I'm coming back to the idea of how extremely competitive the UEFA Top5 cluster is. In the chart below you will see how the value of these clubs has evolved in recent years, it's million US$ in the Y-axis. 
To many the answer to the question "how much is a club worth?" is obvious: "As much as someone is ready to pay for it". Not bad, ain't it?
This answer is not at all banal, since you will see how the value of Manchester United is much higher than the rest. It is true that they own a great Stadium in a cool area of Manchester, but so does Arsenal in London, FC Barcelona or Real Madrid in the most expensive area of the Spanish capital city. It is also true that they own a great set of players, but so do their competitors as well. Debtors? Nothing to mention either. Debt? Under control, better than the Spanish clubs, not so well managed as the Bayern....
So the reason why their club value is up there comes from the fact that the Glazer family bought it not too long ago and therefore they are entitled to introduce a line called "Goodwill" in their balance sheet. And that bridges the gap.
I know, some may rightfully claim that we cannot measure club value based just on their balance sheet, but when clubs are yielding -despite a yearly average of 10% income growth- such low profits and ROIs, it is possibly the value of their assets what makes a club more appealing for any prospective investor. And that means brick and mortar, not free cash flows.
I'm adding here another chart comparing the asset value of the Top5 clubs one to each other at the end of previous season, 2010-2011, and just as a present to you some blue dots pointing at an estimated market value.
In all cases where goodwill is not declared the blue dots are higher than the asset value. For ManU this is not the case, which means that the club has actually destroyed part of its value since the Glazer jumped in. Probably they paid too much, or they did not anticipate the depth of this worldwide money crunch we are still struggling with. Or maybe they found some other good reasons that are not so easy to speak of in monetary terms that made them take the step. Good luck anyway.
I guess the gap between book value and market value comes in this case from tha fact that assets are normally to be reflected in the books according to their acquisition prices, therefore not taking into account the huge inflation that affects not just those brick-and-mortar assets, but also the transfer rights of star players. Clubs do not report any value for their brand either. I'm not quite sure how well do they manage this last chapter, since Marketing and TV income appears to be attached to the image of footballers, rather than Clubs. Are therefore Clubs just a platform for players to bright? Do they take away the income whenever they change clubs? How can a club retain this value for themselves? Would football be the same with star-clubs rather than star-players? Can actually football players ever be considered "anonymous" employees? Would Barça ever sell as many shirts with their brand as Messi does with his name?
Why Barça is the only club reporting negative Equity and what does that mean? That's a hot question, maybe we'll come back to it later on.
The Champions League is also hot these days: within the Top5, the English clubs are struggling quite a lot, and staying out at this stage of the season would mean big losses for them on all fronts (.... more than a 100 Mio. € in turnover for this season only, all chapters included, plus a giant loss in their brand value?). I'm curious, let's see what happens next.
No comments:
Post a Comment