Chelsea and Liverpool takeovers ALL about the money
I hope no one is naive enough to believe the Chelsea spinmasters when they say that Abramovich bought the club because he likes football and he loves the club.
And then they take that and say that THAT is the biggest difference between him and other businessmen taking over football clubs.
Or when George Gillett, new co-owner of Liverpool FC, says:
“This isn’t about making money. This is about winning, passion and tradition.”
Oldest trick in the world, playing with the people’s emotions and getting them to support whatever cause the rich think will make them even richer.
Sidenote: Incidentally, BBC has an interesting article on the takeover trends in football - most interesting is the amount of money different chairmen and stakeholders have made when cashing out on such takeovers. Take a look.
Football, at the end of the day, has turned into serious business. That’s what you get when you have raving mad crowds thirsty for the sport and more importantly, desperate to see their team perform on the pitch.
Here’s a free lesson in Business 101 for you:
1) Find a thirsty crowd - football fans are some of the thirstiest crowds around.
2) Give them what they want - fans want wins, which come from investing in players and coaches and youth academies and scouting networks.
3) Find a way to bring them back - football is hard-wired as a repeat business, so that’s taken care of.
Is it any wonder that TV revenues from 2007/2008 onwards will be insanely higher in the Premiership. Premiership football is a marketer’s wet dream - they’ve spread so effectively across the world that it’s impossible to NOT get Prem football wherever you are. Money’s there to be minted, and you’d be foolish not to take advantage of it if you had the chance (and the money to invest).
At the end of the day, no one wants to throw money away on something they love forever - Abramovich, if you remember, has the money-making instinct in his blood. Hick and Gillett have business-sense hardwired in their brains.
They’re not in this for love - love helps, yes, but money is what makes the world turn around (unfortunately, I might add), and however idealistic you might get about owners loving their clubs, it is always - ALWAYS - tempered by sound business sense.
And this applies to all takeovers - Manchester United, Portsmouth, West Ham, Sunderland, Aston Villa, the investment in Everton. Expect more clubs to be sold, expect more money to be pumped into the Premiership, all in the name of ‘love for football’, but for the single purpose of making money.
- Liverpool’s new owners are greedy bastards after all
- Manchester United vs Chelsea: The Big Bully Bites Back
- Abramovich and the myth of takeovers
- Dealing with rising ticket prices
- Ballack, Shevchenko going to Chelsea
Discussion - 4 Responses
Add Your Comment
Comments are moderated (our comments policy).
Are you seriously suggesting Abramovich arrived at Chelsea for the potential of money? Amazing!
No club in the world turns over more than £200m from all sources of revenue. What profit would you expect - 10% ?
FYI when Abramovich arrived he spent a lot, but his other investments gave him £700m that year - he made a hefty profit - and is now worth more than double what he was when he arrived. You think Abramovich was after some £20m in 5 years time when Kenyon dreams of making an imaginary profit?!
This has to be the outright most moronic suggestion I’ve ever read. I didn’t realise anyone could fail “Business 101″ but you seem to have managed it. Look for the remedial class - there’s a seat with your name on it waiting for you.
What a retard!
However even if my math was faulty I would not for a moment suggest that Abramovich was coming to Chelsea for the club’s meager profits.
Without resorting to petty taunts, let’s look at it a different way, maybe you’ll understand better.
Football clubs in the Premiership are hot property - they are long term investments that you can use to build your wealth and then flip in the future at a much higher cost.
Here’s the thing - look at the numbers behind the deals chairmen have made selling their stocks recently.
Then think of how much Chelsea’s value has increased as a club and as a brand with regard to Abramovich’s investments.
If Chelsea were to be sold now, how much would it cost?
If Abramovich sold Chelsea 5 years from now, would he recover his money? 10 times, and I’m being conservative.
It’s just an opinion, you’re welcome to disagree with it, but please adhere to some standards of decency.
So yes, Abramovich likes football, but that’s not the reason he bought the club - he bought it because he could flip it at a profit whenever he wanted to, and because no matter what happened, it would not be a loss of money.
Semantics, yes, but worth noting nonetheless. And it’s no where near as ridiculous a thought as saying that a billionaire will throw money away without expecting or planning on a return. Refer to Chelsea’s agressive marketing in the Far East and in the US. They’re tapping that advertising baby, and they’re turning Chelsea into a cash cow.
As investments go, it’s a bloody good one.
If Abramovich was really in it ‘just for the passion’, then why did he buy Chelsea of all clubs. I’m not saying passion was not involved, but if it was the only reason, then surely a Russian club would have made more sense? I am interested to know what previous ties he had with Chelsea before the take-over. Why not an Italian or Spanish club?
[…] when we said that Liverpool’s deal was all about the money and that Gillett and Hicks had leveraged Liverpool assets and put the club in debt the same way the […]