where's it all go?

South Stand, Eastlands - not sure it goes anywhere as it is notional value. I don't really get what this list is driving at as I think it is what it values our team at - ie just shy of £10m per player or it could be the value of the whole palying staff including the managers, coaches, reserves, junior teams etc. Maybe someone could explain better than this article!

Yawn...:)
Heard it all before.
And we still can't buy any decent players...

On lavish parties for the board and sponsors, expensive trips to Dubai and extortionate director expense claims, I would gather!

My mistake. Just been on the Forbes site and it is the valuation of the entire club - so apologies for misinterpreting the article.

This is the full list: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/34/biz_07soccer_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Rank.html but that is for 2005.

There is also one for 2006 which curerntly puts us at 14th so far: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/34/Rank_1.html.

Make of it what you will.

I'll tell you where it goes, it goes straight into the players' pockets, which is the main reason why this annual table of the world's most valuable clubs is next to meaningless.

Bertie - I thought the accounts showed our wage bill to be £35m or so? Not all of it is going into the players pockets then is it?

Wow ! I'm about to agree with Bertie !

These surveys show that the club does has good revenue coming in and has wealth floating around the place. But we also have one of the highest wage bills in the country. Because we are not receiving extra prize money all our revenue is going on the wage bill.

This is why I don't understand the signings of Dabo and Hamann. Yes they were free, but look at their wages. And how can we be offering Distin 40k per week when we are also wanting to sign new deals with the likes of Richards, Ireland and Onuha. It just doesn't add up, quite literally :-)

Cut price tickets are a start. Now how about a campaign to get the price of weak beer, nasty food, match programmes etc reduced. People are staying away from matches 'cos they come away with the feeling they're being fleeced. This fact is slightly more palatable when your team's doing well but when they aren't it's like flushing money down the toilet. <P> My lawnmower packed up today and now i've got the dilemma of whether to go to B&Q or go and watch City next Friday... <P>
..And B&Q's edging it at the moment.

OMG - how are people asking where all this money has gone? Its a valuation - ie if all assets were sold the club would have £100 and odd million pounds. It is not a list informing people of the amount of money in each and every clubs coffers. So how the hell can "plebians" come on here asking where all the money has gone!

Anyone ever heard of the saying "paper millionaire"?????

One thing that does surprise me is the fact we are worth so much without actually owning a stadium!!

DJ, you're agreeing with me because I am right, and you have answered Hinchcliffe's rather trite question just about perfectly. I think it was Alan Sugar who observed when he was chairman at Spurs that football clubs' revenue was like prune juice (think about it). He was right when he made it, and time continues to prove him right. And, as I have said many times before on this forum, the fact that we don't own the ground is about as meaningless as Forbes magazine's table of the world's most wealthiest clubs.

Weasel - don't be so condescending. Not everyone is a trained accountant who comes on here.

BTW, if you actually go on the links to Forbes I posted it does state that stadium valuation is taken into consideration. Pleb.

This list presumably also takes account of the crippling debt that everyone always talks about which makes it strange that we're above lots of premier league clubs without such publicised debts, and arguably better playing squads. So something doesn't add up!

There are some condescending smart alecs on these pages.. Bertie blue nose being another. Get off your high horses lads it's becoming very boring

Don't want to incur the wrath of Hinchy, but i don't get this either (better check the link out then eh?). The current share price values the club at around the 25 million mark i think, and the ground, the club shop, Platt Lane and Carrington don't belong to us either. That our players could be worth that much must be a sick-joke. Schalke for instance borrowed heavily to rebuild their stadium, but i believe they'll own it in around 10 yrs. Bayern have a similar deal. We'll never own anything more than the lease on the CoMS. In reality then, these figures are as much use as a chocolate fireguard in football terms.

Maybe i was a little forceful in my opinion Hinchy and i would like to apologise to all that offended (i am in foul mood today due to drinking exploits last night). I am not a trained accountant but valuations and revenue are completely different things. Revenue is taken into account on the Deloitte list (i think) whereas this list takes into account a clubs valuation.

As for the stadium part, i will refer to the website for a better understanding of the situation. If it does take into account stadiums it IMO most certainly can't take into account ours - since we don't actually own it do we? How can something you don't own have a value to you. Its like saying Michael Owen has a valuation to City despite the fact he is owned by Newcastle!

Blau, you are right it must be a sick joke about the players value. If we had a valuation of £106M then surely our share prices would be worth 4 times what they are now.

I always thought a companies valuation was determined by the market!

Bertie - as with Weasel , please don't be so condescending. As per the accounts, wages represented 50% of operating costs. The wage bill of £34.3m also fell from the previous year (£37.6m). So I say again, not ALL of it is going into the players pockets.

You really cannot take anyone disagreeing with you can you? I wouldn't mind, but a lot of the time I agree with your opinion, but not on this.

As I have posted on the United site valuabliity has a strange interpretation when it comes to soccer clubs .If they were Stock Exchange listings United would not be "most valuable" thay would be mid table. Their new owners have mortgaged their future which is not guaranteed particularly after Ferguson.

City have done well to reach 17th given the activities of the last 5 years. There is little if any difference between ownership and a 250 year lease. Ask any vendor in London.That deal with the City Coucil, the Academmy, City in the Community and the promise of new investment means that 17th is probably the lowest Forbes position for quite some time if not ever.

Blau - you'll get no fight with me mate. These tables are drawn up based on the things we constantly argue about on here - revenue, debt etc. I just feel it gives us an opportunity to see how we are fairing financially against other clubs like Celtic, Rangers, Everton, Villa etc. I find it interesting that given the basis for these tables then, we are very quick to dismiss them as meaningless. I am not bothered where we are in that list as long as we are performing financially. What I feel it shows us (coupled with the accounts from the club) is, as someone has already said, something does not add up. I would also like to stress, I could be being extremely naive as I am not an accountant. Perhaps someone on here who has that behind them could give us a view? As long as it is not BBN as he has a habit of jumping all over anything remotely critical of the club rather than engaging in proper debate.

This is a financial valuation exercise and however they have arrived at it, it can only be an estimate. Technically (or in theory) the true value of any business is the net present value of the cash flows associated with that business discounted at its weighted average cost of capital.

However, the point is that City still viewed as a big club and one that has potential that they continue to fail to fully realise. That's why we need a new board and manager; and that's why the club really ought to be able to find someone suitable to buy them and be able to attract a far better manager than Stuart Pearce.

Weasel - no problem; we've all been there! I retract my remarks to your goodself too.

I think what it may be doing is taking the stadium into account due the 250 year lease (ie we're in there longer than it's estimated "shelf life" ergo it's as good as ours).

Weasel (not McKay),
You clearly are not an accountant otherwise you would understand why and how the CoMS is an asset of value to MCFC.

Wrong BBN AGAIN! Owning your ground does count for something. An asset such as a ground adds value to a club. You can borrow against your assets. These 2 points alone suggest why it is beneficial to own your ground.

As a comparable it is better to own you home rather than rent. Rent is dead money, owning the property is beneficial because you have security and you can borrow against it to get the conservatory or extension you always wanted. Having been called condescending today I don't want to sound patronising by the way - just trying to explain something to you.

These valuations are simply based on the market value on the stock exchange (about 20m pounds) plus the total debt in the accounts (95m pounds). Converted into dollars this gives 208m. The real question is how much of that valuation is made up of debt and in our case it is 83%. Only the Rags (84%) and Borussia Dortmund (126%) have a higher ratio. The next lowest is only 53%.

So in simple terms the value of the club is far less than the debt we owe. Seems to be the equivalent of having a house worth 20k with a mortgage of 95k. so don't get too excited guys.