1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
    Dismiss Notice
Why Not Register?

It only takes a few minutes to register on SixCrazyMinutes

Click Here

Moyes Money, Moyes Problems.

Discussion in 'The Football Forum' started by Dreambeliever, Nov 11, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dreambeliever

    Dreambeliever From Doubter to Believer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    32,632
    Likes Received:
    3,857
    Trophy Points:
    1,065
    Location:
    Galway, Ireland
    West ham have just had a billionaire buy a 27% stake in the club.


    Another superpower on the horizon?

    Will Moyes get more money to spend?

    Will there be additional pressure to finish top 4 now?

    EPL really is becoming the centre of world football!
     
  2. Dreambeliever

    Dreambeliever From Doubter to Believer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    32,632
    Likes Received:
    3,857
    Trophy Points:
    1,065
    Location:
    Galway, Ireland
  3. JohnnyRocket

    JohnnyRocket Very Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    805
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    415
    London based. Big new stadium. Fairly large fan base accross East London and Essex. They're very ripe for a bit more big time footy.
     
  4. Frogfish

    Frogfish Gone to Redcafe Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    34,947
    Likes Received:
    6,953
    Trophy Points:
    1,240
    Location:
    Shanghai
    A Czech billionaire. So not an Arab/Russian plaything then. I imagine they'll just continue on the same trajectory. Good for Top 5/6 fur the next few seasons.
     
  5. Squiggles

    Squiggles Very Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    23,215
    Likes Received:
    4,324
    Trophy Points:
    970
    Being located in one of the two biggest cities in the country has become a huge advantage in football, as you're likely handed a free stadium followed by billionaire investment. City wouldn't have purchased if Manchester didn't get the Commonwealth games, similarly West Ham wouldn't be progressing as quickly without the London Olympics. Neither was sold at anything close to the market rate. You can argue both are shit arenas but they bring in the money and investment.  Arsenal sacrificed being the top club in England to build the Emirates, and now West Ham have a bigger one with none of the drawbacks.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2021
    Dirty Sanchez, peekay and Woland like this.
  6. RedStar

    RedStar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    6,732
    Likes Received:
    2,266
    Trophy Points:
    660
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    It does seem completely unfair that some clubs have to borrow huge amounts to build or refurbish their stadiums, diverting resources away from the playing staff. While other clubs just have ready made brand new stadiums handed to them.
     
  7. bluebell

    bluebell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    3,844
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Trophy Points:
    570
    His worth $4.2bn, he is buying only 27% of the club. So the current owners are basically cashing in.
    If there is going to be injection of cash, it has to be done where all parties have relative liability to their share in the business.
    @Beamrider explains this stuff better. They're not another Newcastle put it that way. Everton Brighton and Aston Villa have all spent big, so plenty of time for things to go wrong.
    My worry is we are becoming Arsenal, though they've spent big(now).
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2021
    Beamrider likes this.
  8. Beamrider

    Beamrider Very Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2016
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    938
    Trophy Points:
    410
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wirral
    There are two (basic) ways you can acquire a 27% stake in a company.
    One is to buy 27% from existing shareholders, which means they cash in and the company gets no extra money.
    The second is to subscribe for new additional shares, which means the extra money goes into the club. Provided the price is correct, the value of the club goes up but the existing shareholders have a smaller share of a bigger pie, and don't lose any value. This seems to be what happened with FSG and Red Bird Capital, but obviously the money there went in at the top and didn't necessarily trickle down to LFC (and probably didn't). For example, if the company is worth £100 with 100 shares in issue, you'd subscribe £37 for new shares, so your share would be 37/137 = 27%. The old shareholders have 73% of £137 = £100.
    Of course, you could also do a bit of both (e.g. buy 20% and subscribe new money for extra shares to take you up to 27%).
    The press quotes issued by West Ham say that "Daniel's involvement brings investment which strengthens the club's position and in turn will assist in the development of the club's key area of focus." This implies that at least part of this deal involves an injection of new money into the club. This will partly prop up any covid losses and also potentially give them capacity to spend. The details should become apparent over the next month or so as if there has been a new share issue then that will need to be registered with Companies House. Having said all that, the "brings investment" comment was made by Karren Brady. I met her at a Premier League meeting once and she wasn't the sharpest tool in the box, so she may have misrepresented the position.
    The other thing to focus on is the shareholding itself. Most board / shareholder votes are carried by a simple majority but there are some issues where a >75% majority is required (these are called "special resolutions"). The shareholding of 27% doesn't give the new guy any positive control over the company, but it does give him enough votes to block some of the more fundamental shareholder matters (so some element of negative control). Whilst special resolutions are relatively rare and quite technical, having a 27% share does give a shareholder a fair amount of power and means Gold and Sullivan won't be able to use the club as their plaything if they want to.
    It's also possible that this will be a pre-cursor to a full takeover at some point in the future (a la Moshiri / Usmanov), and I'd expect he'll have first refusal if the the other shareholders decide to sell up.
     
  9. tomasjj

    tomasjj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    3,604
    Likes Received:
    1,217
    Trophy Points:
    570
    Gender:
    Male
    The world was never fair though.
     
  10. bluebell

    bluebell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    3,844
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Trophy Points:
    570
    They're renting it for £20m per season and I'm sure there's a complex arrangement around the revenues generated from ancillary businesses during match days where they share some of the revenue with the landlord
     
  11. momoWASboss

    momoWASboss If you take me seriously then you’re an idiot Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,428
    Likes Received:
    9,828
    Trophy Points:
    1,165
    The landlord takes a massive amount of that income. Whereas we keep the money for renting out Anfield to Elton John.
     
  12. binomial

    binomial Super Woke Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2016
    Messages:
    10,249
    Likes Received:
    1,326
    Trophy Points:
    565
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    UK
    Who gives a fuck, doesn't all Premier League clubs have billionaire owners now?
     
  13. Dreambeliever

    Dreambeliever From Doubter to Believer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    32,632
    Likes Received:
    3,857
    Trophy Points:
    1,065
    Location:
    Galway, Ireland
    Norwich’s owner is worth 23m.

    If Lampard takes over he’ll be worth double the owner of the club he manages.
     
  14. moron

    moron i am legend Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    8,061
    Likes Received:
    1,433
    Trophy Points:
    495
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Essex
    20M ? Are you sure ? thought Boris did a deal with them for 100 year lease at 2M per year ? I am certain i read that in the Evening Standard as those figures came out when Khan took over, and they were having ago at Boris for such a low rent.
     
  15. Beamrider

    Beamrider Very Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2016
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    938
    Trophy Points:
    410
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wirral
    West Ham's last set of accounts reports payments under "Operating leases for land and buildings" at just under £3m (£2,979k). This is the rent they are paying on the whole of the club's leased property, so it will include the stadium (and possibly separate offices etc). This will be significantly less than it would cost them to operate a stadium if they owned it (including rates, utilities, cleaning, repairs etc) and the reports were that the fee they are paying also included stewarding (which would probably cost more than the rent on its own).
    It is a staggering example of incompetence on behalf of the public purse that someone (presumably a West Ham fan and/or a crack addict) ever agreed to this.
     
  16. momoWASboss

    momoWASboss If you take me seriously then you’re an idiot Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,428
    Likes Received:
    9,828
    Trophy Points:
    1,165
    BoJo agreed it. That’s all you need to know.
     
  17. Squiggles

    Squiggles Very Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    23,215
    Likes Received:
    4,324
    Trophy Points:
    970
    Yeah, but he can't boil an egg as accurately as Delia.
     
    Dreambeliever likes this.
  18. Richey

    Richey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    14,199
    Likes Received:
    968
    Trophy Points:
    490
    Location:
    South East
    As has been said, West Ham had a contract at around 2.5 million a year. It would have gone up with inflation and there are various add-ons depending on number of games, how well they do in the league, whether they qualify for Europe etc. They had to pay a fraction of the conversion costs and have to hand over proportions of the pitch advertising and match day catering revenues, and I would imagine that they won’t get anything for the stadium being hired out for other uses, but it is still a very sweet deal for them. They don’t pay for things like maintenance, policing, stewarding etc.

    The whole thing was a shambles really. The stadium was (rather unsurprisingly) built without any firm plan in regard to what would happen afterwards. Various ideas were kicked around, including mothballing it, reducing the size, and essentially selling it off.

    Eventually the powers that be decided that they wanted to keep it as multi-use and therefore wanted to keep it in public hands, as anyone who leased it probably would turn it into a purely football stadium or wouldn’t take it for as long.

    By then Spurs had pulled out so there were really no bidders other than West Ham. Therefore West Ham pretty much held all the cards. If you take a look at the details of the deal, it’s shocking really.

    One could argue that it was always going to end up costing the taxpayer money whichever option was taken, but it is hard not to conclude that the worst option was taken, by signing the taxpayer up to a hundred year deal where they would lose money year after year.
     
    moron likes this.
  19. mark1975

    mark1975 Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    42,105
    Likes Received:
    9,254
    Trophy Points:
    1,750
    Location:
    Runcorn
    And now this. It doesn't stink to high heaven at all.
     
  20. Athens

    Athens Greatest Bloke Ever [Citation Needed] Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    31,054
    Likes Received:
    23,570
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Athens
    The worst thing about all these recent developments is all the thread title material it's giving Dreamy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page