Did we work this one out yet for players? On 19 May 2011 14:24, Steven Millward <[email protected]> wrote:
> With property development you generally borrow money and as long as the > yield on the development is greater than the cost of capital then you make > money. > > It's a pretty simple calculation to do in fact. > > - It's said to cost 16m for the first stage. > - It adds 2,500 seats. > - 30 quid a seat is 75,000 > - Times 19 games is 1.45m > - That's a 9% yield. Fairly reasonable for property development. > - I assume not all seats are filled but that the hospitality will > offset that and I haven't included that. 9% seems about right though. > - The expansion is being funded from cash flow though, so if the return > on the expansion is better than the return on other forms of investment > then > you would expand > > Now try it when buying players so we can compare the returns and understand > Morgan's logic. > > - Spend X million on a player? > - Residual value of Y million? > - Wages of say 1.5m a year? > - What does it get you as a return? > - What are the risks associated with getting those returns as it > affects the rate of return you'd want. The risk is much higher so you'd > want a much higher rate of return than for expanding the stadium > > > On 19 May 2011 13:05, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> You do the same ROI calculations on the cost for the stadium development >> (make sure you factor in the lost revenue from being relegated ie ticket >> sales, sponsorship deals, corporate functions etc) and the payback period to >> get back to breakeven and then we can compare numbers. What period would >> you like to run the projections over and also what is the ROC demanded of >> the Board? >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:56 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] >> >> >> >> OK. And what's the cost in terms of players to move up a few places in >> your view? >> >> >> >> And then what's the ROI? >> >> On 19 May 2011 12:51, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Here is the prize money split for last season. So places make a fairly >> big difference for two-bob clubs like ours (£800,000 per place): >> >> >> >> Chelsea - £16,000,000 (WINNERS) >> Manchester United - £15,200,000 >> Arsenal - £14,400,000 >> Totenham Hotspur - £13,600,000 >> Manchester City - £12,800,000 >> Aston Villa - £12,000,000 >> Liverpool - £11,200,000 >> Everton - £10,400,000 >> Birmingham - £9,600,000 >> Blackburn - £8,800,000 >> Stoke - £8,000,000 >> Fulham - £7,200,000 >> Sunderland - £6,400,000 >> Bolton - £5,600,000 >> Wolves - £4,800,000 >> Wigan - £4,000,000 >> West Ham - £3,200,000 >> Burnley - £2,400,000 >> Hull - £1,600,000 >> Portsmouth - £800,000 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:37 PM >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] >> >> >> >> The ground is defiantely not full every week...far from it. >> >> >> >> I also though the prize money increases significantly eg - I read that >> Stoke throwing in the towel this week could cost them a fair bit..although I >> ahven't checked up on that. >> >> >> >> With the squad we have...we are about where we should be.....maybe a >> little higher. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:23 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] >> >> How can a more successful team generate more cash? The ground is full >> every week and most people buy shirts. The prize money and TV increase is >> relatively small for finishing a few places higher. >> >> >> >> Where do you think we should be in the table Lee, with the squad we have? >> >> On 19 May 2011 11:09, Morris, Lee SGT <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I always thought a successful team, even relatively, is what brings in the >> cash. Wolves fans are amongst the most fickle in the land and the loss of >> revenue through relegation this year would be enormous....Notice I said >> "would" I think we will stay up by the skin of out teeth and the slowly >> slowly routine can continue. >> >> >> >> Not for one moment would I suggest an all or nothing approach which is >> what cost the likes of Leeds so dearly. >> >> >> >> At the end of the day its just debate, my club is in Morgan's hands, and >> thats good enough for me....the team in Macarthy's is another matter. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *LEESE Matthew >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:04 >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] >> >> >> >> The new stadium is actually an opportunity to generate more money, not >> only through increased capacity/ticket sales but through the 'non football' >> facilities that will be included and allowing an income stream from the >> stadium that is not so limited to match days. I'm aware there's already >> facilities there for non match related activities but these will >> (apparently) be substantially enhanced as part of the stadium upgrade. >> Again, it comes down to a long term strategy for progress as opposed to a >> 'quick fix'. If we invest the money in the short term in the team how does >> that help us achieve longer term/sustained success? We may finish a couple >> of places higher up the table in the first season but that doesn't generate >> any more money to allow you to keep on building from there (OK a little bit >> for each placing in the final table, but nothing substantial). The argument >> then may be 'wouldn't that money have been better invested in upgrading the >> stadium to allow us to build over the long term'. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:46 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] >> >> I've got nothing against the short slow steps, as long as progress is >> being made. Morgan is obviously no mug, and I do understand Matty's >> reasoning behind teh timing of the stadium redevelopment. Did we really need >> it though? Morgan obvioulsy know best but why wouldn't he wait until our >> safety is guaranteed? >> >> >> >> Its great for the fans to have a fantastic new stadium to watch football >> in, but I for one would prefer to watch PL action in the current stadium >> rather than championship football in the all singing dancing stadium. >> >> >> >> Maybe what I'm trying to say is, wouldn't that money be better spent on >> team building? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:36 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] >> >> Agree. >> >> >> >> I don't understand where everyone gets these lofty expectations from. We >> spent 30 years in the wilderness where the goal each and every crushing >> season was simply to get back to the Premier League. Now we are there, some >> people seem to think we should be pushing for Europe. >> >> >> >> Marcus, you say that it will be 100 years until we get to near the top of >> the table. What makes you think that it is at all realistic for Wolves to >> get near the top of the table? What makes you even think that a top half >> finish is realistic? I assume you either expect money to be thrown at the >> squad from some mysterious benefactor or that we will somehow magically make >> more of the meagre squad that we have now. I believe we are already >> punching above our weight based on value of squad and wages. >> >> >> >> The news for everyone is that there are 19 other clubs who have the same, >> or higher, ambitions. Which clubs should we 'by right' finish higher >> than? And for what reason? I'd love to know where people think we should be >> in the table relative to the teams above us and their teams. If we expect >> to finish 10th then presumably we clearly have a better team than ten other >> teams? Which teams are they? >> >> >> >> The only club that has outperformed us is West Brom. Let's see how they >> do next season before we claim the miracle of Hodgson. >> >> >> >> Wolves are no longer a big club and don't have any more money to spend >> than other clubs. In fact we have less. We have a small stadium so >> potential revenue growth is linked to telly money and inflation. The >> sensible thing to do is to invest in infrastructure that will generate >> revenue. >> >> >> >> Seems everyone has got used to the golden tit where money was pumped in. >> Morgan clearly doesn't want to spunk a load of money on players and that's >> sensible. I certainly wouldn't if it was my money. >> >> >> >> It's harsh to say that we haven't made progress. Take where we were when >> Hoddle left five years ago as a starting point. As a mid-point look at the >> side we started the first Premiership season with, with Keogh as our striker >> and Halford on the wing. >> >> >> >> By the way Marcus, enjoy your last four days of blaming Mick for >> everything because it will all stop come Monday morning. >> >> >> >> :D >> >> >> >> On 19 May 2011 09:38, LEESE Matthew <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'd say the small step approach seems a sensible and proven one - look at >> teams like Stoke and Sunderland and compare their recent history with that >> of clubs who have over committed financially such as Portsmouth, Hull and >> Leeds. Unless you've got a Man City type owner where you're not bound by the >> club's ability to generate money its not worth the risk. I don't doubt >> Morgan's business acumen for a moment and I think he's taking the club in >> the right direction with a sensible, sustainable approach. Morgan has >> pointed out that now is a perfect time to be redeveloping the stadium in >> terms of the financials as the building industry (and many others) in the UK >> is on its arse and so its a buyer's market where he can get the work done >> for a knock down price. The first stages of the re-development don't >> significantly increase the capacity of a stadium that was never half full >> (save for Carling Cup games), even in the super depressing Hoddle era. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 9:26 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [NSWolves] Progress [sec=unclassified] >> >> I've changed the title because it would have been too long with my extra >> bit added. >> >> >> >> Anyway, Morgan seems to be working on the small step theory, which totally >> baffles me because he's just about to spend a fortune on a stadium which >> will be half full if the small step we made this year isn't >> enough??????????????????????????????????????? >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *mark worrall >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 09:13 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Wolves owner Steve Morgan says he wants Mick >> McCarthy to stay on as the club's manager even if they are relegated. >> >> Maybe thats based on Morgan only planning on putting in small amounts of >> money each year, and measuring MM on what he achieved with it ? >> >> >> >> He wont get a big name manager in as they will expect lots of money to >> spend, which he obviously doesnt want to pay. >> >> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Marcus Chantry < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> What worries me is that Morgan has stated that Mick has made progress >> every year since he took over but when you look at how he’s measured that it >> is the context of very small fractions or single points, so based on that >> run rate Morgan will be 100 years old before he sees us getting anywhere >> near the top of the table (assuming everyone else stays stagnant for that >> entire period). >> >> >> >> Why can’t Morgan accept that Mick has reached the limit of his ability and >> take the plunge. 5 years is long enough in most roles. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Marcus Chantry >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 9:00 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Wolves owner Steve Morgan says he wants Mick >> McCarthy to stay on as the club's manager even if they are relegated. >> >> >> >> Good to see we’re both on the ball Mark. I just posted a link to the same >> story on ESPN. >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *mark worrall >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 8:55 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [NSWolves] Wolves owner Steve Morgan says he wants Mick >> McCarthy to stay on as the club's manager even if they are relegated. >> >> >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/13440664.stm >> >> >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> >> The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not >> the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this >> email in any way and should destroy any copies. Macquarie does not guarantee >> the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or opinions >> expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of >> Macquarie. >> >> >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> >> >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> >> Before printing, please consider the environment. IMPORTANT NOTICE: This >> e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to be read or used by the >> named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged >> information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any >> mistaken transmission to you. The RTA is not responsible for any >> unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed >> in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily >> the views of the RTA. If you receive this e-mail in error, please >> immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not >> disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended >> recipient. >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> >> >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> Before printing, please consider the environment. IMPORTANT NOTICE: This >> e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to be read or used by the >> named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged >> information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any >> mistaken transmission to you. The RTA is not responsible for any >> unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed >> in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily >> the views of the RTA. If you receive this e-mail in error, please >> immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not >> disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended >> recipient. >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> >> -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > > > -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked.
