Rich Americans buying Euro soccer teams.

Wouldn't it be more interesting/challenging to buy a small or not doing well team for cheap, than buy a bunch of good/expensive players and make it a surprise hit then cashing out on the top??? Or not even cashing out, just enjoying the newly found fame???

Buying a famous team for lots of money is a nobrainer, building your own team, that is an achievement.
 
Quote from Pekelo:

Wouldn't it be more interesting/challenging to buy a small or not doing well team for cheap, than buy a bunch of good/expensive players and make it a surprise hit then cashing out on the top??? Or not even cashing out, just enjoying the newly found fame???

Buying a famous team for lots of money is a nobrainer, building your own team, that is an achievement.
More...

How would one cash out? Buying players = more debt. Who would buy it?
Do you think the current team owners are completely clueless?
 
#20 team makes it to be #3, value increases more than what you spent on players, you cash out.

Simple as it is....

Sometimes rich people do investments for the prestige, not always for the good return. Also, rich people can lose money too. Remember when the Japanese were buying Van Gogh for 40 million?? Yeah it was at the height of the Japanese bubble, but who cared? It was the Sunflower!!!
 
Quote from zdreg:

"somehow it always ends up that the club and its supporters are left holding the baby."

please explain.
More...
and (from Pekelo)

Wouldn't it be more interesting/challenging to buy a small or not doing well team for cheap, than buy a bunch of good/expensive players and make it a surprise hit then cashing out on the top??? Or not even cashing out, just enjoying the newly found fame???

To answer both your questions, look no further than Portsmouth who were taken over by a succession of dubious entities
that managed to increase the debt load until the whole thing collapsed. The club were docked nine points by the EPL, had to sell all their best playersand are now in administration and languishing in a lower league.
Perhaps this is not the fairest comparison because Portsmouth
were an appallingly managed, small provincial team with a totally unsustainable business model yet the bigger clubs are essentially playing the same game.
 
Also, having a bunch of overpaid stars is not always guarantee for success:

"Abramovich will find that betting the house on star players spells disaster if they don't deliver. Leeds United fell into bankruptcy after a spending spree on high-wage players failed to deliver European success. The ensuing financial crisis forced Leeds to sell off its best players and the team fell out of the top division of English soccer, which cost it dearly in lost broadcasting revenue.

As an ironic twist of fate, Leeds is now majority owned by Ken Bates, the man who sold Chelsea to Abramovich."

Some numbers from 2005:

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2005/0418/138.html
 
Quote from afto:

and (from Pekelo)

Wouldn't it be more interesting/challenging to buy a small or not doing well team for cheap, than buy a bunch of good/expensive players and make it a surprise hit then cashing out on the top??? Or not even cashing out, just enjoying the newly found fame???

To answer both your questions, look no further than Portsmouth who were taken over by a succession of dubious entities
that managed to increase the debt load until the whole thing collapsed. The club were docked nine points by the EPL, had to sell all their best playersand are now in administration and languishing in a lower league.
Perhaps this is not the fairest comparison because Portsmouth
were an appallingly managed, small provincial team with a totally unsustainable business model yet the bigger clubs are essentially playing the same game.
More...
"Wouldn't it be more interesting/challenging to buy a small or not doing well team for cheap, "

moneyball :the art of winning an unfair game by michae lewis covers this subject.
 
"Wouldn't it be more interesting/challenging to buy a small or not doing well team for cheap, " --zdreg


Chelsea was an also run small London team mostly supported by people in the entertainment industry until Roman Abramovic bought it,
now its a European powerhouse.
 
Quote from dealmaker:


Chelsea was an also run small London team mostly supported by people in the entertainment industry until Roman Abramovic bought it,
now its a European powerhouse.
More...

Went to game they played with Čelik (Steel) in Zenica, Bosnia, in Mid-Europa Cup. It was mid seventies. They got 1:1. They were pretty much nobody (internationally) until Abramovich. I don't know the history before '50-'60.
He managed to make something, money helps a bit, but never buys the ticket to finals for sure...
Look at Real, floating in money, yet nothing for a while... until the Chosen arrived...
Nevertheless, best ownership form, ever: by the people, for the people...
Aside the topic, 4 classico's in a row!!! I am not quite sure people are realizing that we are living the history (as usual). Meeesssssiiiii ....
 
Quote from 6yaNYCjm5m:

Look at Real, floating in money
More...

Floating in debt more like, same as Barca. Both have debts of around Euro 400million and little is planned to reduce the amount.

Listen, it takes no fucking genius to borrow money, even a retard can do it and build a team that can compete. Notice I said compete, not always winning as in the case of Real.

Most of the people that run football clubs in Europe are as bad as the politicians, ie they've found it's far easier to borrow today in order to get short term success rather than run the club/country in a proper long term fashion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top