ChapSmurf Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 14 minutes ago, Almat said: PS agreed about parachute payments, but should we go up next season and come straight back down I do wonder if we will get any threads on here complaining how unfair it is on our Champ rivals that we are getting them lol... I agree with what you are saying about parachute payments. I talk with my dad a lot about football and for a Rovrum fan, his knows his shizzle. I've complained about parachute payments for years and he asked me the question of how I would feel if we were in receipt of them. My answer was I would be happy to recieve the money if it meant the club didn't go bust, but the concept is wrong and I would still totally disagree with it. If parachute payments were completely removed, the onus would be on the club to have better managed contract negotiations with the players, including reduction in weekly wages and bonuses upon relegation. It's up to the clubs to better manage contracts and wages in my opinion, and remove the safety net of the ridiculously unbalanced and unfair parachute payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almat Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said: DC is personally worth (to my knowledge) at least 7 times more than MM (around £400M). TUF are a company worth £12Bn and are owned in part by the Chansiri's. So yes, this is who I am referring to, but it's pure guess work on my part due to the obvious link. I'm know I'm not the only one who sees this link. Where did the 400 million come from? Not doubting you but Forbes list the Chansiri family (now whether this includes DC or just the TUF part of the family I don't know) as worth a combined 700 million dollars. 400 million for for DC alone seems very high...and I can't see the company being worth 12 billion at the moment gievn their current 4 billion t/o. https://www.forbes.com/profile/kraisorn-chansiri/ Edited July 26, 2017 by Almat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just visiting Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 It's about time the EFL started to push for a more acceptable slice of TV money rather than the £4-5m per season we currently get for each club. I find it hard to comprehend how the likes of Sunderland, Boro and the likes are receiving £100m+ "TV" money when they are hardly shown and when they have shown their viewing figures are not that much better, if any is some cases, than those broadcast in the Championship. Here's one for you. Sunderland were shown 6 times on Sky last season with a total viewing audience of 4.73m with games against Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool ect SWFC were shown on Sky 10 times with a total viewing audience of 3.1m with games against Wigan, Birmingham and Norwich. Is 1.6m more viewers equatable to an increase in revenue of £95m+. Newcastle v SWFC 598k viewing figures, Hull v PL Champions Leicester 503k. Hull get £100m+ SWFC get £5m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Almat said: Where did the 400 million come from? Not doubting you but Forbes list the Chansiri family (now whether this includes DC or just the TUF part of the family I don't know) as worth a combined 700 million dollars. 400 million for for DC alone seems very high... It's what I've heard, but being honest I cannot remember the source. It was quoted around the time he took over. The Chansiri family may have a personal wealth of £700M, but this does not take in to account the businesses that they own, only their own personal assets. Edited July 26, 2017 by ChapSmurf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almat Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said: It's what I've heard, but being honest I cannot remember the source. It was quoted around the time he took over. The Chansiri family may have a personal wealth of £700M, but this does not take in to account the businesses that they own, only their own personal assets. I think you will find it does. Wealth is viewed as cash plus assets. And assets include stakes in companies, valuables etc. I remember Alan Sugar complaining about how far down he always is on the Times Rich list and he believes no-one should be on the list who couldn't sign a cheque right now for a 100 million quid (apparently he can!). Edited July 26, 2017 by Almat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Just now, Almat said: I think you will find it does. Wealth is viewed as cash plus assets. And assets include stakes in companies. It depends how those assets are listed, and to who. These people are very cute financially don't forget and all Forbes can do is to add up what they see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jellybean Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 how about scrapping parachute payments and if a relegated team is struggling with debt let them have an efl backed loan to help them survive but not flourish . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almat Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said: It depends how those assets are listed, and to who. These people are very cute financially don't forget and all Forbes can do is to add up what they see. Well, yes, but you can't value a person's wealth and not take into account the perceived value of their holdings in companies. Like I said, 400 million for DC seems stupendously high and you really can't believe everything you hear. I'm sure Forbes is a much more reliable barometer of actual wealth that Big Gun's mate down the pub edit: how Forbes compiles its rich list Quote This list was compiled using shareholding and financial information obtained from the families and individuals, stock exchanges and analysts, the Stock Exchange of Thailand and regulatory agencies. Unlike our billionaire rankings, this list encompasses family fortunes, including those shared among extended families of multiple generations. Public fortunes were calculated based on stock prices and exchange rates as of May 18. Private companies were valued based on comparisons with similar companies that are publicly traded. https://www.forbes.com/sites/naazneenkarmali/2017/05/30/thailands-50-richest-2017-the-nations-wealthiest-rise-against-the-odds/#990671345cda Edited July 26, 2017 by Almat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 6 minutes ago, just visiting said: It's about time the EFL started to push for a more acceptable slice of TV money rather than the £4-5m per season we currently get for each club. I find it hard to comprehend how the likes of Sunderland, Boro and the likes are receiving £100m+ "TV" money when they are hardly shown and when they have shown their viewing figures are not that much better, if any is some cases, than those broadcast in the Championship. Here's one for you. Sunderland were shown 6 times on Sky last season with a total viewing audience of 4.73m with games against Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool ect SWFC were shown on Sky 10 times with a total viewing audience of 3.1m with games against Wigan, Birmingham and Norwich. Is 1.6m more viewers equatable to an increase in revenue of £95m+. Newcastle v SWFC 598k viewing figures, Hull v PL Champions Leicester 503k. Hull get £100m+ SWFC get £5m. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Are these just the UK viewing figures? If so, Sky would argue that they can sell PL games abroad more so than EFL, so compensate for that by offering higher payments to the PL teams (as these teams cannot sell their "product" abroad directly). However I totally agree. There is a huge disparity between the two payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musn't Grumble Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Is the law of unintended consequences being applied here with respect to parachute payments? Presumably PPs were introduced so that relegated clubs can continue to honour the contracts of their highly paid Premier League "stars". However, what seems to be happening is that the players move on anyway, leaving tens of £millions available to sign top quality players as Newcastle and Villa did last season and, no doubt, Sunderland and Boro will do this season. Perhaps if there was tighter regulation on what the PPs could be spent on (e.g. it can only be spent on existing player contracts and not new ones), it might make for a fairer system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, Almat said: Well, yes, but you can't value a person's wealth and not take into account the perceived value of their holdings in companies. Like I said, 400 million for DC seems stupendously high and you really can't believe everything you hear. I'm sure Forbes is a much more reliable barometer of actual wealth that Big Gun's mate down the pub Haha...it wasn't BIg Guns mate that's for sure. It was quoted in several sources, both national and local media, but I cannot remember which ones. Probably in The Star, but not limited to them solely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 9 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said: It depends how those assets are listed, and to who. These people are very cute financially don't forget and all Forbes can do is to add up what they see. I don't think the assets can count. I don't believe they would sell parts of their business to prop up a football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxondale Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 The only way to sort it in my opinion would be a wage cap and a cap on the amount of money you are allowed to spend in a window. How this could be implemented I have know idea. And it would have to be across the continent to stop people just going abroad to earn more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 I've just been searching around for info on DC's worth and I think I must be getting two things mixed up as everything is suggesting a total family worth of ~$700M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just visiting Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 13 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said: I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Are these just the UK viewing figures? If so, Sky would argue that they can sell PL games abroad more so than EFL, so compensate for that by offering higher payments to the PL teams (as these teams cannot sell their "product" abroad directly). However I totally agree. There is a huge disparity between the two payments. Yeah you're right, they are just UK figures. Sunderland would have received £55m for the UK market and £39m for overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, just visiting said: Yeah you're right, they are just UK figures. Sunderland would have received £55m for the UK market and £39m for overseas. Is that the breakdown of how the payments are made up? Or this just in Sunderlands case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almat Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 8 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said: I've just been searching around for info on DC's worth and I think I must be getting two things mixed up as everything is suggesting a total family worth of ~$700M. And DC has only a 5% stake in the family business. My speculation is his personal wealth is considerably less than MM's reported 100 million but the talk of a consortium at the time of his purchase would probably be correct. Who is in the consortium is anyone's guess, of course, but the EFL ratified the deal so that's fine with me. The alleged Reading connection was certainly discussed oon here at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 I seem to remember Adam Pearson saying the chairman had the resources to compete in the premier league should Wednesday get there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 13 minutes ago, Almat said: And DC has only a 5% stake in the family business. My speculation is his personal wealth is considerably less than MM's reported 100 million but the talk of a consortium at the time of his purchase would probably be correct. Who is in the consortium is anyone's guess, of course, but the EFL ratified the deal so that's fine with me. The alleged Reading connection was certainly discussed oon here at the time. Well if your speculation is correct, it certainly throws more light on a consortium control, from a financial perspective at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OxonOwl Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 DC has his own construction business plus a 'small' stake in the family business. I haven't tried hard but I haven't found details of his own business so don't know its worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now