Originally Posted by
Taksin
This is your assertion and it is obviously wrong. There is no universe where you might admit you're wrong of course. I, unlike you, have spent a great deal of careful energy pointing out the errors of your basic formulation. I know you want to believe it is true, but at some point you'll have to admit (to yourself presumably) it just doesn't add up.
Firstly, there is some truth to the idea that it is like a real estate investment. If you are in a market that undergoes price inflation then all assets within that market do rise in value. In that case, being an absentee landlord is good enough to generate profits at the point of sale. (But it isn't merely a property - it is a business with employees, income and expenditure)
Is that what FSG have done? If you really believe that then you are miserly in your ability to give the devil its due. It's so obvious that FSG have overseen a period of modernisation, innovation, progress on and off the field. Even this ESL debacle was an attempt to drag their asset into a higher realm of excellence, whether we like it or not. There has been no absentee landlordism during their reign.
The new asset value is in part a reflection of the work they have done. It would be easy to measure that too - track the changing value of all the clubs during this FSG period, and observe the percentage differences. Your real estate argument would sink.
Bookmarks