If Potter would get sacked who would you want IN to replace him?

[Barty888]

25% win percentage 

Clueless today

[southbankbornnbred]

You have to assume we have decided our next manager then. I'm not looking forward to this!

Strange timing. 

The timing is weird, innit?

My guess is Nuno has reached an agreement and they’ve bitten his hand off. But that’s complete guesswork.

[Vexed]

You have to assume we have decided our next manager then. I'm not looking forward to this!

Strange timing. 

[southbankbornnbred]

Tin tacked?

Yep!

[yngwies Cat]

Tin tacked?

[southbankbornnbred]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/657016 ... am-sacked/

[southbankbornnbred]

Reports emerging that Potter has been sacked this morning.

[violator]

He's gone

[BRANDED]

The value of a company for a buyer is often based upon what additional value a buyer can bring to the business. In some cases it would be huge numbers of new customers. Football has quite clear revenue streams and costs but recent evolution in the transfer markets suggest a completely new view of what a top football club is.

[Far Cough UKunt]

I read somewhere that fat Sam said he wouldn't be interested in the job as the squad is beyond repair or words to that effect?

[southbankbornnbred]

Ffs

Sevilla of all Clubs have now mocked Potter up jn blackface as Kanoute. This is all getting proper bizarre.



Shows how much the Footballing world laughs at our circus of a Club though, clearly.  

I did genuinely laugh at that one. Fair play to Seville!

[RBshorty]

Forgot to say, that Forbes article values us at US$1.125 Billion. If you disagree, take it up with them!

Was that the same Forbes who reckoned Enron was the standard. Other company’s should reach for.? 

[Westside]

Forgot to say, that Forbes article values us at US$1.125 Billion. If you disagree, take it up with them!

[Westside]

Don't forget, Sullivan only owns 37% of shares. So he gets 37% of any full-buyout sale price.

Back of a fag packet calculation: he's probably invested around £80m to £100m of his own money in West Ham since buying the club 15 years ago (excluding loans, which he's largely taken back).

37% of £800m (his target price) is £296m
Less his approx £100m investment: £196m

Spread over the 15 years of ownership: equates to around £13m profit for each year he's owned the club.

Which is not huge by major investment standards. So you can see why the twonk is pushing for the highest price he can get. He won't get £800m for West Ham, though. You'd have to be a right mug to pay that. No ground to own, and limited commercial revenues until you bought the ground. Plus, you'd have to set aside, or plan for, hundreds of millions to redevelop it purely for football purposes.

 

Apparently ENIC just rejected an informal bid of 4.5b for Spurs. 
They have a stadium but that isn’t worth 3b of that price.

valuations for private companies can be typically 8-10 times revenue. West Ham revenue is about 250m right?  

Generally, in rough terms the valuation of a private company will be a multiple of its net profits, not revenues (I say rough, as even companies making losses, can be sold). The price earnings ratio of a public company, in a similar business, can be an indicative starting point. Premier League clubs valuation, is a completely different beast, due to revenues falling of a cliff on relegation. This  article,  https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinteit ... eams-2025/
whilst not being Premier League specific, gives a good idea of the value of quite a few Premier League teams.

[Massive Attack]

Oh ffs



 

[Massive Attack]

Ffs

Sevilla of all Clubs have now mocked Potter up jn blackface as Kanoute. This is all getting proper bizarre.



Shows how much the Footballing world laughs at our circus of a Club though, clearly.  

[El Scorchio]

It does help that it was planned for them to take it over afterwards so was designed as such, whereas we know the story with the Olympic stadium with Jowell and Coe refusing to accept football would be played there afterwards and therefore greenlighting something that could never be adapted without a huge cost. 

They’ve really escaped without a lot of criticism 

[zebthecat]

Plus, if we owned the damn stadium, we could fuck off the athletics track and reconfigure it as a proper football stadium. Or knock it down and build a proper ground.

So, the place might actually feel like a football stadium and not a soul-less athletics bowl.

But that would take investment and some time.

Man city showed how this should be done.
There probably aren't many people who actively remember that it was the 2002 Commonwealth Games athletics stadium.

[Massive Attack]

First question at Graham Potter’s pre-Everton press conference:
“Morning Graham, any chance you’ve seen yourself face-swapped into every photo known to man over the last 72 hours?”

I thought that was funny as fuck that also perfectly summed the sap up. Unintentionally mocked by a young female Journo about having the right piss taken out of him by fans and even his own 15yo son he admits laughed his bollocks at how pathetic his old man comes across. Of all the serious questions to ask in a Premier League Press Conference. Now that is classic Partridge shit!

[Mike Oxsaw]

Plus, if we owned the damn stadium, we could fuck off the athletics track and reconfigure it as a proper football stadium. Or knock it down and build a proper ground.

So, the place might actually feel like a football stadium and not a soul-less athletics bowl.

But that would take investment and some time.

We could always ask the government to fund the rebuild and then accept the stadium as a gift to help them close their 22 billion pound black hole...

[southbankbornnbred]

Plus, if we owned the damn stadium, we could fuck off the athletics track and reconfigure it as a proper football stadium. Or knock it down and build a proper ground.

So, the place might actually feel like a football stadium and not a soul-less athletics bowl.

But that would take investment and some time.

[southbankbornnbred]

Don't forget, Sullivan only owns 37% of shares. So he gets 37% of any full-buyout sale price.

Back of a fag packet calculation: he's probably invested around £80m to £100m of his own money in West Ham since buying the club 15 years ago (excluding loans, which he's largely taken back).

37% of £800m (his target price) is £296m
Less his approx £100m investment: £196m

Spread over the 15 years of ownership: equates to around £13m profit for each year he's owned the club.

Which is not huge by major investment standards. So you can see why the twonk is pushing for the highest price he can get. He won't get £800m for West Ham, though. You'd have to be a right mug to pay that. No ground to own, and limited commercial revenues until you bought the ground. Plus, you'd have to set aside, or plan for, hundreds of millions to redevelop it purely for football purposes.

Whats the benefit of owning the ground? Getting saddled with 500million of debt to build it? All up keep and repairs to it you have to pay? 

It's a fair Q, CS. But the answer is simply because it would significantly increase our potential revenues - giving us more money to stay competitive in the transfer market etc. If we own the stadium, we could then take ALL matchday receipts (currently shared for things like the food concessions etc). We could get a stadium sponsor and keep all the receipts from that annually, we could retain all other sponsorship income generated within the stadium, we could host other events and keep the profits, we could add more retail/bars/cafes to the stadium, we could even borrow against the value of the stadium asset etc if we need to.

Under the bonkers PSR rules, clubs have to show that their operational revenues now come from "football related" income. Owners can't really just hand the clubs money (although there are various loopholes). So increasing your revenues often relies on maximising the potential within your stadium. But we don't own the stadium. For example, if we did get a stadium sponsor, I think we're entitled to just one-third of the annual income and it's capped at a certain level.

Spurs, for example, will get loads of extra cash by hosting NFL games, gigs etc. And they keep almost all of the income, because it's their ground. So it counts as operational revenues - and they can spend it on players/wages etc. We can't really do that. So we're now hampered by these PSR shits!

If we want to avoid seeing the likes of Spurs disappear well out of our reach, financially, then owning our own stadium - wherever it is - would be a key part of that under the current rules etc. But, worse than that, clubs like Everton, Villa, Forest and even Wolves would be able to use their grounds to generate bigger "operational revenues" - and potentially overtake us in income terms.

We're currently the 7th or 8th biggest club in England by revenues. But we could easily be overtaken by Everton, Villa and Forest. We face being less and less competitive - partly because we rent a stadium and can generate only limited income from it.

[southbankbornnbred]

Don't forget, Sullivan only owns 37% of shares. So he gets 37% of any full-buyout sale price.

Back of a fag packet calculation: he's probably invested around £80m to £100m of his own money in West Ham since buying the club 15 years ago (excluding loans, which he's largely taken back).

37% of £800m (his target price) is £296m
Less his approx £100m investment: £196m

Spread over the 15 years of ownership: equates to around £13m profit for each year he's owned the club.

Which is not huge by major investment standards. So you can see why the twonk is pushing for the highest price he can get. He won't get £800m for West Ham, though. You'd have to be a right mug to pay that. No ground to own, and limited commercial revenues until you bought the ground. Plus, you'd have to set aside, or plan for, hundreds of millions to redevelop it purely for football purposes.

Whats the benefit of owning the ground? Getting saddled with 500million of debt to build it? All up keep and repairs to it you have to pay? 

It's a fair Q, CS. But the answer is simply because it would significantly increase our potential revenues - giving us more money to stay competitive in the transfer market etc. If we own the stadium, we could then take ALL matchday receipts (currently shared for things like the food concessions etc). We could get a stadium sponsor and keep all the receipts from that annually, we could retain all other sponsorship income generated within the stadium, we could host other events and keep the profits, we could add more retail/bars/cafes to the stadium, we could even borrow against the value of the stadium asset etc if we need to.

Under the bonkers PSR rules, clubs have to show that their operational revenues now come from "football related" income. Owners can't really just hand the clubs money (although there are various loopholes). So increasing your revenues often relies on maximising the potential within your stadium. But we don't own the stadium. For example, if we did get a stadium sponsor, I think we're entitled to just one-third of the annual income and it's capped at a certain level.

Spurs, for example, will get loads of extra cash by hosting NFL games, gigs etc. And they keep almost all of the income, because it's their ground. So it counts as operational revenues - and they can spend it on players/wages etc. We can't really do that. So we're now hampered by these PSR shits!

[goose]

the idea is that the asset generates income - eg corporate matchday income, food/drink revenue, sponsorship, concerts, baseball etc etc.

i'd assume we could buy the shitbowl pretty cheap.

[Council Scum]

Don't forget, Sullivan only owns 37% of shares. So he gets 37% of any full-buyout sale price.

Back of a fag packet calculation: he's probably invested around £80m to £100m of his own money in West Ham since buying the club 15 years ago (excluding loans, which he's largely taken back).

37% of £800m (his target price) is £296m
Less his approx £100m investment: £196m

Spread over the 15 years of ownership: equates to around £13m profit for each year he's owned the club.

Which is not huge by major investment standards. So you can see why the twonk is pushing for the highest price he can get. He won't get £800m for West Ham, though. You'd have to be a right mug to pay that. No ground to own, and limited commercial revenues until you bought the ground. Plus, you'd have to set aside, or plan for, hundreds of millions to redevelop it purely for football purposes.

Whats the benefit of owning the ground? Getting saddled with 500million of debt to build it? All up keep and repairs to it you have to pay? 

[Lee Trundle]

First question at Graham Potter’s pre-Everton press conference:
“Morning Graham, any chance you’ve seen yourself face-swapped into every photo known to man over the last 72 hours?”