By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Apparently we're favourites according to WalesOnline (take it with a pinch of salt, I know), but if it's true that 8.5m is enough to get him then we are mad not to make an offer
In today's market - £8.5m is a bargain. Especially when players like Jeff Schlupp and Jacob Murphy are going for £12m each. There's a lot of value to be had with other leagues, given how obscene British-to-British club transfers are.
I'd like the guy to come to us whether Gylfi stays or goes. We need to invest in the first team and strengthen what we already have.
Nobody has seen the accounts for the financial yesr ended on Monday including the management and owners, dumbass. They don't exist yet!
However, being a "financial analyst" involves understanding what historical info is in the public domain, and then making at least some sort of stab at understanding how more recent events will impact current performance.
In contrast you are a low grade moron, who seizes on some real or imagined factoid then repeats it ad nauseam. Now some people will no doubt fall for that at least for a while, but many others are clearly wising up to your bullshit.
Now that's enough time spent on nonsense for me for at least a few days. . .
You keep stating the obvious and stating what I've said as if you are telling me. Dumbass.
I said I HADN'T seen the accounts (read again, HADN'T) and asked how she knows. How is that anything like me saying they are available. You are an utter moron threatened by anyone with a strong point of view. You have been banned several times from here, whether that has been down to your mental illness, your abuse when things don't go your way or your general moronic way of debating - I dont know.mbut you are certainly heading for one again.
Who is a financial analyst? I hope to God it isn't you, tell us how much the Sky money has gone up from last year then as you claimed. You are pure b*llshit, same mould as Nirvana. You google and try to understand via searches, however you are often so far off the mark its scary, yet try and push it through with more bulls*it and bluster.
You are disease to this forum, an embarrassment to this club and a real sad case. Now contact the club and explain how we are going to be the only club with an increased TV deal... And watch/hear them laugh in your face and pat you on the head while passing you yet another cheap bottle of wine to keep you quiet
You think the valuation of Premier League football clubs has much to do with underlying profitability/cash-flow generation ability?
The financial results for the club clearly show that Kaplan brougth a distressed business. That has now been turned around.
As I said I think £300 million is achievable if the market doesn't crash.
Conversely if the market were to crash the value might be £30-80 million, and I'd imagine a similar risk/reward assessment would be at the forefront of Kaplan's mind if he does in fact try to sell in the near future.
You seriously don't know what you are talking about. £300m+ without acquiring the stadium
You are seriously mental. I mean, seriously mental.
Sounds like that must just be operating profit. I would personally be surprised if net profits turn out to be less than the £25-30 million range.
And as I mentioned on jackarmy the other day, with the Siggy sale likely to help secure profits of at least £35 million for the current financial year I can see no better time for Kaplan to sell the club on than during the coming season.
Apply a conservative PE of 10x to past and current years' profits and you have a valuation of >£300 million. Should be quite achievable if the stock market doesn't crash this autumn.
They were on the official site and then in newspapers.
Relevant bit from official site:
"Swansea City has reported a loss of £14.6m for the financial year ending July 31, 2016. However, as in previous years, the club is currently on course to record a post-£10m profit for the current financial year (to July 31, 2017) to counter those losses and maintain the club's long-standing sound financial philosophy."
As I said, that's dated March 2017 and so is before stuff like Cork.
I'd be surprised if it was as high as the figures you mention as a number of significant costs will have occurred in the year. Sacking of two lots of management and coaching staff, new contracts for Siggy and others, four players signed in January with the associated signing costs, agents fees etc all taken through the P and L, signing of Mesa, loan of Abraham, and a couple of deals for paying off Tabanou, buying new youngsters etc etc.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Kaplan trying to spin the club this year though, particularly if the Trust accepts the deal. If they do, I think he will aim to get money from all shareholders, including the Trust, for a stadium deal, and without the threat of legal action, will then attempt a sale.
They were on the official site and then in newspapers.
Relevant bit from official site:
"Swansea City has reported a loss of £14.6m for the financial year ending July 31, 2016. However, as in previous years, the club is currently on course to record a post-£10m profit for the current financial year (to July 31, 2017) to counter those losses and maintain the club's long-standing sound financial philosophy."
As I said, that's dated March 2017 and so is before stuff like Cork.
I'd be surprised if it was as high as the figures you mention as a number of significant costs will have occurred in the year. Sacking of two lots of management and coaching staff, new contracts for Siggy and others, four players signed in January with the associated signing costs, agents fees etc all taken through the P and L, signing of Mesa, loan of Abraham, and a couple of deals for paying off Tabanou, buying new youngsters etc etc.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Kaplan trying to spin the club this year though, particularly if the Trust accepts the deal. If they do, I think he will aim to get money from all shareholders, including the Trust, for a stadium deal, and without the threat of legal action, will then attempt a sale.
[Post edited 3 Aug 2017 11:53]
I wouldn't be surprised to see them spin it soon either.
It's not just about how much profit but also about them paying dividends out to shareholders. It'll be interesting to see if/what they pay out.
They bought the club for a valuation of circa £100m but it'll be worth at least £200m by the end of this season (if we stay up) whether or not they get the stadium ownership. With the stadium we could add a bit more but the main reasons for the jump will be the next TV will be close and we'll probably show decent profit.
If this is the case, the Trust need to keep their 21%. Not just because they'll probably double their money if they wanted to sell then, but because we need the Trust to have a voice when it's sold. We want to make sure the Americans don't sell it to some mad dodgy group!
I wouldn't be surprised to see them spin it soon either.
It's not just about how much profit but also about them paying dividends out to shareholders. It'll be interesting to see if/what they pay out.
They bought the club for a valuation of circa £100m but it'll be worth at least £200m by the end of this season (if we stay up) whether or not they get the stadium ownership. With the stadium we could add a bit more but the main reasons for the jump will be the next TV will be close and we'll probably show decent profit.
If this is the case, the Trust need to keep their 21%. Not just because they'll probably double their money if they wanted to sell then, but because we need the Trust to have a voice when it's sold. We want to make sure the Americans don't sell it to some mad dodgy group!
If the Trust keeps its 21% then they couldn't monetise that if they wanted to, whatever the notional value, and they could easily be ignored on absolutely everything as they don't have enough votes to stop anything. That's the problem. There's no way that they can stop the club being sold to some mad dodgy group. In fact, there's no way of stopping it whatever course of action they take. The only thing they can do is put a huge spanner in the works by taking legal action.
If the Trust keeps its 21% then they couldn't monetise that if they wanted to, whatever the notional value, and they could easily be ignored on absolutely everything as they don't have enough votes to stop anything. That's the problem. There's no way that they can stop the club being sold to some mad dodgy group. In fact, there's no way of stopping it whatever course of action they take. The only thing they can do is put a huge spanner in the works by taking legal action.
I meant more about their position on the Board giving them insight into a potential deal but, as we've already seen, deals can be done in secret.
The only risk the Trust has, at the moment, is by not taking the money offered now, they'd get nothing if we get relegated this season.
They were on the official site and then in newspapers.
Relevant bit from official site:
"Swansea City has reported a loss of £14.6m for the financial year ending July 31, 2016. However, as in previous years, the club is currently on course to record a post-£10m profit for the current financial year (to July 31, 2017) to counter those losses and maintain the club's long-standing sound financial philosophy."
As I said, that's dated March 2017 and so is before stuff like Cork.
I'd be surprised if it was as high as the figures you mention as a number of significant costs will have occurred in the year. Sacking of two lots of management and coaching staff, new contracts for Siggy and others, four players signed in January with the associated signing costs, agents fees etc all taken through the P and L, signing of Mesa, loan of Abraham, and a couple of deals for paying off Tabanou, buying new youngsters etc etc.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Kaplan trying to spin the club this year though, particularly if the Trust accepts the deal. If they do, I think he will aim to get money from all shareholders, including the Trust, for a stadium deal, and without the threat of legal action, will then attempt a sale.
[Post edited 3 Aug 2017 11:53]
1. Signing and agents fees are capitalised, right? Should have a negligible impact. Contrast that with savings on Gomis salary (@£84k/wk) + Ayew (wasn't that pushing £100k/wk?)
2. Importance of the stadium acquisition is vastly overstated. Yes it will add revenue perhaps in the order of £5m per annum once it is all up and running, but it is peanuts compared to the potential from developing the US market.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them spin it soon either.
It's not just about how much profit but also about them paying dividends out to shareholders. It'll be interesting to see if/what they pay out.
They bought the club for a valuation of circa £100m but it'll be worth at least £200m by the end of this season (if we stay up) whether or not they get the stadium ownership. With the stadium we could add a bit more but the main reasons for the jump will be the next TV will be close and we'll probably show decent profit.
If this is the case, the Trust need to keep their 21%. Not just because they'll probably double their money if they wanted to sell then, but because we need the Trust to have a voice when it's sold. We want to make sure the Americans don't sell it to some mad dodgy group!
I still don't see how you think the club could be worth £200m at the end of this season. For that amount, if expect to see a business plan that showed at least a £20m clear profit every year for the next 5 years.
Correct. The planet of Mergers & Acquisitions professionals that actually understands these matters.
[Post edited 3 Aug 2017 13:26]
No, not that planet. As you clearly lack the fundamental criteria for being allowed in to that one - the understanding part. You are off your rocker, truly. Planet hit and miss googling is on your birth certificate. £300m?! Jesus Christ And talk to us about this Sky deal now then... How much has it gone up from last year? Millions you said... yes?
1. Signing and agents fees are capitalised, right? Should have a negligible impact. Contrast that with savings on Gomis salary (@£84k/wk) + Ayew (wasn't that pushing £100k/wk?)
2. Importance of the stadium acquisition is vastly overstated. Yes it will add revenue perhaps in the order of £5m per annum once it is all up and running, but it is peanuts compared to the potential from developing the US market.
They are (although not any deferred elements).But if we sign 4 players on 3 year deals, it is still one third of the cost taken through the P&L that year. I also think some ancillary costs on transfers are expensed rather than capitalised.
I'm not certain whether we expense signing bonuses and agents fees on a new contract (rather than player purchase). I can't remember.
And I agree about the savings on Ayew and Gomis. But when the statement re £10m was issued, that was known, so I assume was included. After all, to get to the £10m profit, there would have been a £25m ish swing from the previous year. And because the accounting for deferred elements is odd in football clubs, some of the savings we will make on Ayew and Gomis would not show up as such in accounts, even though their impact on the club is significant (they prevent a future loss rather than give a current profit if that makes sense).
Re the stadium, I think the key element is not the revenue (which is relative peanuts) but partly its ability to then be used as security for debt which is attractive and partly due to the effect on FFP rules. I wasn't suggesting though that it was necessary for a sale, simply that I believe Kaplan will attempt to sort it out before selling.
I didn't see this golden nugget from the village idiot/troll...
"Importance of the stadium acquisition is vastly overstated. Yes it will add revenue perhaps in the order of £5m per annum once it is all up and running, but it is peanuts compared to the potential from developing the US market."
What in Gods name are you wittering on about? On one hand you claim Kaplan and Levien have a short term plan (£300m *snigger*) - then cannot figure out why they wish to acquire the stadium other than what is essentially a long term benefit.
How many clubs sell their stadium? Not many. So what other attraction is there to owning a piece of real estate attached to a football club. Google "leverage against assets" then come back and pretend like you knew.
No wonder you couldn't grasp the suggestion in the Trust thread in where the Trust were urged to secure a deal on the stadium with any potential financial benefits from legal action. The acquisition of the stadium deal will be key long term in the venture capitalist road we are being forced down. What an absolute prized clown you are Shaky, you are wonderful entertainment for us all though.
I didn't see this golden nugget from the village idiot/troll...
"Importance of the stadium acquisition is vastly overstated. Yes it will add revenue perhaps in the order of £5m per annum once it is all up and running, but it is peanuts compared to the potential from developing the US market."
What in Gods name are you wittering on about? On one hand you claim Kaplan and Levien have a short term plan (£300m *snigger*) - then cannot figure out why they wish to acquire the stadium other than what is essentially a long term benefit.
How many clubs sell their stadium? Not many. So what other attraction is there to owning a piece of real estate attached to a football club. Google "leverage against assets" then come back and pretend like you knew.
No wonder you couldn't grasp the suggestion in the Trust thread in where the Trust were urged to secure a deal on the stadium with any potential financial benefits from legal action. The acquisition of the stadium deal will be key long term in the venture capitalist road we are being forced down. What an absolute prized clown you are Shaky, you are wonderful entertainment for us all though.
[Post edited 3 Aug 2017 15:00]
Your mistake here is assuming that real investors punting hundreds of millions are as stupid as you you are, Mr CokeHead.
1. You have a business worth £200m.
2. You borrow £100m; the business now has cash of £100m and a debt of £100m. The value of the shares in unchanged at £200m
3. Shareholders pay themselves a dividend/management fee of £100m . The company now has no cash but the debt of £100m remains. As a consequence the value of the shares is now only £100m, because financial alchemy of the sort you allude to exists only in the minds of low-grade morons such as yourself.
4. By all means keep punching yourself in the head. It's marvelous entertainment.
Your mistake here is assuming that real investors punting hundreds of millions are as stupid as you you are, Mr CokeHead.
1. You have a business worth £200m.
2. You borrow £100m; the business now has cash of £100m and a debt of £100m. The value of the shares in unchanged at £200m
3. Shareholders pay themselves a dividend/management fee of £100m . The company now has no cash but the debt of £100m remains. As a consequence the value of the shares is now only £100m, because financial alchemy of the sort you allude to exists only in the minds of low-grade morons such as yourself.
4. By all means keep punching yourself in the head. It's marvelous entertainment.
The final squeals of a dying pig.
Re-read that complete and utter twaddle and pick out your ridiculously stupid error. i felt stupid just reading it, God knows how you felt typing it. *hic*
Re-read that complete and utter twaddle and pick out your ridiculously stupid error. i felt stupid just reading it, God knows how you felt typing it. *hic*
Put me out of my misery as an act of mercy, hotshot.
Put me out of my misery as an act of mercy, hotshot.
Heard the saying give a man enough rope? It's far more fun watching you squirm and scrap for some semblance of sense your google searches may unearth. Re-read it, think about what you have said. You can do it.
In the mean time inform us all of this super duper brand new Sky deal that only you seem to know about.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
