We are worth a lot less now

[spikey norman]

According to one Sunday paper Fulham's value has dropped from the 150 million Khan paid for us to just 30 million now.
The paper doesn't explain reasons why but goes on to say that of the  44 clubs in the Prem and Championship 27 have foreign owners and all are worth more or the same that the owners paid for the club's apart from Leeds (down from 34m to 25m),Birmingham(57m to 25m) and us a 120m drop.
If true what impact will this have on us as a club?

[LBNo11]

...a useful tax write-off..?

[Artful Dodger]

basically Khan paid £121m for the club from Fayed but on paper it had a net worth of only £13m, so there was a £108m of goodwill. When we got relegated, the holding company wrote off the goodwill in full, so in theory, wrote the value of the asset down from £121m to £13m in one go - I am not a tax expert, especially as I assume it will be an American holding company, but it would suggest that there were tax benefits to writing it off in one go.

As well as writing off £108m in the Parent Co, Khan has also reportedly put another £50m in loans to Fulham Co, half of which was converted to shares in the last set of financial accounts, so in essence, he has now paid £171m for an asset on his books at £13m. I guess as he is a billionaire, he knows how to run a business!!

[Artful Dodger]

This was in Private Eye last week which I posted here:

http://www.friendsoffulham.com/forum/index.php?topic=47512.msg668337#msg668337

[spikey norman]

basically Khan paid £121m for the club from Fayed but on paper it had a net worth of only £13m, so there was a £108m of goodwill. When we got relegated, the holding company wrote off the goodwill in full, so in theory, wrote the value of the asset down from £121m to £108m in one go - I am not a tax expert, especially as I assume it will be an American holding company, but it would suggest that there were tax benefits to writing it off in one go.

As well as writing off £108m in the Parent Co, Khan has also reportedly put another £50m in loans to Fulham Co, half of which was converted to shares in the last set of financial accounts, so in essence, he has now paid £171m for n asset on his books at £13m. I guess as he is a billionaire, he knows how to run a business!!

Thanks for the explanation Artful Dodger
I was beginning to think that there was some asset stripping going on

[grandad]

These are just paper figures. We have Bettinelli, Burn, LVC,Roberts, McCormack just to name a few who must be worth £50 million. Add the value of the real estate & I don´t see how the figure of £13 million net worth is arrived at. The money Khan put in was his own to do whatever he wanted to do. It was only moving money from one pocket to another.

[Artful Dodger]

These are just paper figures. We have Bettinelli, Burn, LVC,Roberts, McCormack just to name a few who must be worth £50 million. Add the value of the real estate & I don´t see how the figure of £13 million net worth is arrived at. The money Khan put in was his own to do whatever he wanted to do. It was only moving money from one pocket to another.

It would be interesting to see what liabilities were in the balance sheet when Khan bought the club as you would have thought the Cottage, training ground, players etc would have been worth considerably more than £13m, so we must also have been carrying a lot of liabilities which Khan inherited. Maybe cmg will be able to enlighten us!

[Wearethewhites]

In all, including the Greeks free, Khan has loaned us around 40 million in total, which to be honest isn't really pocket change. We all moan about him not being here, but I think he's s lot more involved than most think.

[Roberty]

...a useful tax write-off..?

I can't see how it could be described as useful, since it was his own money and not someone else's that was lost

A useful tax loss would be where someone else lost their money and he took over the company for less than the value of the tax on the loss

[MJG]

These are just paper figures. We have Bettinelli, Burn, LVC,Roberts, McCormack just to name a few who must be worth £50 million. Add the value of the real estate & I don´t see how the figure of £13 million net worth is arrived at. The money Khan put in was his own to do whatever he wanted to do. It was only moving money from one pocket to another.

It would be interesting to see what liabilities were in the balance sheet when Khan bought the club as you would have thought the Cottage, training ground, players etc would have been worth considerably more than £13m, so we must also have been carrying a lot of liabilities which Khan inherited. Maybe cmg will be able to enlighten us!

If you are looking at just the liabilities when they bought the club it was £40M (£48M in 2014)
The deferred tax was £41M (42M in 2014)

the total Tangible assets were £21m (£1.4m) Rest was transfered to the stadium account

The intangible Fixed assets were £62M (23M in 2014)

[epsomraver]

...a useful tax write-off..?

I was given to believe that under US tax laws you cannot get relief from an overseas investment?

[Fulhamerica23]

Can someone explain this as they were talking to a third grader? For a friend.....

[SouthIslandWhite]

What does this all point to?

Goodbye Riverside Development until further notice.

Frankly I never thought it was a reality given our Championship morass, but anyway...

[MJG]

It points to nothing. We are a team relegated to the championship,  less income, worse players,  of course the value will be less.
Nothing to do with the stand, they have spent over £3m  so far on planning and other costs.

[mrmicawbers]

 can anyone remember how much Riverside developments gave us at one stage before we paid them back?

[HatterDon]

According to one Sunday paper Fulham's value has dropped from the 150 million Khan paid for us to just 30 million now.
The paper doesn't explain reasons why but goes on to say that of the  44 clubs in the Prem and Championship 27 have foreign owners and all are worth more or the same that the owners paid for the club's apart from Leeds (down from 34m to 25m),Birmingham(57m to 25m) and us a 120m drop.
If true what impact will this have on us as a club?

Which Sunday paper?

[spikey norman]

Mail on Sunday

[Roberty]

Mail on Sunday

The cost was what he paid for it - the value only matters if he wants to or has to sell it

So it would be pointless for him to sell it now, unless his finances are in a really bad state, but he's every incentive to get us back into the Premier League.

To carry out the Riverside development will also not add a lot to the amount he's invested in the club BUT it would add a lot to the value of the club if/when we get back to the Premier League - so leaving it to later would be a very poor option for him.

[Logicalman]

The article (nice graphics):

Ten years Glazers arrived Manchester United foreign investors collectively DOUBLED value 24 English clubs

Ten years after the Glazers arrived at Manchester United, foreign investors have collectively DOUBLED the value of 24 English clubs

It is 10 years since the Glazers become majority shareholders at Old Trafford, which provoked widespread fury
Mail on Sunday research highlights the transformation of club ownership over the last decade
Foreign investors have collectively more than doubled the value of 24 English clubs from £2.765bn to £5.788bn
The Glazers paid £790m for United and now the value of the club is £1.65bn, an increase of £860m


A decade after the most bitterly opposed football club takeover the English game has known, the foreign investors in the country's clubs have collectively more than doubled the value of those clubs, new Mail on Sunday research can reveal.
In the Premier League and Championship combined, there are 27 clubs of 44 (that's 61 per cent) with a foreign owner or co-owner, with 33 different parties with a collective fortune of £69.85billion involved.
Of those clubs, 24 are controlled by foreign owners, who collectively paid £2.765bn for those clubs, now worth an estimated £5.788bn, the MoS can reveal.



It was 10 years ago this week that the Glazer family from Tampa, Florida, became majority shareholders of Manchester United, a 'leveraged' buyout that provoked widespread fury as it heaped debt onto United.
That takeover was followed by dozens more as the English game was effectively flogged off, kick-starting a debate that still rages about the stewardship of treasured community assets, and fit-and-proper owners.
The MoS's research, laid out in these pages, highlights the transformation of club ownership, for good and ill.

It goes without saying there are good and bad English club owners. Steve Gibson at Middlesbrough is a prime example of the former, a lifelong fan who has invested for decades. Mike Ashley at Newcastle and the Oyston family at Blackpool are detested by many of their clubs' supporters.
But the phenomenon of overseas speculators buying up English football has defined the past decade. Before the Glazers, only Roman Abramovich in search of a plaything at Chelsea, had arrived in such a way.
The Glazers demonstrated there was no legal reason why they couldn't own and run United from Florida, on borrowed money heaped onto United, and there was plenty of upside. They paid £790m for the club and today, using stock market values, the value of the club is £1.65bn, an increase of £860m.




Many supporters, including in these pages, argue the Glazers have been bad for United. Some have been priced out, feel alienated by the commercialism of the game and want greater involvement in how their club are run.
But elsewhere, notably at Chelsea and Manchester City, and also at Southampton and — for now — at Watford and Bournemouth, foreign owners and their cash have transformed the fortunes of the clubs, literally and figuratively.
At Liverpool, Arsenal, Aston Villa, Sunderland and other places the jury is largely out. At Blackburn, Cardiff, Birmingham and Leeds to name just four, there have been rocky years and much dissent against Venky's, Vincent Tan, Carson Yeung and GFH and Massimo Cellino respectively.
One key finding is almost all the foreign-owned clubs — bar Leeds, Birmingham and Fulham — are worth at least as much now and generally more than foreign owners paid. If that says nothing else, then it shows clinical detachment in most cases, assessing an asset, getting it cheap, and trying to sweat it. As the Glazers have.