This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
20 most valuable clubs in the world
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 silvertop  Portishead 11 Jul 23 10.19am |
  |
|---|---|
|
According to Forbes. If the link don't work, we are number 20 !! Top 6 are, of course, all in the top 10. The only other English club is West Ham at 15th (if you were donated an Olympic stadium I suppose you would expect to be there). However, no Villa, Newcastle (!) or other teams you would think have greater value. And no Brighton, ho ho. People with larger brains will say this is wrong as it does not take into account... places too heavy a gearage on... In this respect, the one thing Palace has is a ground and training facility on expensive London real estate. This is presumably why West ham is top 20 and, say, Everton is not. Even that is it, that capital, if unencumbered, provides very good security for investment and the club's future. I understood Forbes to be a respected magazine - the US Economist/FT. Thus, it appears our management are actually doing something right. If we can translate this onto the pitch, when the inevitable divvy up of European football happens, can we squeak our way into the select few, the way West Ham appear to be moving? Given who reads Forbes, could this mean interest from other rich Americans..? Perhaps Blitzer and Harris might stop peeping over the fence and concentrate on what they are already invested in?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 11 Jul 23 10.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quite clearly, Newcastle are richer than us. It's just silly.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Davepalace707 Northumberland 11 Jul 23 10.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
CPFC worth $800m?? Absolutely having a laugh Most likely the American owners have a mate who they paid to write the article
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ambrose7 Croydon 11 Jul 23 10.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
Quite clearly, Newcastle are richer than us. It's just silly. Richer and valuable aren't quite the same thing. If the Newcastle wealth comes from the owner (which prior to now it has done), then it's irrelevant after a takeover. I'd assume 'valuable' is how much someone would expect to pay to buy it. Given that both LA sides are in the list, it seems they've put a very high premium on a major city location so we've likely snuck in due to London. I'd argue that isn't as valuable as they've deemed it to be, given there doesn't seem to be land nearby to build a big stadium on to harvest the value of that location.
26th January 2010 - Enter Administration |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Painter Croydon 11 Jul 23 12.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
According to Forbes. If the link don't work, we are number 20 !! Top 6 are, of course, all in the top 10. The only other English club is West Ham at 15th (if you were donated an Olympic stadium I suppose you would expect to be there). However, no Villa, Newcastle (!) or other teams you would think have greater value. And no Brighton, ho ho. People with larger brains will say this is wrong as it does not take into account... places too heavy a gearage on... In this respect, the one thing Palace has is a ground and training facility on expensive London real estate. This is presumably why West ham is top 20 and, say, Everton is not. Even that is it, that capital, if unencumbered, provides very good security for investment and the club's future. I understood Forbes to be a respected magazine - the US Economist/FT. Thus, it appears our management are actually doing something right. If we can translate this onto the pitch, when the inevitable divvy up of European football happens, can we squeak our way into the select few, the way West Ham appear to be moving? Given who reads Forbes, could this mean interest from other rich Americans..? Perhaps Blitzer and Harris might stop peeping over the fence and concentrate on what they are already invested in? Could you explain the difference between the most valuable and richest clubs, they appear to differentiation .
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ambrose7 Croydon 11 Jul 23 1.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Painter
Could you explain the difference between the most valuable and richest clubs, they appear to differentiation . Valuable - the total of all your assets and an indication at your earning potential. Newcastle are more valuable than they were last year because CL qualification increases their near term income, and their improved performance suggests a potential for future revenue from European football in the years ahead. Richest - Newcastle are not necessarily rich because the Saudi money is in a bank account belonging to the Saudis, not Newcastle. Think of it this way - the value is everything you'd be given if you bought Newcastle tomorrow. You wouldn't be given the Saudi's money, so that doesn't count in their valuation.
26th January 2010 - Enter Administration |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Davepalace707 Northumberland 11 Jul 23 1.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ambrose7
Valuable - the total of all your assets and an indication at your earning potential. Newcastle are more valuable than they were last year because CL qualification increases their near term income, and their improved performance suggests a potential for future revenue from European football in the years ahead. Richest - Newcastle are not necessarily rich because the Saudi money is in a bank account belonging to the Saudis, not Newcastle. Think of it this way - the value is everything you'd be given if you bought Newcastle tomorrow. You wouldn't be given the Saudi's money, so that doesn't count in their valuation. CPFC - current valuation of our squad per a couple of sites is around $320m. That means Forbes value everything else you would get at $480m- ground, training ground, staff, other net assets plus presumably a notional value for being in the Premier League. This must be a massive part of it. What we can’t see in the list of clubs is the value of the clubs below ours. They could be close to us which would mean they all benefit massively from being in the Prem over other European leagues. At the end of the day it’s like valueing your house - the only true value is what someone else will pay for it. As we know Premier league existence is fragile.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| est1905 11 Jul 23 4.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
Quite clearly, Newcastle are richer than us. It's just silly. And Villa, and Fulham, and Forest. Even newly relegated Leicester are probably better placed financially than us. And thats just in THIS country!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| est1905 11 Jul 23 4.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ambrose7
Valuable - the total of all your assets and an indication at your earning potential. Newcastle are more valuable than they were last year because CL qualification increases their near term income, and their improved performance suggests a potential for future revenue from European football in the years ahead. Richest - Newcastle are not necessarily rich because the Saudi money is in a bank account belonging to the Saudis, not Newcastle. Think of it this way - the value is everything you'd be given if you bought Newcastle tomorrow. You wouldn't be given the Saudi's money, so that doesn't count in their valuation. Actually it does. The whole condition of the Premier League allowing the take over of Newcastle United to go through was that it was 100% funded independantly from The Saudi government or royal family. IF we are to believe this then we have to count the worth of Newcastles owners the same way Blitzer, Harris, Textor and Parish's worth is taken into account when determining Palace's value.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ambrose7 Croydon 11 Jul 23 5.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by est1905
Actually it does. The whole condition of the Premier League allowing the take over of Newcastle United to go through was that it was 100% funded independantly from The Saudi government or royal family. IF we are to believe this then we have to count the worth of Newcastles owners the same way Blitzer, Harris, Textor and Parish's worth is taken into account when determining Palace's value. It isn't taken into account when calculating Palace's value either. The private wealth of the owner has no bearing on the value of the club. That's like saying a copy of FIFA 23 owned by Person X is more valuable than a copy of FIFA 23 owned by Person Y because Person X has more money in their savings account. It doesn't matter if the Newcastle money is put up by the Royal Family, the Saudi Government, Jerry Springer's Saudi mate or the owner of a car rental firm. All that matters for the purpose of a valuation is that the billions are not owned by Newcastle United - a prospective buyer would not become the owner of those billions. Now, if the money was used to buy a load of players on expensive long-term contracts (e.g. Botman), then Botman becomes an asset that increases the value of the club because Newcastle, not the owners, own those players. If King Charles were to buy Newcastle tomorrow, Sven Botman doesn't automatically leave the club - he stays at Newcastle because Newcastle own the contract.
26th January 2010 - Enter Administration |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop Portishead 12 Jul 23 3.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
Quite clearly, Newcastle are richer than us. It's just silly. We are as farmers. Asset rich; cash poor.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.