Of course its a risk... Even buying Aston Villa or West Ham was
also a risk! Every business venture comes with a risk. Had West Ham
gone down last season... Their 100 million investment in the club
with their new players on high salaries would all very fast become
lesser value... Every investment comes with a risk... And in most
cases, the greater the risk, the greater the returns or the greater
the lost... Its a simple logic.
When is it a risk? I would say the first step when they decided to
buy it fully for $790m with bank loans which the Glazer family will
be solely responsible for. That was already about 2 and a half
years ago... There was no guarantee that the EPL was going which
direction... Had the deal turn bad, they will be the ones that the
banks will go looking for... But the "no big deal" comes from the
fact that it has been about 2 and a half years since... The Tv
deals that were mentioned back then have materialize therefore they
can expect a guaranteed yearly sum of $30m just for being in the
Premiership and probably $50m should they become champions.
Nevertheless, this still does not take into account the new long
term sponsorships deals struck with companies like AIG, Nike (Both
American companies) and other "smaller ones" since the Glazer
family came... And in the Champions League... They could also make
anything from minimum $10m to a sum of maybe $40 to $80m yearly...
depends on how far they progress in the competition... And apart
from all these... They still manage to have a full house 70+
thousand fans to every match... The gate collections probably come
up to around a few million every match.
The fact that the fundamentals of the club is strong, it is known
worldwide and has strong support around the globe that why i said
its not a big deal cos over a period of 5 to 10 yrs... they could
actually clear everything. The money that the club generates are
more than adequate to service their yearly loans.
From how i see it, the only difference the investment made by Roman
and Glazer family is... Malcolm Glazer took a greater risk. He
probably put half of his fortunes into it whereas in Roman's
case... even the whole of chelsea with all its signings... probably
cost $500m, would not really cost him much worry should he lose it
if he is worth $18b.
It sounds rather silly when you said "Glazer families hardly took
out a cent from their own pocket for those purchases made by the
club all those are self generating funds and budgets from past
years." I have to tell you that when you takeover a business or
company, you take over its past, its present and its future as
well. You also takeover its debts should it have any as in
Newcastle and Liverpool's case. You cannot say that what was
created in the past does not belong to them cos once they
officially takeover, everything from the light bulb in the stadium
to the grass on the field belongs to them already... and even the
club's bank account for they paid for it in their $790m deal.
About Tampa Bay... Of course it will go up. Prices in 2002 can't be
the same as in 1995 right... Even here in Singapore, can you tell
me that most tickets prices today are the same as in 1995? Even my
bus fare ticket is going up... 
But more importantly, The Tampa Bay Buccaneers team was a bunch of
losers... Tickets were hardly going easily because the team was
losing most of the time. It was only after Malcolm Glazer took over
that investments were made... New qualified football coaches were
brought in... Better quality players came as well which finally
enable them to their first Super Bowl victory... Malcolm Glazer
paid $192 million for it in 1995 and today its worth a few time
more.
And finally, Manchester and London isn't exactly our Jurong and
town areas compare... More like our Orchard and Bukit Timah kind of
comparison... For Manchester is a major city in it own right and
probably bigger then some other European cities. Anyway, i don't
think i broke any records... But i can write longer if you like...
