The Suning Commerce Group

[.h.]

See, you are not going to have a 400 mil debt with new owner. That's a stability for me.

You understand that debt has effectively no impact on inter from a financial/economic perspective?

We need someone to invest a lokt more thna 100m (e.g. what Zhang did) to not nickle and dime on transfers, so it would literally take a sugar daddy

 

[Dave54]

You understand that debt has effectively no impact on inter from a financial/economic perspective?

We need someone to invest a lokt more thna 100m (e.g. what Zhang did) to not nickle and dime on transfers, so it would literally take a sugar daddy

No impact, but he fucking lost the team I would rather have an owner with less of a baggage then Zhangs.

 

[Dave54]

BREAKING: Oaktree sent Suning a letter of formal notice to comply THIS MORNING. This is a technical step and a prerequisite in the process to enforce the pledge of Suning’s shares.

 

[.h.]

Sure, that's fine, but thats different to what we were discussing.

You wanted a "normal owner", not "a sugar daddy", but then you want someone better than Zhang. Reality is, Zhang is a sugar daddy - he throws a lot of cash every year into the club, which means we dont need to sell players. I'd say a normal owner is someone who isnt investing heavily in the club every season - so if that happened at Inter, we'd be selling even more ever summer for plusvalenza to cover losses, rather than d2e

I think most people on this forum think that Inter is a club almost in the black, and a sugar daddy will splash the cash that makes us have happy fun times.

In reality, we're a club heavily in the red, a sugar daddy keeps us from going bankrupt, and we get a little bit of happy fun times


What everyone is really asking for, which they dont realise, is that they want a *massive* sugar daddy. I'd love to know what capital injections are per year for big clubs, but I bet we're probably in the top 5 or 10 across football in terms of average capital injections in the last 5 years. Bear in mind all of our COVID losses were through capital injections, etc. Over 4 year basis you're probably looking at an average of 100m a season of capital injections - off hand Juve took a 200m capital injection recently, and Man Utd took a 200m capital injection (one off) as part of their recent minority sale

 

[Dave54]

Sure, that's fine, but thats different to what we were discussing.

You wanted a "normal owner", not "a sugar daddy", but then you want someone better than Zhang. Reality is, Zhang is a sugar daddy - he throws a lot of cash every year into the club, which means we dont need to sell players. I'd say a normal owner is someone who isnt investing heavily in the club every season - so if that happened at Inter, we'd be selling even more ever summer for plusvalenza to cover losses, rather than d2e

I think I mentioned already. Normal owner with no debt baggage. And I believe Saudis will buy the team if we speak about so called sugar daddy.

 

[.h.]

I think I mentioned already. Normal owner with no debt baggage. And I believe Saudis will buy the team if we speak about so called sugar daddy.

Okay, so you DO want a sugar daddy?

I'll say it again. the 'debt baggage' makes very little impact on Inter. This is fundamentally a squad where our costs (excluding financing/etc) outstrip our income. And that difference has to be made up for by sugar daddy.

 

[CafeCordoba]

Yeah, people have incredible difficulties distinguishing the owner's financial situation and the financial situation of the club (which in this case is an asset of the owner). Owner's financial situation is bad given they had to take a loan to keep the asset operating somewhat normally. Asset itself required money (from the said) loan to operate "normally".

However we're getting better each season. As repeated multiple times in this thread. Last season result was -85m. This season it will be less, something between -25-50m.

When the club can run on its own without money from its owner (and we are getting there step by step), it has nice freedom as it's not depending on who's the owner anymore. Then we don't NEED a sugar daddy type, who pours in money to keep the operation going on.

 

[ADRossi]

Yeah, people have incredible difficulties distinguishing the owner's financial situation and the financial situation of the club (which in this case is an asset of the owner). Owner's financial situation is bad given they had to take a loan to keep the asset operating somewhat normally. However the asset itself required money (from the said) loan to operate "normally".

However we're getting better each season. As repeated multiple times in this thread. Last season result was -85m. This season it will be less, something between -25-50m.

When the club can run on its own without money from its owner (and we are getting there step by step), it has nice freedom as it's not depending on who's the owner anymore. Then we don't NEED a sugar daddy type, who pours in money to keep the operation going on.

I sort of disagree. I don't see how we're going to ever make meaningful profits without a stadium. Our improving net income figures are inflated by 1) a miracle run in the UCL and 2) fantastic plusvalenza on our players. We only have 2-3 players by my count who we're amortizing that are a net negative on the team (Sensi, Correa).

Until someone fixes the commercial revenue situation we'll just be outrunning the speeding train. Plusvalenza won't work forever.

 

[Campione]

wrong. even zhangs currently sugar daddy 50-100m a year for inter. thats more thsan a normal owner

let me really stress this point- our financial problems are because our squad cost more than we make. Ownership issues are noise. Everyone seems to focus on the noise, without realising this team fundamentally costs more than it makes.

Unfortunately Serie A nowadays is not that attractive league which means less money from sponsorship deals and TV rights. Add also the fact that most of the teams do not own the stadiums they are playing on - again less money for the clubs.

 

[Dave54]

Okay, so you DO want a sugar daddy?

I'll say it again. the 'debt baggage' makes very little impact on Inter. This is fundamentally a squad where our costs (excluding financing/etc) outstrip our income. And that difference has to be made up for by sugar daddy.

I want an owner that would sign Zirkzee or Gudmunson without selling our stars. Not Mbappe or PSG type transfers, normal owner. Sugar daddy by definition is a limitless spending. I don't want that.

 

[.h.]

I sort of disagree. I don't see how we're going to ever make meaningful profits without a stadium. Our improving net income figures are inflated by 1) a miracle run in the UCL and 2) fantastic plusvalenza on our players.

Until someone fixes the commercial revenue situation we'll just be outrunning the speeding train. Plusvalenza won't work forever.

In reality, getting to profitability will come from some cutting of costs, and increasing prize money. This is built as a team that should be CL QF every year, with the associated prize money, and winning the league. If we get into a good cadence of that, we'll then start to increase commercial and sponsorship revenues too.

I want an owner that would sign Zirkzee or Gudmunson without selling our stars. Not Mbappe or PSG type transfers, normal owner. Sugar daddy by definition is a limitless spending. I don't want that.

Okay, so you're looking for an owner to throw in maybe 200+mil a year into the club, rather than 100mil a year?

Got it.

Unfortunately Serie A nowadays is not that attractive league which means less money from sponsorship deals and TV rights. Add also the fact that most of the teams do not own the stadiums they are playing on - again less money for the clubs.

Preacing to the choir - I agree 100%, but as fans we need to be aware of the circumstances we are in. The simple fact of the matter is that we have a very generous owner already, and when people complain about them, they basically complain '100m a season isnt enough, we want more free money'


If we were a profit-neutral club that didnt rely on any capital injections, then it'd be great to get the injections to propel us to the next level of competition.

Instead, we're like a brain-dead patient on life support, the machines keep us alive let alone enjoying life

 

[Dave54]

I have no idea, why you support Zhang. Fucking lost the team for nothing.

 

[Nero Indigo]

I don’t know what you guys are arguing about. There is no normal owner of a big club. They’re either stupid rich or really crazy enough to buy the club in the first place. There’s absolutely nothing normal about it

 

[CafeCordoba]

I sort of disagree. I don't see how we're going to ever make meaningful profits without a stadium. Our improving net income figures are inflated by 1) a miracle run in the UCL and 2) fantastic plusvalenza on our players. We only have 2-3 players by my count who we're amortizing that are a net negative on the team (Sensi, Correa).

Until someone fixes the commercial revenue situation we'll just be outrunning the speeding train. Plusvalenza won't work forever.

And who's saying we can't fix our commercial revenue situation? Who's saying we need to make meaningful profits? Who's saying nothing will happen with the stadium project?

Plusvalenza can work for us as long as we have smart management who knows their shit. Hitting breakeven is a big step, and like I said, we're getting there. You are thinking two steps ahead, we need to first think the break even, the situation where owner do not need to provide financial assistance to the club.

---

Another thing. The bond INTER has, which is the one taken in 2022 (to refinance the previous bond), worth 415m. Now the capital is bit less than 400m AFAIK (so we've paid back small junk of it). That's due in 2027, but I'm told when Oaktree sells Inter, that bond needs to be repaid. Don't know who's gonna do that, but if it's not the club (ie. we don't sell players worth 400m to finance the payment), it's going to be good for Inter since that bond requires Inter to pay around 30m interest payments every year.

 

[Dave54]

I don’t know what you guys are arguing about. There is no normal owner of a big club. They’re either stupid rich or really crazy enough to buy the club in the first place. There’s absolutely nothing normal about it

I'm not arguing. Moderation is my approach.

 

[.h.]

I have no idea, why you support Zhang. Fucking lost the team for nothing.

Its not about supporting Zhang. Its about clearing up some of the really daft misconceptions people have on here.

The number of people who thought 'Oaktree loan interest is on Inter's books' probably approaches 90%.
The number of people who think 'sugar daddy will solve our problems' is probably >50%.
The number of people who are desperate for an owner to 'invest' in this club is probably >75%, not realising we already have one who has invested probably 300-400million euros in the last few years

Some things are so easily, and objectively, disproven just by spending a *LITTLE* bit of time researching some facts.


The simple fact is that over the last 4 seasons, probably (I havent checked the number, this is just gut feeling) about 25% of our losses are from 'ownership-related costs' e.g. the bonds, loan interests, etc. The rest of it is because of the cost of our fucking team

 

[ADRossi]

And who's saying we can't fix our commercial revenue situation? Who's saying we need to make meaningful profits? Who's saying nothing will happen with the stadium project?

Plusvalenza can work for us as long as we have smart management who knows their shit. Hitting breakeven is a big step, and like I said, we're getting there. You are thinking two steps ahead, we need to first think the break even, the situation where owner do not need to provide financial assistance to the club.

---

Another thing. The bond INTER has, which is the one taken in 2022 (to refinance the previous bond), worth 415m. Now the capital is bit less than 400m AFAIK (so we've paid back small junk of it). That's due in 2027, but I'm told when Oaktree sells Inter, that bond needs to be repaid. Don't know who's gonna do that, but if it's not the club (ie. we don't sell players worth 400m to finance the payment), it's going to be good for Inter since that bond requires Inter to pay around 30m interest payments every year.

Any owner short of a sugar daddy is going to demand we make meaningful profits.

 

[CafeCordoba]

I have no idea, why you support Zhang. Fucking lost the team for nothing.

You have no idea what you are even talking about.

We do not care about Zhang and him losing the team for nothing. We care about Inter and we acknowledge that Zhangs have been providing for Inter for basically each year they've been owners of Inter. Hundreds of millions in total.

 

[Dave54]

Let's close this chapter on Zhang and see who the new owner is. We'll go from there.

 

[.h.]

You have no idea what you are even talking about.

We do not care about Zhang and him losing the team for nothing. We care about Inter and we acknowledge that Zhangs have been providing for Inter for basically each year they've been owners of Inter. Hundreds of millions in total.

this is the thing. I think Zhangs have been pretty damn good for the club, in aggregate, and are very misunderstood (largely by ignorant people who don't really have a clue), BUT I dont really give a fuck. I support the club, not the owners of the club. I'm over Zhangs, we'll soon have a new owner, and it'll be interesting to provide the same analysis and insight on whoever they are.