Inter's Financial Situation

[nadzington]

Does anybody know what happened to the fan ownership initiative to buy the club? It seems unrealistic they can buy all the club, but maybe can raise enough money to buy 10-15 procent.

 

[.h.]

they've not released any figures publicly, but I'd be surprised if they've even raised enough to buy 0.1% of the club (1m euros).


Remember, Inter relies on capital injections - so every season they'd have to inject maybe 5-10% of the stakeholding value just to prevent further dilution, and you get precisely FUCK ALL VOTING POWER with 5-10% even.


As I said at the time, it will never go anywhere. No big club as far as I'm aware in recent history has been taken over by a fan ownership thing like that. The valuataions just make it impossible.

 

[sdvroot]

Inter Have €264M Cash In Hand & Are Safe From Economic Turmoil For Next Two Seasons, Italian Media Report

Inter are safe from reaching a point of economic turmoil for at least the next two seasons due to the availability of cash to the club, according to a

sempreinter.com

 

[andrei]

Fuck, thats depressing.

Boy, if Inter will be sold, won't expect a sugar daddy but a hedge fund. If you want to see what happen in this situation look at Milan. And our neighbours are doing pretty well for what type of funds they need to work with.
Juventus bought Valhovic, we bought Gosens and Milan Lazetic. You know who the fuck is Lazetic? Me neither.

 

[.h.]

this is why I say we dont want a sugar daddy. I'd be happy to have one, but I want owners who make the club financiaally self-sustaining, because then we're independent of our owners. A sugar daddy then becomes a luxury, rather than a requirement for this club to be viable beyond the next 5 years.

 

[Ethor]

this is why I say we dont want a sugar daddy. I'd be happy to have one, but I want owners who make the club financiaally self-sustaining, because then we're independent of our owners. A sugar daddy then becomes a luxury, rather than a requirement for this club to be viable beyond the next 5 years.

Love your posts and debates, especially on the financial aspect. Until you scream that "We're Doomed", then I'll won't panic too much.

 

[nadzington]

Boy, if Inter will be sold, won't expect a sugar daddy but a hedge fund. If you want to see what happen in this situation look at Milan. And our neighbours are doing pretty well for what type of funds they need to work with.
Juventus bought Valhovic, we bought Gosens and Milan Lazetic. You know who the fuck is Lazetic? Me neither.

No im not expecting a sugar daddy, and do not want a hedge fund. I want to have a owner that makes the club self reliant and does actually have knowledge of football. That the club is not a part time job you send your son to manage when it is time to lift a trophy.

But any owner that comes in, and in any business you must invest to make the "company" self reliant.

 

[nadzington]

they've not released any figures publicly, but I'd be surprised if they've even raised enough to buy 0.1% of the club (1m euros).


Remember, Inter relies on capital injections - so every season they'd have to inject maybe 5-10% of the stakeholding value just to prevent further dilution, and you get precisely FUCK ALL VOTING POWER with 5-10% even.


As I said at the time, it will never go anywhere. No big club as far as I'm aware in recent history has been taken over by a fan ownership thing like that. The valuataions just make it impossible.

Maybe no voting power but with a small procentage you have a foot in, and have a say. Even if the owner does need to give a shit about it. After a few years you can buy more and more procentage.

Thanks for the answer, i just want Suning to go away and im despreate for new ownership.

 

[andrei]

No im not expecting a sugar daddy, and do not want a hedge fund. I want to have a owner that makes the club self reliant and does actually have knowledge of football. That the club is not a part time job you send your son to manage when it is time to lift a trophy.

But any owner that comes in, and in any business you must invest to make the "company" self reliant.

What you say it's kind of oxymoron.

You have either a "sugar daddy" - an wealthy owner who buy a club for passion and who knows he will need to "invest" to have results (giving money to win trophies).
Or you have a "hedge fund". It doesn't mean to be a proper hedge fund, but someone who buy a club as a hedged investment. They invest also their money (more or less) but want the club to be self sustainable and by this protecting their investment or generating returns.
Sometimes the difference between these 2 are blurred - very few sugar daddies are willing to spent tens of millions from their pockets annualy, they want also a good business.

 

[andrei]

this is why I say we dont want a sugar daddy. I'd be happy to have one, but I want owners who make the club financiaally self-sustaining, because then we're independent of our owners. A sugar daddy then becomes a luxury, rather than a requirement for this club to be viable beyond the next 5 years.

Be more specifically Browha: the type of owners Liverpool have.
They aren't sugar daddies, but they invested when they needed to. They made the club self-sustainable and successfull. They bought the club for soemthing like 300m in 2010. If they sell now they could get over 1 billion. They hedged their investment very well (including inflation and also what they spent from their pocket, which is not too much).

 

[nadzington]

What you say it's kind of oxymoron.

You have either a "sugar daddy" - an wealthy owner who buy a club for passion and who knows he will need to "invest" to have results (giving money to win trophies).
Or you have a "hedge fund". It doesn't mean to be a proper hedge fund, but someone who buy a club as a hedged investment. They invest also their money (more or less) but want the club to be self sustainable and by this protecting their investment or generating returns.
Sometimes the difference between these 2 are blurred - very few sugar daddies are willing to spent tens of millions from their pockets annualy, they want also a good business.

No im not.

Well what i meant was not a hedge fund like Milan owners, you wrote hedge fund related to Milan as an example.

There are companies that can buy the club and invest, and make it thrive. You cant just not invest then the club will never make revenue, with sponsors and TV money.

 

[Il Drago]

Be more specifically Browha: the type of owners Liverpool have.
They aren't sugar daddies, but they invested when they needed to. They made the club self-sustainable and successfull. They bought the club for soemthing like 300m in 2010. If they sell now they could get over 1 billion. They hedged their investment very well (including inflation and also what they spent from their pocket, which is not too much).

It isn't Liverpool owners who made the club successful. It's Klopp. Prior to Klopp's arrival they had made many bad signings and they weren't going anywhere. The team Klopp inherited was terrible. He had to work hard step by step and sign the right players with the limited funds he had in order to make Liverpool competitive again. But even he couldn't perform miracles. The process would have been even longer without Barcelona money for Coutinho. He used money wisely by signing van Djik and Allison who turned Liverpool from a top 4 team to a title challenger.

Take Klopp out of the equation and you have another Arsenal.

 

[andrei]

It isn't Liverpool owners who made the club successful. It's Klopp. Prior to Klopp's arrival they had made many bad signings and they weren't going anywhere. The team Klopp inherited was terrible. He had to work hard step by step and sign the right players with the limited funds he had in order to make Liverpool competitive again. But even he couldn't perform miracles. The process would have been even longer without Barcelona money for Coutinho. He used money wisely by signing van Djik and Allison who turned Liverpool from a top 4 team to a title challenger.

Take Klopp out of the equation and you have another Arsenal.

Absolut! You are right!
Still, they changed enterily the whole "business department" to make the club financially more competitive (Liverpool is my second team and I follewed them close). Their revenues increased year by year even befor Klopp's arrival. But only with the arrival of Klopp they became a powerhouse again on the field! Without Klopp, probably Arsenal. Your analogy is accurate.

 

[brehme1989]

this is why I say we dont want a sugar daddy. I'd be happy to have one, but I want owners who make the club financiaally self-sustaining, because then we're independent of our owners. A sugar daddy then becomes a luxury, rather than a requirement for this club to be viable beyond the next 5 years.

Can you name a successful self-sustaining club?

 

[nadzington]

Can you name a successful self-sustaining club?

There are many, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Liverpool, Atletico Madrid for example.

 

[cloudq]

Absolut! You are right!
Still, they changed enterily the whole "business department" to make the club financially more competitive (Liverpool is my second team and I follewed them close). Their revenues increased year by year even befor Klopp's arrival. But only with the arrival of Klopp they became a powerhouse again on the field! Without Klopp, probably Arsenal. Your analogy is accurate.

yeh but would liverpool be self-sustaining if they were in italy, without EPL tv money and not owning their own stadium?

 

[brehme1989]

There are many, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Liverpool, Atletico Madrid for example.

Real Madrid is in huge debt and has the backing of the Spanish state and the Madrid council as they help them get loans on favorable terms or help them write off bad debt. And Real Madrid is not a company, it's a non-profit organization with members.

Bayern Munchen relies on what @.h. calls unsustainable. That is, their fans are the owners, that is 75% of the club is fan-owned. Then you have Allianz, Audi and Adidas with most of the rest and a few other minor shareholders that do not pump money into the club. Their source of revenue is the classic stuff, television rights, tickets, UEFA and so on.
Ajax is similar, also around 75% fan-owned. The rest is floated in the stock market and they have 3 major shareholders (over 5%) iirc.
These three are clubs that depend a lot on their fans subscribing to these clubs, not only for membership fees but it also serves as an indication for sponsorships. (Benfica and Porto are similar.)


Liverpool did not really start as a self-sustained club under the Americans, that only came after they sold Coutinho and with Klopp's prudent transfers and on pitch success. Liverpool not making the Champions League twice in a row would make our financial mess under Thohir look like a playground compared to those guys. They are not genuinely self sustained as they still rely on pumping from the Americans. And they're not really big spenders either, but they're lucky to have revived the brand so they get a lot of sponsor deals for the time being. If a new owner takes over without paying a dime to get the shares, he'll need to pump money to maintain this standard.

Atletico Madrid is in a financial mess, has probably the biggest debt of them all and their owners need to pump 100-200m a year to keep them competitive.



Next?

 

[Harpsabu]

Real Madrid is in huge debt and has the backing of the Spanish state and the Madrid council as they help them get loans on favorable terms or help them write off bad debt. And Real Madrid is not a company, it's a non-profit organization with members.

Bayern Munchen relies on what @.h. calls unsustainable. That is, their fans are the owners, that is 75% of the club is fan-owned. Then you have Allianz, Audi and Adidas with most of the rest and a few other minor shareholders that do not pump money into the club. Their source of revenue is the classic stuff, television rights, tickets, UEFA and so on.
Ajax is similar, also around 75% fan-owned. The rest is floated in the stock market and they have 3 major shareholders (over 5%) iirc.
These three are clubs that depend a lot on their fans subscribing to these clubs, not only for membership fees but it also serves as an indication for sponsorships. (Benfica and Porto are similar.)


Liverpool did not really start as a self-sustained club under the Americans, that only came after they sold Coutinho and with Klopp's prudent transfers and on pitch success. Liverpool not making the Champions League twice in a row would make our financial mess under Thohir look like a playground compared to those guys. They are not genuinely self sustained as they still rely on pumping from the Americans. And they're not really big spenders either, but they're lucky to have revived the brand so they get a lot of sponsor deals for the time being. If a new owner takes over without paying a dime to get the shares, he'll need to pump money to maintain this standard.

Atletico Madrid is in a financial mess, has probably the biggest debt of them all and their owners need to pump 100-200m a year to keep them competitive.



Next?

United, atalanta, Napoli, arsenal perhaps? Dortmund

 

[CafeCordoba]

United, atalanta, Napoli, arsenal perhaps? Dortmund

That's more like it. Now we can count how many titles or even trophies these clubs have won in the past 10 years.

 

[Il Drago]

That's more like it. Now we can count how many titles or even trophies these clubs have won in the past 10 years.

In the cases of Man Utd and Arsenal it's more about bad management than money. With the amount of money they spend every year they should be fighting for titles but they make one bad decision after another. Especially Man Utd.