http://www.forbes.com/teams/as-roma/ http://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/list/ Just thought people would be interested in the Forbes rankings of the most valuable soccer clubs in the world. Roma comes in at 17 with a current value of $349 million. It is 38% more valuable than a year ago (before the team was purchased by the new owners).
Good, maybe then we'll get some oil money. There's nothing bad in what they're trying to do, as it will benefit both them and Roma in the long run.
They aren't all BS, but you have to take it with a pinch of salt. It does give a good barometer of the current status of a club. The for value is based on infrastructure, TV contracts, liabilities, debt, etc. Forbes I think does a better job then most trying to put a monetary value on an asset like a sports team. The were pretty close with the Dodgers and people called them crazy.
See, half-empty! You discredit something even when it shows positives in your favorite club. Look, I am becoming like a nagging girlfriend to you.
People are free to put stock in whatever they want to. However for me, they are bs plain and simple. I didn't even look at the link, but how on Earth did Roma become 38% more profitable than a year ago? We closed in the red and haven't increased revenue. It's all based on intangible numbers.
What does it show u? You take something at face value without research or confirmation. Just because you like what it says. Here we are moving away from football, but I'm the kind of person that likes investments which are logical. Sells a product, make a PROFIT, and your company has a value. More and more this day an age I see these kind of articles pushing business which in my opinion are poison. The top 3 on that list all operate at loss. To me it says we are overlooking some things. Or to continue off topic these are the kind of people that would work you up into investing in Facebook. Why in your right mind would you invest in a company without a product to sell that has already reached market saturation. I'm happy Roma has improved on their list, but this kind of stuff to me is the most awful cancerous crap of capitalism. In the quest to make money you back things that don't even make money.
Yeah like I said I don't think it's 100% accurate but it does give a good barometer on current financial health relative to other clubs, although they don't account for things like a sugar daddy. It's not as subjective as something like a brand value estimate. What contributes to the formula: Revenue and expense figures converted to U.S. dollars based on June 30, 2011 exchange rates; team value based on March 31, 2012 exchange rates. Based on current stadium deal (unless new stadium is pending), without deduction for debt (other than stadium debt) Includes Match day, commercial and media for the 2010-11 season. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization for the 2010-11 season. Includes stadium debt applicable to team. Match day: Portion of team’s value attributable to gate receipts (including season tickets and memberships). Media: Portion of team’s value attributable to television and radio revenue. Commercial: Portion of team’s value attributable to sponsorship and merchandise revenue. Brand: Portion of team’s value attributable to the management of its brand.
Profit isn't value. The club is 38% more valuable probably due to the direction of the club in terms of paying down debt and expanding commercial opportunities. It is forward looking. Roma's prospects are better than a year ago.
I'm not trying to question the integrity of the organization, but I do believe we are becoming more and more programmed. People read a headline and just take it as truth because it comes from a source they have been lead to believe is reputable. A perfect example is Wikipedia, 90% of people will tell you Wikipedia is a reputable source. In many ways it is, however I'll tell you something about Wikipedia most people don't know. Wikipedia only published information from other published sources. So let's say you make an entry about me and you cite an article which says I'm 45. They publish that information. Now I see the Wikipedia page and say wait a minute I'm not 45, but I can't correct that information unless I find another printed article that states my actual age. It doesn't matter that I can prove my age all that counts is a published source. Getting back to the article I personally don't see what constitutes a 38% increase. We closed in the red a year ago, we closed in the red this year, and we will likely close in the red next year. Plus this is the year Italy lost a CL spot which means the possibility of significantly higher revenue has greatly diminished. It just doesn't add up to. The list also has Juventus losing 8% in the year they moved into their own stadium, doesn't that strike you as odd?
Look at Juve's operating income. Juve went out and spent more money than they had been earning since going down to Serie B . Next year's list will see them much higher, as it will account for their higher income from the new stadium as well as CL. Roma's position improved because, while we're still in the red, the overall financial solvency and base of the club is much better than it was previously. Our financial numbers are trending positively. Anyway, these lists aren't anything too serious, more of a general statement of a club's financial position/power/health and something for fans to talk and debate about.
But if we look at AS Roma as a business rather than just a football club, then isn't it obvious that we are in a better financial position than a year ago? Instead of increasing debt, we are paying down debt. Instead of bloated salaries for mediocre players, we are lowering the wage bill with promising young players. You are only focusing on results on the pitch. And that is important for running a successful club. But you are ignoring the expanded commercial opportunities that comes from marketing and selling the Roma brand worldwide. And what about the prospects of the new stadium? A new stadium owned by Roma instead of the city will lead to a huge increase in value. We know that the Roma hierarchy aren't blowing smoke about a new stadium. Remember that picture of people in a conference room looking at designs? All the reports of how Roma is seriously invested in looking for a site? All of this is taken into account.
It seems to me that you are speaking of a lot of hypothetical things, with very little real numbers behind them. Roma paid off debt? Yes they recapitalized, but a huge portion of it with UniCredit's money. Which I doubt was loaned at 0% interest. And after that massive recapitalization another round was needed this summer. Again with money fronted by a bank. You talk of lowering the wage bill, but we have not sold one single player with an exaggerated wage. Our dead wood remains firmly at Roma. Pizarro refused to leave last summer. Brighi is being loaned to Torino with no obligation to buy. A new stadium? I don't see construction crews working. Right now it remains speculative. They haven't even confirmed an area, and once that happens you could see years of delays to get approval to build the thing. As for the expanded marketing, a Twitter account and a Facebook page? The minimum, and keep in mind Manchester United and Barcelona aren't popular abroad because they have a Twitter account and a flashy website. It's because they win trophies on a regular basis. And yet we increased 38% while Juventus who have actually built a stadium and won the Serie A lost 8%. I'm no mathematician, but that's some kind of math.