FlemishDuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,618
i innitially posted this on another forum, but then i wanted to share my reflections on this matter with people here too. When we have come to the point of our current dominance, the sour grapes left that want to criticise us fall like vulture's on our backers for denunciation. Gets old fast, and there is a sense of hypocrisy in it, that i feel needs be adressed.
- Money is a key aspect in the sport, all teams want more money so they can get better players, and all teams that have the money will try to use it to get an edge over the opposition. I presume that in the vast majority of cases that the wealthier team tends to win the match, so the criticism that "they have much better players than us" could be used a lot and typically against the top teams. Hypocritical might not be the best word, but the point is that any weaker team that would suddently find itself in a money bonanza would likely do the same.
However
- A lot of teams have found themselfs at the top trough year on year improving performance's and increased revenue's, aka they have grown their own financial base rather than they received a huge monetary injection, and this would be regarded as more of an ideal from a sportivity p.o.v , but it's hardly the end of that matter, as many of those teams that have grown their monetary base often did it trough succesfull transfer management. It's typically regarded as "well played" if a team manages to pick up cheap players and sell them for multi millions. But then...
- As an investor, ideally i would like to see all my investments used in a reasonable way, so that my investment leverage's the company to be able to perform better, sometimes all a good company needs is some extra capital to make big gains. I typically think that investors will shy away from a company if it looks like the investment would be wasted, and vice versa that they would be motivated to invest even more if it looks like the money is being well spend.
Those 2 last points combined: City could have blown all that money to overrated players and be left at the bottom still, but it's fairly apparent that the money has succesfully leveraged them into being a far better team able to dominate the league. I'm pretty sure that the valuation of city is a multiple of what it used to be, and that the sjeiks would make a big profit when they sell it.
How big of a profit though? Investors will always seek a certain "return on investment", depending on the risk involved. Typically you want more return than there is inflation, more return even than a savings account or investment in bonds would return, and when it's risky like football then you'd want it to return more than say investing in real estate. So something like atleast a 10% gain per year. I presume that the yield for the sjeiks is better than that. That begs the question the for me: Why arn't more teams being leveraged to succes? Normally if an investment shows great prommise then investors will jump on it in drove's, whats keeping them to gain similar rewards with so many other teams? City however isn't the first team owned by billionaire's.
Just looking at the players, they have plenty who they picked up for a fair sum that would be worth a multiple today. Who was in for KDB when he was at Wolfsburg? A player sold by Chelsea and Mourinho, a player that was called by some as the "60 million reject" when he joined city. He'd be worth 200+ million today. We have so many class talent that we bought for a combined price lower than 1 Pogba, and United was typically always more rich than us.
And then there is the "uprooting", plenty of teams that would like to buy KDB from us at this point, and when a team lower in the league would be succesfull purely on own accord more often than not they would loose their best players to the wealthier teams. We can call ourselfs lucky that our owners don't need that money, so we can feel confident our best players will stay.
Conclusion for me: the remark on the investments made would seem hypocrit if people wouldn't also recognise how well the money had been spend or how easily we could loose our best players if we hadn't rich owners, Manchester United is even more rich but i'd say their transfer policy hasn't looked half as good as ours with their position in the premier table as a result.
Just felt i had to go somewhat more in depth on this matter, because in their their saltyness many of our opponents seem to delve into this often to points that to me seem rather hypocrit, or devoid of a fair recognition on how money relates to the sport.
- Money is a key aspect in the sport, all teams want more money so they can get better players, and all teams that have the money will try to use it to get an edge over the opposition. I presume that in the vast majority of cases that the wealthier team tends to win the match, so the criticism that "they have much better players than us" could be used a lot and typically against the top teams. Hypocritical might not be the best word, but the point is that any weaker team that would suddently find itself in a money bonanza would likely do the same.
However
- A lot of teams have found themselfs at the top trough year on year improving performance's and increased revenue's, aka they have grown their own financial base rather than they received a huge monetary injection, and this would be regarded as more of an ideal from a sportivity p.o.v , but it's hardly the end of that matter, as many of those teams that have grown their monetary base often did it trough succesfull transfer management. It's typically regarded as "well played" if a team manages to pick up cheap players and sell them for multi millions. But then...
- As an investor, ideally i would like to see all my investments used in a reasonable way, so that my investment leverage's the company to be able to perform better, sometimes all a good company needs is some extra capital to make big gains. I typically think that investors will shy away from a company if it looks like the investment would be wasted, and vice versa that they would be motivated to invest even more if it looks like the money is being well spend.
Those 2 last points combined: City could have blown all that money to overrated players and be left at the bottom still, but it's fairly apparent that the money has succesfully leveraged them into being a far better team able to dominate the league. I'm pretty sure that the valuation of city is a multiple of what it used to be, and that the sjeiks would make a big profit when they sell it.
How big of a profit though? Investors will always seek a certain "return on investment", depending on the risk involved. Typically you want more return than there is inflation, more return even than a savings account or investment in bonds would return, and when it's risky like football then you'd want it to return more than say investing in real estate. So something like atleast a 10% gain per year. I presume that the yield for the sjeiks is better than that. That begs the question the for me: Why arn't more teams being leveraged to succes? Normally if an investment shows great prommise then investors will jump on it in drove's, whats keeping them to gain similar rewards with so many other teams? City however isn't the first team owned by billionaire's.
Just looking at the players, they have plenty who they picked up for a fair sum that would be worth a multiple today. Who was in for KDB when he was at Wolfsburg? A player sold by Chelsea and Mourinho, a player that was called by some as the "60 million reject" when he joined city. He'd be worth 200+ million today. We have so many class talent that we bought for a combined price lower than 1 Pogba, and United was typically always more rich than us.
And then there is the "uprooting", plenty of teams that would like to buy KDB from us at this point, and when a team lower in the league would be succesfull purely on own accord more often than not they would loose their best players to the wealthier teams. We can call ourselfs lucky that our owners don't need that money, so we can feel confident our best players will stay.
Conclusion for me: the remark on the investments made would seem hypocrit if people wouldn't also recognise how well the money had been spend or how easily we could loose our best players if we hadn't rich owners, Manchester United is even more rich but i'd say their transfer policy hasn't looked half as good as ours with their position in the premier table as a result.
Just felt i had to go somewhat more in depth on this matter, because in their their saltyness many of our opponents seem to delve into this often to points that to me seem rather hypocrit, or devoid of a fair recognition on how money relates to the sport.
Last edited:
