The Economics of Football...part whatever

Generali

spadoosh wrote: »

With each share still getting the same dividend?!

Yes, each share gets the same dividend in this case according to my understanding of the preliminary prospectus (that could change but is unlikely to IME).

The difference is that the B shares have 10x more votes than the A shares per share: you could own 100% of the A shares and be voted down by owners of 52% of the B shares.

purch

What does this mean for the Bucs purch?

Hopefully it might free up some $$ as they have operated way below the salary cap for a number of years.

The Glazers have lived on the glory of 2002/03 for too long in the opinion of many Tampons :eek:...sorry Tampa fans.

The practice facility that was finally delivered 5 years late is the best in the NFL, but as with all things in US pro sports the local taxpayers had a hand in the cost.

The Glazers don't like to invest their own money into their Sports teams, so if the BUCS are going to have additional resources they will need to start selling more tickets, RJS was sold out for most of the first decade after it was built, but the last few years there have been too many empty seats and that is where a NFL team gets it's extra $$, merchandise sales are still quite high despite the lack of playoff success.

The Glazers might be a bunch of ugly !!!!ers, and some of their business decisions (such as PIK loans @ 14.5% they used to buy Man Utd) seem bizarre, but in the end they always appear to profit personally.

Tampa fans have known for years, and Man Utd fans might be starting to realise, the Glazers will not be investing any of their own money into the team.

kabayiri

purch wrote: »

...
The Glazers might be a bunch of ugly !!!!ers, and some of their business decisions (such as PIK loans @ 14.5% they used to buy Man Utd) seem bizarre, but in the end they always appear to profit personally.

Tampa fans have known for years, and Man Utd fans might be starting to realise, the Glazers will not be investing any of their own money into the team.

I don't think even the Glazers anticipated the football superpower emergence of the Blue-tainted neighbours on the other side of Manchester. There could be big changes ahead in the footballing balance of power.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Glazers sell out their United interests sooner rather than later.

FTBFun

purch wrote: »

Tampa fans have known for years, and Man Utd fans might be starting to realise, the Glazers will not be investing any of their own money into the team.

As it should be - this is how it is for most other teams in the league, bar Man City, Chelsea, and Liverpool.

Our (Spurs) owner, despite being a billionaire, doesn't give a single penny to the club.

Thrugelmir

FTBFun wrote: »

Our (Spurs) owner, despite being a billionaire, doesn't give a single penny to the club.

UFEA's new rules will change the game. As the owners of a given club will not be able to buy the league any more.

Teams will need to be successful to generate the income to pay their wage bills.

chewmylegoff

Thrugelmir wrote: »

UFEA's new rules will change the game. As the owners of a given club will not be able to buy the league any more.

Teams will need to be successful to generate the income to pay their wage bills.

so basically it just pushes us back to the previous situation with a few big clubs dominating because they have greater incomes, and any club that does manage to break its way in on the basis of one good season will implode as soon as it doesn't qualify for the champions' league the next year.

not sure that was any better than people being able to buy their way to victory.

cotleigh

I can see why the existing richest clubs will be in favour of the new rules preventing some mega-rich owner buying a lesser club and throwing money into them, because this is an unpredictable threat to their dominant position.

I personally think that the billionaires with deep pockets make the game more interesting!

Without owners who are willing to lose money for a few years to achieve success for their club, there would probably never be any changes in the top clubs, which is great for them, but pretty boring for everyone else.

I also get sick of supporters of Man U etc whining about how "unfair" it is that Chelsea and Man City are successful because their owners have spent millions on a world-class squad.

It somehow wasn't "unfair" when they were the richest club who could afford the top talent and win most of the time.

But when someone else comes along with more money, they moan!

Thrugelmir

chewmylegoff wrote: »

so basically it just pushes us back to the previous situation with a few big clubs dominating because they have greater incomes,

Following football for many years. Seen the rise and fall of many clubs. Like the Roman Empire dominance at best lasts an era. As it the team on the pitch that matters.