Rahtid, Manchester City on the radar!

[Lazie]

The rich list
1. Real Madrid £359.1m
2. Barcelona £325.9m
3. Man United £286.4m
4. Bayern Munich £264.5m
5. Arsenal £224.4m
6. Chelsea £209.5m
7. AC Milan £193.1m
8. Liverpool £184.5m
9. Inter Milan £184.1m
10. Juventus £167.8m
11. Manchester City £125.1m
12. Tottenham £119.8m
13. Hamburg £119.7 m
14. Lyon £119.6m
15. Marseille £115.5m
16. Schalke £114.5m
17. Atletico Madrid £101.9m
18. Roma £100.5m
19. Stuttgart £94m
20. Aston Villa £89.6m

[Gamma]

what does it mean? sales/profit or value of the club?

[Lazie]

what does it mean? sales/profit or value of the club?

sales/ profit? Lets see Chelsea have 209M .... cannot be that.

[Peter R]

Lazie, could just have linked you...

See one here.

The list IMO is meaningless (to a certain extent) as it only looks at revenue as far as I could gather.

Expenses would have to be factored to get a truer picture...

Anyone knows if they expense their transfer fee payouts immediately? or is there some attempt at amortizing it? On what basis? life of the contract signed? I don't understand the business side of the business of football.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12376035

[Gamma]

it looks perhaps at revenue and assets (players) therefore the club with the most expensive players will be up there ...

[Paul Marin]

Lazie, could just have linked you...

See one here.

The list IMO is meaningless (to a certain extent) as it only looks at revenue as far as I could gather.

Expenses would have to be factored to get a truer picture...

Anyone knows if they expense their transfer fee payouts immediately? or is there some attempt at amortizing it? On what basis? life of the contract signed? I don't understand the business side of the business of football.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12376035

Pedro, players are amortized over the life of their contract. So a player who signs for $10M has a "value" of $5M after 2 years in a 4 year deal. If it were a five year deal, his "value" would be $6M after 2 years.

That said the numbers (as I understand it) reported by Deloitte are revenue only. This is actually a historical basis for evaluating the value of clubs where revenue is a reflection of the fan base - the higher the revenue, the bigger the fan base. Whether that is a good measure or not, I don't know.

Profit, for a reason I can't explain, seems to be less important, but even so, valuations are probably not based on EBITDA, (i.e. meaning that player amortization is not a factor in determining a club's value). My *guess* is that in football, EBIT would be a better measure of value than EBITDA because even though a player's value is amortized over the life of his contract, his "street value" could be higher or lower than his book value. Torres is a good example. EBIT would also take into account wages. Anyway, I am guessing, but "Note to self" I really should find out the real story.