4 ms·

Chelsea FC is not profitable, so what proceeds can possibly be donated? Even after winning the Champions League they lost money.

chishaku 5y ago
income != valuation
smachiz 5y ago
They don't need to be profitable to be worth a lot of money. His asking price is 3B GBP.
nindalf 5y ago
This is literally a forum made for startups. Businesses that may lose money but are worth a lot. Does that ring a bell? Abramovich bought a club for £140m, invested around £1.5 billion in it, and now it’s worth twice that. It’s worth is based on what a prospective buyer will pay, not a multiple of earnings.
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  Nonetheless, if you remove the sugardaddy, their model hasn't ever been a sustainable business. Chelsea clearly improved as a club after Roman bought the team (unlike United or Arsenal), so I'm not discounting that, but basically all major league sports teams in the (global) west have increased massively in value the last 10-15 years - how much of that is real value and how much is speculative is still up in the air.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    Things can be valued as assets based on the present value of their future cash flows (like companies) or by their desirability and rarity (like a Lambo). The argument you are making is equivalent to 'now that he won't pay for the gas, who will buy the Lambo?'
    - arrosenberg 5y ago
      I'm definitely arguing that the Lambo is less valuable without gas, and that the number of people with a comparable amount of gas to pour on a soccer club is a very limited group. It's unclear what the actual value is, since some major portion of the value is based on it's desirability/rarity, which is a speculative quality - as a business, Chelsea doesn't seem to have the finances of a top 4 club.
      - RC_ITR 5y ago
        Sure. A Lamborghini would be worth more if gas was free and there aren’t that many people who can afford gas for a lambo, but you’re way overestimating global inequality. Plenty of people could afford Chelsea.
  - bidirectional 5y ago
    That doesn't matter, someone will pay it. They won't struggly to find a buyer. Owning one of the greatest teams in the world in the most fashionable part of one of the world's major city is basically just worth it as a vanity asset to a certain kind of billionaire.
- asah 5y ago
  Startups are valued for their exponential growth. Is FC going to double next year? And the year after?
pvaldes 5y ago
I can think in a few solid reasons explaining why a very rich could want to keep a non profitable company in a foreign country. Making valuable personal contacts for example. Some companies aim to earn money. The purpose of other is to burn money at a fast pace when needed. Maybe to support the first ones. The interesting part in this is not that will sell a club, is that will announced that will sell all his properties in UK, in a context of big economic sanctions.
- riskable 5y ago
  > I can think in a few solid reasons explaining why a very rich could want to keep a non profitable company in a foreign country. You didn't list the most popular reason: Money laundering.

chishaku 5y ago

income != valuation

smachiz 5y ago

They don't need to be profitable to be worth a lot of money. His asking price is 3B GBP.

nindalf 5y ago

This is literally a forum made for startups. Businesses that may lose money but are worth a lot. Does that ring a bell? Abramovich bought a club for £140m, invested around £1.5 billion in it, and now it’s worth twice that. It’s worth is based on what a prospective buyer will pay, not a multiple of earnings.

arrosenberg 5y ago
Nonetheless, if you remove the sugardaddy, their model hasn't ever been a sustainable business. Chelsea clearly improved as a club after Roman bought the team (unlike United or Arsenal), so I'm not discounting that, but basically all major league sports teams in the (global) west have increased massively in value the last 10-15 years - how much of that is real value and how much is speculative is still up in the air.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  Things can be valued as assets based on the present value of their future cash flows (like companies) or by their desirability and rarity (like a Lambo). The argument you are making is equivalent to 'now that he won't pay for the gas, who will buy the Lambo?'
  - arrosenberg 5y ago
    I'm definitely arguing that the Lambo is less valuable without gas, and that the number of people with a comparable amount of gas to pour on a soccer club is a very limited group. It's unclear what the actual value is, since some major portion of the value is based on it's desirability/rarity, which is a speculative quality - as a business, Chelsea doesn't seem to have the finances of a top 4 club.
    - RC_ITR 5y ago
      Sure. A Lamborghini would be worth more if gas was free and there aren’t that many people who can afford gas for a lambo, but you’re way overestimating global inequality. Plenty of people could afford Chelsea.
- bidirectional 5y ago
  That doesn't matter, someone will pay it. They won't struggly to find a buyer. Owning one of the greatest teams in the world in the most fashionable part of one of the world's major city is basically just worth it as a vanity asset to a certain kind of billionaire.
asah 5y ago
Startups are valued for their exponential growth. Is FC going to double next year? And the year after?

pvaldes 5y ago

I can think in a few solid reasons explaining why a very rich could want to keep a non profitable company in a foreign country. Making valuable personal contacts for example. Some companies aim to earn money. The purpose of other is to burn money at a fast pace when needed. Maybe to support the first ones. The interesting part in this is not that will sell a club, is that will announced that will sell all his properties in UK, in a context of big economic sanctions.

riskable 5y ago
> I can think in a few solid reasons explaining why a very rich could want to keep a non profitable company in a foreign country. You didn't list the most popular reason: Money laundering.