(05-01-2022, 08:20 PM)Wightblue Wrote: [ -> ]Possibly Eisner doesn’t have the Midas touch after all !
His involvement, via Disney, in The Ducks and The Angels cost the Disney shareholders a bucket of dollars - a bucket capable of holding $200 million ($300-400 million at current rates), didn’t The Ducks go on to win The Stanley Cup a couple of years after his dead-hand was taken off the tiller.
Topps continues the theme, where will Pompey figure ?
Yes, you are correct about the Ducks winning Stanley after they'd been sold by the Eisners. Yet despite this, Michael Eisner still pushes that the Cup was won on their watch. I do think it is curious that they have pushed such a provably wrong claim.
(05-01-2022, 05:11 PM)Pedalo_menders Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like the Eisiners have had to take a haircut on this one. After losing their most profitable license (Major league Baseball), arguably because they had not invested in the company to move it forwards, they have sold if for about a quarter of what was touted last year.
They purchased it for 385M 15 years ago. So that profit works out at less than 2% per year. And that's without taking inflation into account, plus the sales fees & taxes associated with the transaction.
Oh dear. If they had stuck that money in the S&P 500 and sat on their arse this whole time, they would have made 8% per annum more!
Impressive. Hypothetically, Pedalo, what would be your fee for managing my pension?
Haha as you can tell, I'm a fan of index tracking funds! There are a lot of them and their historical performance is publicly published. Most people don't have an estate that requires a wealth manager to tell you what to do with your money. They can give good advice but do take a % to put it in a managed fund.
(06-01-2022, 05:24 PM)Pedalo_menders Wrote: [ -> ]Haha as you can tell, I'm a fan of index tracking funds! There are a lot of them and their historical performance is publicly published. Most people don't have an estate that requires a wealth manager to tell you what to do with your money. They can give good advice but do take a % to put it in a managed fund.
Last I checked, after 'fees', my pension is producing a meagre 2% which is the same as what they will give me from the total fund when I retire. Mugs game innit? It would be better to put it on a filly in the 4.30 at Chepstow.
(06-01-2022, 07:25 PM)Gerry Hatrick Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2022, 05:24 PM)Pedalo_menders Wrote: [ -> ]Haha as you can tell, I'm a fan of index tracking funds! There are a lot of them and their historical performance is publicly published. Most people don't have an estate that requires a wealth manager to tell you what to do with your money. They can give good advice but do take a % to put it in a managed fund.
Last I checked, after 'fees', my pension is producing a meagre 2% which is the same as what they will give me from the total fund when I retire. Mugs game innit? It would be better to put it on a filly in the 4.30 at Chepstow.
or ERNIE, a pretty good investment when interest rates are low!
Most admit I've just bunged a wedge into Ernie,doing feck all in my ISA.
I've had a modest little bit 'invested' in Ernie for a few years now, had absolutely feck all in return
Got to be in it to win it. However... used to get the odd twenty-five quid, but nothing for a long time now.
Maybe we need a financial planning thread in the general section? Could be a laff...
(06-01-2022, 03:21 PM)Pedalo_menders Wrote: [ -> ]Gaffer. If you own a house, I would theoretically be very happy to pay you what you bought it for +1.9% per year you owned it.
Who do you think would be getting the better deal?
Well I do own a house Pedalo and it’s not for sale thanks
.
A house (as opposed to a housing business) and a business are not remotely comparable and the analogy is totally meaningless.
The demand for houses is such that the price rises inexorably and the seller has the whip hand as regards price. Market conditions for businesses are much more volatile and you can only sell one for the price dictated by market conditions at the time. A house is usually a home too, so sentiment is often involved
Eisner may have needed funds for another project or seen the writing on the wall for the business and decided to get out while the going is good.
None of us can know that and it has no real relevance to his running of Pompey.
I know you lot all want some money spunking owner but Eisner definitely isn’t one of those and he said as much when he took over.
I like the club being run prudently, we have all seen what the alternative brings.
Be very careful what you wish for.
I agree Gaff but an extra £1m or so to get us out of this league would help. We know he gave Jackett enough money, however, Jackett could spot a player but never knew what to do with them once purchased. Marquis being a prime example.
Glad you're settled somewhere nice Gaff
My point was more to try and get you to consider that 1.9% return on an asset isn't very good, especially when inflation hovers between 1%-3%. Doesnt really matter what the asset is; a house, a sports card trading company, whatever you like really.
The theme is that both Topps and PFC are being run very conservatively, to the point where it is hampering growth. Last season was the weakest the league has ever been and was a real chance to get out. I think a lot of people are frustrated at the missed opportunities due to having owners right at the opposite end of the risk spectrum. We won't go under in a big bang like last time but you do wonder if its a slow death being starved each season.
Promotion brings an additional 6M just for showing up. Thats before you factor in increased crowd size, ticket prices, triple the fees for televised games etc.
This season is transitional and I'm happy to be patient in January because I can see the foundations of a decent team being put together. However, I do think peoples patience is wearing thin with L1 after 5 years (10 years without championship football).