Lionel Messi | Joins Inter Miami (pg4111)

[bobmcfc]

Anyway, I say it's on !

Can I say that ?

I believe !

 

[SWP's back]

Care to explain your reasoning, I've seen you try in the last few pages but you've not managed to explain it.

PB is one of the foremost experts on this forum to do with Accounting, FFPR and the like so his words carry a lot of weight.

Instead of flinging abuse at other posters I'd also like to hear a better argument from him but that might have to wait a while.

what did he say that was abusive? Not saying he wasn't but had not noticed anything abusive in the posts I had seen?

They were deleted.

 

[FCBarca]

Seen that video before of Kun & Leo, it's great...I've said this before among Barcelona fans but I've always wished that the two could play more together than just with Los Albicelestes...I think there's a great partnership there that requires more playing time than International matches can provide

It'd be nice to see but, again, I don't see Kun coming to Barcelona or vice versa...I would also say that there's a better chance of Kun coming this way than Leo going the other

Looking forward to the tie and hope Kun is fit for it

 

[mcfcstu]

It's a lovely thought and you have to have a dream and all that but it seems highly unlikely.

Why would he move from Barca now ?

He's won everything with them, multiple Champions Leagues, multiple European Player of the Year awards. He's a fans favourite and has proven himself the best player in the world year-on-year.

His family and friends will all be around Barcelona and he feels a debt to them for the steroid injections that built him up and helped him become the player he became.

Why would he leave all that behind him now ? What does he have to prove to anyone ? Does he need money ? I don't think so.

Also, the cost would be extortionate. His wages would be around £500K per week and the transfer fee £150 million r more.

He's also just started to pick up injuries.


We might get him and it could still end up as the most talked about financial disaster since Steve Daley in 1979.

Neymar is the key to this mainly. The Messi camp didn't want him there. Two of the three people he mosts trusts in football are now in Manchester and the third may join them in a year or two, plus two of his best friends are also here.

His wages are actually around £250k a week. The rest of the money comes from commercial income and image rights. As for the fee, that's probably about right but as I've said before, if we give him a 6 year contract, that goes on the books at £25m a year and at the end of this year we 'gain' something like £20m as contracts on Barry, Lescott, Milner & Dzeko come to an end or we sell them. That also saves us something like £400k a week or £20m a year wages. We could therefore pay Messi £15m a year and still save money.

So we could actually buy Messi and it would involve no net cost but that doesn't take into account increased commercial income which could come to over £30m a year extra.

Why can't people understand this? This is the genius of this deal.

That sounds great but can we afford to lose 4 players and only replace with one ?? Also 3 of the mentioned are English players who would need to be replaced and we all know that the prices for top quality English players are way to high.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Understand now, makes sense

Other than it doesn't.

Prestwich is confusing "can we afford it" with "does it make sense". Yes, we could possible afford it*, but does it make sense from a business perspective? Probably not. And from a footballing perspective? Almost certainly not.

(*Within the constrains of FFP that is - on an absolute basis, of course the Sheikh can afford anything.)

Care to explain your reasoning, I've seen you try in the last few pages but you've not managed to explain it.

PB is one of the foremost experts on this forum to do with Accounting, FFPR and the like so his words carry a lot of weight.

Understood (and agreed, actually).

Let me first say I do not want to get drawn into how marvellous it would be and how many teeshirts we can sell etc. All of that is entirely debatable but is a separate argument. It might very well make sense (as I said in a previous post), but even if it does, some of PB's reasoning was a bit iffy.

From a business perspective, when considering whether to invest in something, you consider the benefits vs the costs to work out if it's worth doing or not. (And the risk, the timing, cashflow and lots of other things, but let’s keep it simple and just think about benefits and costs).

So for example, suppose we run a fruit stall and we have the opportunity to buy some apples for £20 and we can sell them for £25. We might reasonably conclude this makes sense and decide to buy them. Likewise if we knew we could only sell the apples for £15, we wouldn’t do it. No brainer, they will cost us £20, we will sell for £15, we lose a fiver no thanks.

What PB said was we have contracts coming on Dzeko, Milner, Lescoot, Barry etc where we can save money and put it towards the Messi deal. This is like saying “If I buy these apples for £20 and sell for £15, it still makes sense because I have some old pears lying around that I can get £6 for, so I am really buying for £14.” The problem is, you could say no to the Apples deal, sell the pears anyway for £6 and make £6. Compared with doing the Apples deal and only make overall £1. So the apples transaction does not stand up. If you buy them, you will lose £5 on them and you should not do it. The pears don't come into it.

If Dzeko, Milner, Lescott and Barry's contracts are soon up, we will accrue these savings anyway. You cannot throw those savings into the pot when deciding if the Messi transaction makes sense. (If buying Messi enables us to save money on other players that we would otherwise not save, then yes those savings can be included. To that extent you could argue that we should include the savings on Dzeko. But not on all those players.)

Continuing our fruity analogy, our Apples supplier doesn’t actually want £20, he wants £30. But he has said OK give me £20, plus another £10 from the extra fruit sales you make. We are all excited about having these juicy apples on our stall, and how many more customers will visit the stall. We reckon instead of making £100 per week on all our fruit sales, we can make £110 per week. So we will give our supplier his £20 and the other £10 can come from our extra fruit sales, no problem.

PB is saying this is a great deal because not only are we buying for £14 and selling for £15 (which is wrong – as above), also we will be making an extra £10 per week on the rest of the fruit as well. This is also wrong – we have to give this £10 to the Apples supplier!

Now of course all these numbers are arbritrary and maybe we would make £150 from the stall and all is fine and dandy. But the principles above are correct:

1. You cannot include in the business case any savings that you would make anyway if you decided not do the deal.
2. You cannot bank the benefits twice. Only additional revenue over and above that going to Mr. Messi can be included in the business case.

 

[jonmcity]

Seen that video before of Kun & Leo, it's great...I've said this before among Barcelona fans but I've always wished that the two could play more together than just with Los Albicelestes...I think there's a great partnership there that requires more playing time than International matches can provide

It'd be nice to see but, again, I don't see Kun coming to Barcelona or vice versa...I would also say that there's a better chance of Kun coming this way than Leo going the other

Looking forward to the tie and hope Kun is fit for it

Who knows what happens in football. We are improving all the time, and i'm sure it will be two great games. The Etihad might just take off that night.
looking forward to my trip to your great City. I'm sure your traveling fans will have a great time in Manchester.

 

[argyle]

This thread is the epitome of the word "Delusional"

Yep.

You'll look silly.

I hope so but I can't see it.

 

[mcfcphil]

Other than it doesn't.

Prestwich is confusing "can we afford it" with "does it make sense". Yes, we could possible afford it*, but does it make sense from a business perspective? Probably not. And from a footballing perspective? Almost certainly not.

(*Within the constrains of FFP that is - on an absolute basis, of course the Sheikh can afford anything.)

Care to explain your reasoning, I've seen you try in the last few pages but you've not managed to explain it.

PB is one of the foremost experts on this forum to do with Accounting, FFPR and the like so his words carry a lot of weight.

Understood (and agreed, actually).

Let me first say I do not want to get drawn into how marvellous it would be and how many teeshirts we can sell etc. All of that is entirely debatable but is a separate argument. It might very well make sense (as I said in a previous post), but even if it does, some of PB's reasoning was a bit iffy.

From a business perspective, when considering whether to invest in something, you consider the benefits vs the costs to work out if it's worth doing or not. (And the risk, the timing, cashflow and lots of other things, but let’s keep it simple and just think about benefits and costs).

So for example, suppose we run a fruit stall and we have the opportunity to buy some apples for £20 and we can sell them for £25. We might reasonably conclude this makes sense and decide to buy them. Likewise if we knew we could only sell the apples for £15, we wouldn’t do it. No brainer, they will cost us £20, we will sell for £15, we lose a fiver no thanks.

What PB said was we have contracts coming on Dzeko, Milner, Lescoot, Barry etc where we can save money and put it towards the Messi deal. This is like saying “If I buy these apples for £20 and sell for £15, it still makes sense because I have some old pears lying around that I can get £6 for, so I am really buying for £14.” The problem is, you could say no to the Apples deal, sell the pears anyway for £6 and make £6. Compared with doing the Apples deal and only make overall £1. So the apples transaction does not stand up. If you buy them, you will lose £5 on them and you should not do it. The pears don't come into it.

If Dzeko, Milner, Lescott and Barry's contracts are soon up, we will accrue these savings anyway. You cannot throw those savings into the pot when deciding if the Messi transaction makes sense. (If buying Messi enables us to save money on other players that we would otherwise not save, then yes those savings can be included. To that extent you could argue that we should include the savings on Dzeko. But not on all those players.)

Continuing our fruity analogy, our Apples supplier doesn’t actually want £20, he wants £30. But he has said OK give me £20, plus another £10 from the extra fruit sales you make. We are all excited about having these juicy apples on our stall, and how many more customers will visit the stall. We reckon instead of making £100 per week on all our fruit sales, we can make £110 per week. So we will give our supplier his £20 and the other £10 can come from our extra fruit sales, no problem.

PB is saying this is a great deal because not only are we buying for £14 and selling for £15 (which is wrong – as above), also we will be making an extra £10 per week on the rest of the fruit as well. This is also wrong – we have to give this £10 to the Apples supplier!

Now of course all these numbers are arbritrary and maybe we would make £150 from the stall and all is fine and dandy. But the principles above are correct:

1. You cannot include in the business case any savings that you would make anyway if you decided not do the deal.
2. You cannot bank the benefits twice. Only additional revenue over and above that going to Mr. Messi can be included in the business case.

Say that again?

 

[onceabluealways]

Other than it doesn't.

Prestwich is confusing "can we afford it" with "does it make sense". Yes, we could possible afford it*, but does it make sense from a business perspective? Probably not. And from a footballing perspective? Almost certainly not.

(*Within the constrains of FFP that is - on an absolute basis, of course the Sheikh can afford anything.)

Care to explain your reasoning, I've seen you try in the last few pages but you've not managed to explain it.

PB is one of the foremost experts on this forum to do with Accounting, FFPR and the like so his words carry a lot of weight.

Understood (and agreed, actually).

Let me first say I do not want to get drawn into how marvellous it would be and how many teeshirts we can sell etc. All of that is entirely debatable but is a separate argument. It might very well make sense (as I said in a previous post), but even if it does, some of PB's reasoning was a bit iffy.

From a business perspective, when considering whether to invest in something, you consider the benefits vs the costs to work out if it's worth doing or not. (And the risk, the timing, cashflow and lots of other things, but let’s keep it simple and just think about benefits and costs).

So for example, suppose we run a fruit stall and we have the opportunity to buy some apples for £20 and we can sell them for £25. We might reasonably conclude this makes sense and decide to buy them. Likewise if we knew we could only sell the apples for £15, we wouldn’t do it. No brainer, they will cost us £20, we will sell for £15, we lose a fiver no thanks.

What PB said was we have contracts coming on Dzeko, Milner, Lescoot, Barry etc where we can save money and put it towards the Messi deal. This is like saying “If I buy these apples for £20 and sell for £15, it still makes sense because I have some old pears lying around that I can get £6 for, so I am really buying for £14.” The problem is, you could say no to the Apples deal, sell the pears anyway for £6 and make £6. Compared with doing the Apples deal and only make overall £1. So the apples transaction does not stand up. If you buy them, you will lose £5 on them and you should not do it. The pears don't come into it.

If Dzeko, Milner, Lescott and Barry's contracts are soon up, we will accrue these savings anyway. You cannot throw those savings into the pot when deciding if the Messi transaction makes sense. (If buying Messi enables us to save money on other players that we would otherwise not save, then yes those savings can be included. To that extent you could argue that we should include the savings on Dzeko. But not on all those players.)

Continuing our fruity analogy, our Apples supplier doesn’t actually want £20, he wants £30. But he has said OK give me £20, plus another £10 from the extra fruit sales you make. We are all excited about having these juicy apples on our stall, and how many more customers will visit the stall. We reckon instead of making £100 per week on all our fruit sales, we can make £110 per week. So we will give our supplier his £20 and the other £10 can come from our extra fruit sales, no problem.

PB is saying this is a great deal because not only are we buying for £14 and selling for £15 (which is wrong – as above), also we will be making an extra £10 per week on the rest of the fruit as well. This is also wrong – we have to give this £10 to the Apples supplier!

Now of course all these numbers are arbritrary and maybe we would make £150 from the stall and all is fine and dandy. But the principles above are correct:

1. You cannot include in the business case any savings that you would make anyway if you decided not do the deal.
2. You cannot bank the benefits twice. Only additional revenue over and above that going to Mr. Messi can be included in the business case.

That is a very simple business analagy it isn't the same as running a football business. The savings made from selling other players makes buying Messi more affordable against ffp no other reason. There are other benefits to buying Messi - We are still building our global brand - a player like Messi would increase that significantly and a lot quicker therefore giving you potentially larger revenue streams for a longer period. it'slike a business buying an executive box or advertising - they would never get that money back other than the potential gains they may offer the business through new channels. That doesn't include the football benefits that Messi would bring to the team.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Other than it doesn't.

Prestwich is confusing "can we afford it" with "does it make sense". Yes, we could possible afford it*, but does it make sense from a business perspective? Probably not. And from a footballing perspective? Almost certainly not.

(*Within the constrains of FFP that is - on an absolute basis, of course the Sheikh can afford anything.)

Care to explain your reasoning, I've seen you try in the last few pages but you've not managed to explain it.

PB is one of the foremost experts on this forum to do with Accounting, FFPR and the like so his words carry a lot of weight.

Understood (and agreed, actually).

Let me first say I do not want to get drawn into how marvellous it would be and how many teeshirts we can sell etc. All of that is entirely debatable but is a separate argument. It might very well make sense (as I said in a previous post), but even if it does, some of PB's reasoning was a bit iffy.

From a business perspective, when considering whether to invest in something, you consider the benefits vs the costs to work out if it's worth doing or not. (And the risk, the timing, cashflow and lots of other things, but let’s keep it simple and just think about benefits and costs).

So for example, suppose we run a fruit stall and we have the opportunity to buy some apples for £20 and we can sell them for £25. We might reasonably conclude this makes sense and decide to buy them. Likewise if we knew we could only sell the apples for £15, we wouldn’t do it. No brainer, they will cost us £20, we will sell for £15, we lose a fiver no thanks.

What PB said was we have contracts coming on Dzeko, Milner, Lescoot, Barry etc where we can save money and put it towards the Messi deal. This is like saying “If I buy these apples for £20 and sell for £15, it still makes sense because I have some old pears lying around that I can get £6 for, so I am really buying for £14.” The problem is, you could say no to the Apples deal, sell the pears anyway for £6 and make £6. Compared with doing the Apples deal and only make overall £1. So the apples transaction does not stand up. If you buy them, you will lose £5 on them and you should not do it. The pears don't come into it.

If Dzeko, Milner, Lescott and Barry's contracts are soon up, we will accrue these savings anyway. You cannot throw those savings into the pot when deciding if the Messi transaction makes sense. (If buying Messi enables us to save money on other players that we would otherwise not save, then yes those savings can be included. To that extent you could argue that we should include the savings on Dzeko. But not on all those players.)

Continuing our fruity analogy, our Apples supplier doesn’t actually want £20, he wants £30. But he has said OK give me £20, plus another £10 from the extra fruit sales you make. We are all excited about having these juicy apples on our stall, and how many more customers will visit the stall. We reckon instead of making £100 per week on all our fruit sales, we can make £110 per week. So we will give our supplier his £20 and the other £10 can come from our extra fruit sales, no problem.

PB is saying this is a great deal because not only are we buying for £14 and selling for £15 (which is wrong – as above), also we will be making an extra £10 per week on the rest of the fruit as well. This is also wrong – we have to give this £10 to the Apples supplier!

Now of course all these numbers are arbritrary and maybe we would make £150 from the stall and all is fine and dandy. But the principles above are correct:

1. You cannot include in the business case any savings that you would make anyway if you decided not do the deal.
2. You cannot bank the benefits twice. Only additional revenue over and above that going to Mr. Messi can be included in the business case.

Reading this thread, I've been coming to a similar conclusion, Chippy. Being able to afford something doesn't mean it makes business sense to do it. I'm not directing this at PB, but a lot of Blues get duped into the mindset that because we aren't scared of FFP we are doing well financially. That's clearly not the case, we are clearly running at enormous cumulative losses.

That's not to say that signing Messi wouldn't make commercial sense: I suspect it will to Abu Dhabi in the same way that throwing hundreds of millions of pounds at City does: because we are in effect a giant worldwide billboard for the country and it's post-oil commerce. And as others have said, he will get them even more headlines, even more focus and even more kudos.

So in conclusion, and clumsily abusing your fruit-based analogy, I suspect that we'd be buying apples at £20 a box and selling them at £15 a box. But we might sell a load more profitable jewellry on our stall next door because people are coming to buy our exclusive apples.