Just seen this - shows the owners in order of wealth. Don't start at the top forr us.

Scary how much of a minnow we really are when you see it like that

I suspect we'd be outside the top 40 if you added in the Championship, and Portsmouth owner, Michael Eisner...

Fair play to Mike Garlick for making more cash than Delia. She's probably blown a few quid on sherry over the years though.

Gold & Sullivan must have sold a hell of a lot of dildos over the years.

Puts the other thread about Wolves into perspective. Showing how Europa and PL can be done ( notwithstanding the draw they had)

TheFamilyCat wrote:Fair play to Mike Garlick for making more cash than Delia. She's probably blown a few quid on sherry over the years though.

You can find her in that Sherry Emporium near the Norwich Police Station on "Letsbee Avenue" most Saturdays before and after home games

Does anyone know how much it cost Garlick to buy the necessary shares to become co-chairman back in 2010?

Who knew teaching folk how to boil an egg could be so lucrative

Massive wealth gap between us and Bournemouth.

Winstonswhite wrote:Does anyone know how much it cost Garlick to buy the necessary shares to become co-chairman back in 2010?

6 twix.

Winstonswhite wrote:Does anyone know how much it cost Garlick to buy the necessary shares to become co-chairman back in 2010?

He became joint chairman in 2012 and sole chairman in 2015 but bought shares to get on the board in 2006. He has increased his share holding since but I think a lot of that has been buying from other shareholders. I think he bought a lot from Flood.

ElectroClaret wrote:Massive wealth gap between us and Bournemouth.

Massive gap between Bournemouth and all clubs below. The Bournemouth owner also invests his own money into the club which I think might be via loans.

Sullivan and Gold probably doubled their worth with the sale of the land beneath the Boleyn ground. Laughing all the way to the bank whilst paying a paltry £3m a year to rent the Olympic Stadium.

Great business there by LLDC - a great organisation made up of primarily Labour board members!

I don't envy a single one of them. There's no pride whatsoever in what they have done.

Where's the table on profitability ? That would be more of an interest.

Strange that Arsenal don't really splash the cash about compared to Chelsea when their owner isn't too far off Romans worth

MACCA wrote:Strange that Arsenal don't really splash the cash about compared to Chelsea when their owner isn't too far off Romans worth

Arsenal is run more business wise rather than by using an owner’s wealth.

tarkys_ears wrote:6 twix.

Steady on, he's not made of money yer know.

TheFamilyCat wrote:Fair play to Mike Garlick for making more cash than Delia. She's probably blown a few quid on sherry over the years though.

Gold & Sullivan must have sold a hell of a lot of dildos over the years.

Aye but they managed to shift the biggest of them all back to Tyneside....

Winstonswhite wrote:Does anyone know how much it cost Garlick to buy the necessary shares to become co-chairman back in 2010?

You’re not allowed to ask such questions

ClaretTony wrote:Arsenal is run more business wise rather than by using an owner’s wealth.

Which is fair enough, but if they want to start competing for things, they'll need some sort of major investment.

No club ran as a business will be regular trophy winners over a prolonged period.

MACCA wrote:Which is fair enough, but if they want to start competing for things, they'll need some sort of major investment.

No club ran as a business will be regular trophy winners over a prolonged period.

Surely man utd have been doing for years?

tim_noone wrote:Surely man utd have been doing for years?

surely not

tim_noone wrote:Surely man utd have been doing for years?

They are so big an organisation that they can service the massive debt the Glazers landed them with.

tim_noone wrote:Surely man utd have been doing for years?

The Glaziers have been using the global institution that is Manchester United as their own personal cash cow for years.
Sure, there's investment. Far more than we could ever dream of.
But the Glaziers have there own use for the monies and won't bother trying to compete with Citeh.
They've only recently, I think, taken out yet another small fortune, putting more debt on Manure.
Where there's muck there's money.

I heard something the other day that really put into perspective how much the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire truly is.

1 million seconds is the equivalent of 11.5 DAYS - so a week and a half.

1 billion seconds is 31.7 YEARS!!!

A lot of people think “oh, i’d love to have a million quid” but in the grand scheme of things, it’s hardly a drop in the ocean nowadays compared to the truly wealthy people about.

Equating wealth as time -

Mike Garlick would be worth 1.96 years worth of seconds.

Sheikh Mansour would be worth 738.8 years.

bfccrazy wrote:I heard something the other day that really put into perspective how much the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire truly is.

1 million seconds is the equivalent of 11.5 DAYS - so a week and a half.

1 billion seconds is 31.7 YEARS!!!

A lot of people think “oh, i’d love to have a million quid” but in the grand scheme of things, it’s hardly a drop in the ocean nowadays compared to the truly wealthy people about.

Equating wealth as time -

Mike Garlick would be worth 1.96 years worth of seconds.

Sheikh Mansour would be worth 738.8 years.

Money is usually expressed using the American million (1000 million). Surely in your first example it would be 11500 days?

Which is 31.5 years. Its early and I've left this post on to prove you point further. What a staggering difference.

Also I'm an idiot!

You look at that chart and have to have a smile to yourself when you see clowns label the board penny pinchers

Most other teams have it so much easier than us before a ball is even kicked.

Wealth but what about premier money each season - he does not spend out of his back pocket

BOYSIE31 wrote:Wealth but what about premier money each season - he does not spend out of his back pocket

And why should he?

TheFamilyCat wrote:And why should he?

Not saying he should but that table is wrong as they are not even allowed to use most of that cash anyway.

BOYSIE31 wrote:Not saying he should but that table is wrong as they are not even allowed to use most of that cash anyway.

Yeah, they're not allowed to but that doesn't stop them. If FFP (or whatever it's called) was properly policed, owner wealth wouldn't make any difference.

Take away owner's funding what are you left with; PL money, ticket sales & other matchday income, global merchandise sales, hospitality/corporate, use of ground for other events, player sales. We'd still be comfortably in the bottom quarter.

Peter Lim of Salford City is in their with Liverpool and Newcastle

Whatever a club's owner is (reportedly) worth personally, I don't think they should be simply bankrolling a club which is maybe doing ok on the field, but actually losing money hand over fist off it, in order to sustain their position. It's every owners prerogative to choose to do that (or not), of course, but that's exactly what has got a succession of clubs into huge financial black holes. Because if an owner pulls the plug due to other financial pressures, or loses interest or dies or whatever, there's a massive potential for the sky to fall in. Leicester have been lucky, in that the people succeeding the late chairman see things the same way, fine, but not everyone does. If I was an Arsenal fan for example, I might not be overjoyed with the series of relatively mediocre seasons they've endured recently, but I wouldn't necessarily be wanting the mega rich owner to start pumping gazillions into the club with all the dangers that COULD entail further down the line. Down at The Turf poor Mike is struggling along on his £62 million and probably skulking in the toilet when it's his round at the bar at the PL chairmen's hootenanny, but I'm happy for him to keep his cash to himself for now tbh and I would be even if he had 10 times that amount of cash.

when you consider Man Utd spent 90 million on McGuire.......

Worth remembering our board are also fans just like you and me, why should they put any of their own cash into the club.

Oh wait...

BOYSIE31 wrote:Not saying he should but that table is wrong as they are not even allowed to use most of that cash anyway.

Man City's turnover for 2018 was just over £500m. You honestly think their additional income, other than PL money, comes from other operating activities and not the owners pocket? There is, unsurprisingly, a direct link between a club being run by rich owners and their turnover!

Goodclaret wrote:Man City's turnover for 2018 was just over £500m. You honestly think their additional income, other than PL money, comes from other operating activities and not the owners pocket? There is, unsurprisingly, a direct link between a club being run by rich owners and their turnover!

Matchday Income......£55.1m
UEFA Broadcasting........£85.6m
Other Broadcasting........£167.5m
Commercial activities & sponsorship........£226.9m

Total Turnover.........£535.1m.

Royboyclaret wrote:Matchday Income......£55.1m
UEFA Broadcasting........£85.6m
Other Broadcasting........£167.5m
Commercial activities & sponsorship........£226.9m

Total Turnover.........£535.1m.

Thanks for the breakdown Royboy. I assume a big chunk of the sponsorship will be via the owners?

Obviously a number there would be up sh*t creek if their owners suddenly pulled the plug for whatever reason. Probably (I'd suggest) City and Bournemouth would be the most exposed. The latter clearly because of a tiny ground and fan base which must generate practically no meaningful cash flow when set against their committed (PL) outgoings. Some (like us) have been much more savvy and would be fine. For all his faults and for all they moan about him, I suspect double billionaire Mike Ashley could dump Newcastle tomorrow and they wouldn't notice (well not in their finances) and that's not actually a bad position to be in.

Interesting. Didn’t realise mike was that wealthy.
The concept of a billionaire is truly wretched.

BOYSIE31 wrote:Wealth but what about premier money each season - he does not spend out of his back pocket

BOOOORRRRIINNNGGGGG!

MACCA wrote:Worth remembering our board are also fans just like you and me, why should they put any of their own cash into the club.

Oh wait...

You do realise that Mike Garlick didn't get onto the board of directors by winning a turnip growing contest...

Claretmatt4 wrote:You do realise that Mike Garlick didn't get onto the board of directors by winning a turnip growing contest...

I'd say that winning a turnip growing contest would be way down on a long list of ways to get onto the board.

and Man City have just announced a 390 million quid investment from a Tech firm making them the most valuable football team in the world

Claretmatt4 wrote:You do realise that Mike Garlick didn't get onto the board of directors by winning a turnip growing contest...

Did he buy new shares or did he buy existing shares? I thought it was mainly the latter but I'm not 100%.

Dark Cloud wrote:Obviously a number there would be up sh*t creek if their owners suddenly pulled the plug for whatever reason. Probably (I'd suggest) City and Bournemouth would be the most exposed. The latter clearly because of a tiny ground and fan base which must generate practically no meaningful cash flow when set against their committed (PL) outgoings. Some (like us) have been much more savvy and would be fine. For all his faults and for all they moan about him, I suspect double billionaire Mike Ashley could dump Newcastle tomorrow and they wouldn't notice (well not in their finances) and that's not actually a bad position to be in.

Bournemouth have roughly been breaking even in the premier league. They'd suffer if the debts from their football league era were called in or if they went down but they could be self-sustaining in the Premier League. The TV money is high enough that for a good number of clubs (including ourselves) the gate revenue is pretty immaterial.

Newcastle have actually been supported by Ashley more than a lot of the stories suggest. They had a £110m wage bill in the Championship for instance which obviously had to be subsidised by him.

aggi wrote:............
Newcastle have actually been supported by Ashley more than a lot of the stories suggest. They had a £110m wage bill in the Championship for instance which obviously had to be subsidised by him.

Very true aggi, but don't tell their fans that ---they have their own agenda and refuse to accept that he has done anything good for the club!

Dark Cloud wrote:Obviously a number there would be up sh*t creek if their owners suddenly pulled the plug for whatever reason. Probably (I'd suggest) City and Bournemouth would be the most exposed. The latter clearly because of a tiny ground and fan base which must generate practically no meaningful cash flow when set against their committed (PL) outgoings. Some (like us) have been much more savvy and would be fine. For all his faults and for all they moan about him, I suspect double billionaire Mike Ashley could dump Newcastle tomorrow and they wouldn't notice (well not in their finances) and that's not actually a bad position to be in.

other than the £110m they owe him, currently interest free and not to be paid until he sells the club - it is actually one of the problems with his valuation/selling price - if he used profits to pay down the debt he would be more likely to get the valuation he wants - which is everything he has put into the club - roughly £350m including that loan - loan value drops selling price drops, but the fans would not wear it because of the £110m they owe him, currently interest free and not to be paid until he sells the club promise he made

aggi wrote:Did he buy new shares or did he buy existing shares? I thought it was mainly the latter but I'm not 100%.

The first major change, that largely went under the radar, was that Brendan Flood released the bulk of what was a major shareholding. Prior to that release Flood owned 24.9% of the total shareholding compared to Mike Garlick (25.2%) and John B (19.2%). At that point I understand that MG and JB purchased the majority of Flood's shares and the amended shareholding as of 2015 was MG (47.3%), JB (27.6%) and the five remaining directors (17.96%) between them.

The next major move was in 2017 when MG and JB converted their remaining loans in the Club into equity which resulted in MG now owning 49.24%, JB 28.2% and 16.36% across the other five directors. The remaining shares at just over 6% are distributed amongst just over 1,800 other BFC shareholders.

Not aware of any changes since so the Directors have 114,897 shares between them out of a total share capital of 122,478 comprising as follows :-
MG 60,308 shares 49.24%
JB 34,544 shares 28.20%
BK 4,032 shares
CH 4,003 shares
BN 4,010 shares
TC 4,000 shares
BF 4,000 shares.

So, Kilby, Holt, Nelson, Crabb & Flood 16.36% between them and again the balance of just over 6% distributed over 1,800 other shareholders.