saying that even though the club don't own it's ground building etc. We should still be ok to be sold.

Because from the outside looking in it doesn't look that way.

Just trying to understand why we aren't getting mich interest (it appears). And to what's being noted in various places it seems lack of assets other than players contracts is a major stumbling block

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

I get what you are saying but I don't think a bank/investment company would lend against players contracts, they would against land. Many companies also remortgage/have militiple mortgages to fund investment, many management buy outs are structured this way too, its the only way the money can be raised sometimes, buy the company with money partly secured on the assets it has, but assets that people like banks like.

 

Reply to both - we have sold approximately £20m worth of player contracts this season - should have been more. What's the land really worth? Difficult to compare us with Manchester Utd but they could probably borrow many against future merchandise contracts which would dwarf the value of land in Manchester.

If Strata wanted to build houses on Oakwell, how much would they pay for the land? How much could we borrow against that? Less than what we got for John Stones I'd bet.

 

I'd rather PC was in a position where he could stay around for many more years and we were how we are now than we get taken over by a non-Barnsley (and probably foreign) fan. There's no guarantee at all we'll get an owner with any more money than PC, and as we've seen at numerous clubs in our league, many supposedly wealthy owners don't actually spend much and many of the clubs are far worse off now. All of the below have been taken over by foreign investors and I don't think any are better off now:

Blackburn
Birmingham
Forest
Leeds
QPR
Cardiff
Coventry

And outside our league:

Charlton and Coventry. Don't fancy these scenes at Oakwell: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37673217

Leyton Orient. Owner took over when they'd just lost League One play-off final and they're now out of the Football League. And they've been in debt problems: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39756837

PC has tried to find owners and made it clear for a while now he's open to proposals but no-one suitable has come forward. I can't believe people want rid, I really can't, and some of the comments on this thread (yes, you Nudger) are at best extremely insensitive, and worst a disgrace.

 

Man City
Bournemouth
Chelsea

All have foreign owners and have done infinitely better. The worst owners in the country have been at the helm nigh on thirty years and are local.

 

I'd argue that the good examples are the exception rather than the rule. Two of those three clubs were already huge before, albeit of course they're bigger and doing better now. Put it another way, realistically what are the odds that an 'unfashionable' town like ours gets one of the good rich owners who stump their own money up, don't sack managers 3 times a season (look at some of the clubs I gave as examples for that) and would actually mean we were a regular challenger at the top of this league and got us up to the Premier League within say 5 years or even 10?

For me at best it's highly unlikely and at worst it's pie in the sky.

 

I don't think there's much chance of any bank or investment company lending significant amounts of money without a physical asset such as the stadium and land to secure against. They've shot themselves in the foot before with Leeds. Player contract values are volatile and carry no garantee of future value. Wasn't one of the key factors in Leeds going into administration the fact that they had borrowed £60 million over a 25 year term, secured against future season ticket sales. The first annual interest payment was £4 million.

If Barnsley gambled, even on a smaller scale, and we got in the Premier League,then great. But what if, as is more likely, we don't get promoted? Who picks up the pieces?

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

 

Not disputing how much we've raked in recently at all.

But I don't see the point at the minute.

It's to secure the long term future. However we were supposed to be trying to break even. And still lost money last season despite the successes.

It's been noted we won't use the proceeds in anyway to up the structure of wages etc.

So I'm kind of a loss as to what our aims are.

Become self sufficient is one that's always stated. And we can't do that seemingly.

If we achieve that aim. Then what's the point flogging to the highest bidder when we aren't going to use it.

If that makes sense at all.


Sorry. Bit of a sidestep to the original discussion


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk