The Finances of Football

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Specific references to off-the-field stuff here. Nasty, Brutish and Short, Ismael Klata, Chris, anyone else I've missed- get into as much nitty-gritty as you like on our own dedicated football financing discussion thread.

i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Sunday, 26 September 2010 22:37 (eleven years ago) link

And one of the comments was interesting too imo-

mike_christie

"Good article! What isn't acknowledged often enough is that there are, to my reckoning, four types of football debt.

First of all there is the pre-Abramovich Chelsea/Leeds type of debt coming from years of spending more than income in a doomed attempt to compete with the big dogs.

Second is the hidden 'sugar daddy' debt, which (no matter what City or Chelsea fans tell you) IS damaging foorball by inflating prices and making it impossible for all but the biggest clubs to compete and stay within their means.

Third is the enforced debt brought on by leveraged buy-outs. Manchester United and Liverpool were, for many years, well-run, debt free clubs. United in particular had a self-supporting business second to none in football, both clubs are saddled with hundreds of millions of debt with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Finally, there is the 'speculate to accumulate' investment debt taken on by Arsenal (and most likely other clubs who have built a new stadium in recent years) to build a new state of the art stadium that will last for decades.

A big worry of mine is that the likes of Platini rumble on about debt without differentiating between different types. Clubs like Chelsea and City are using their massive financial injections to improve their competitiveness, whereas Liverpool and Manchester United are hampered on the pitch by their debts which are leveraged against the clubs because they are in good financial health and able to meet the payments, not because they are mis-managed like Ridsdale era Leeds."

i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Sunday, 26 September 2010 22:39 (eleven years ago) link

Good work. I tend to the view that that there's only one kind of debt - money you owe to someone else - and what counts is what you do with it. But type (2) is the outlier here, where you're getting money for cheap from essentially a sap lender who can't screw you by demanding it back because of his conflict of interests*.

Much as I admire what Arsenal have done, there are circumstances where their plan could've gone wrong too - huge construction overruns, a different kind of recession where the consumer got walloped and stopped going to matches, a proper property crash. Debt is risky, but it's a matter of managing that risk and they've done a superb job. It's hard to see circumstances that would've left them worse off than every other club.

You could equally argue that there are circumstances where types (1) and (3) would've worked out alright - CL football every year for Leeds, borrowing remaining insanely cheap for another decade - but those going wrong were hardly unforeseeable. They managed their risk differently from Arsenal and got caught out.

* what does 'turning debt into equity' even mean? If Abramovich already owned 100% of the club, how can he have got any more equity out of the swap? aiui equity is just what's left when liabilities are taken away from assets, so the only way it makes sense if he's basically written off the loan

Ismael Klata, Monday, 27 September 2010 08:57 (eleven years ago) link

Rangers might be an example of type (2) gone wrong, actually - I have a vague understanding that Murray's other financial woes have turned him from sap lender into predatory shark, so he needs to get his cash from Rangers to protect his real businesses. Not such a big issue if you own lakes of oil or Siberia, I imagine.

Ismael Klata, Monday, 27 September 2010 09:20 (eleven years ago) link

Does he own 100% of Chelsea? Even in those cases you can theoretically issue more shares and either buy them yourself or sell them.

It means Chelsea don't actually owe any money to Abramovich any more, that debt has been funnelled back into the club. Nothing stopping him pulling that money out if he doesn't fancy it and leaving them high and dry, mind, but it's not as precarious as it was.

Think Sheikh Mansour pulled the same debt-for-equity trick if I'm not mistaken? It's a way of getting round forthcoming FIFA regulations.

Matt DC, Monday, 27 September 2010 09:26 (eleven years ago) link

I don't know if he does, I'd just assumed so.

Issuing more shares doesn't increase equity in sense of the value of the business, it would just decrease the value of the existing shares proportionately. Equity would be increased by writing off the debt (thereby making the business £Xm more valuable because of money it doesn't owe) but then you can only realise it when you sell. So I suspect he must own it 100% because writing off the loan is essentially a gift to Chelsea and it's hard to imagine him doing that if he ultimately isn't 100% the beneficiary. Whatever else he may be, he's shrewd.

Ismael Klata, Monday, 27 September 2010 09:32 (eleven years ago) link

It's probably impossible for type (1) to work, thinking about it. The spending would have to be of a nature to lift the club permanently up a rung and I don't think you can do that by buying better players. It might be masked by the league getting richer as a whole - but that doesn't lift you a rung, it lifts the whole ladder and you have to spend even more to stay ahead of the pack. In any case, eventually the players get old or tired or have a bad day and incomes drop and the gap in spending becomes an unbridgeable chasm.

There's maybe not a great deal of difference between types (1) and (4) looking at it that way - they're both an attempt to expand the business, it's just that (4) is a sensible way to do it, while (1) is insane.

Ismael Klata, Monday, 27 September 2010 09:33 (eleven years ago) link

Type (3) I don't understand at all. I need to look these things up. I'd never've dreamed it up as a type of debt if it hadn't actually happened.

It seems to be nothing more than a case of identifying a business which has enough spare capacity that it can afford to throw off spare cash at the top - some goes to pay borrowings, the rest goes to the guy who's spotted the scheme in the first place and taken on the risk. On that view, United deserve to be in trouble more than Liverpool do. You can run a business conservatively if it's a private business because it's yours and you can do what you like - you can't really blame the Moores for cashing in when they got an offer too good to be true.

But to run a plc like that seems to me like pure complacency. The club was up for sale every day since it was first listed, it was only a matter of time before someone identified the opportunity to insert themselves and take a slice. The board must've been trying to take the advantages of being listed without ever being hard-nosed enough to protect their position.

Ismael Klata, Monday, 27 September 2010 09:41 (eleven years ago) link

1 also accounts for teams like Fulham going through the divisions imo. That worked out p well but then you also get the Derbys and Hulls.

a hoy hoy, Monday, 27 September 2010 09:46 (eleven years ago) link

oh i guess the fulham that went through the divisions are a mix of 1 & 2.

a hoy hoy, Monday, 27 September 2010 09:47 (eleven years ago) link

On that view, United deserve to be in trouble more than Liverpool do.

would argue that they are tbf, just that liverpool's deadlines are closer.

a hoy hoy, Monday, 27 September 2010 09:48 (eleven years ago) link

Seriously? Then I haven't got to grips with the scale of United's problems at all.

Ismael Klata, Monday, 27 September 2010 09:50 (eleven years ago) link

I'd say Rangers were a mixture of (1) and (2), btw. They started flinging money around like there was no tomorrow, assuming some magical reward would come from being the biggest fish in the tiny wee pond of Scottish football, and then started shuffling it around various arms of Murray International Holdings which control different parts of Rangers, so that basically David Murray owes money to himself (which he then owes to the bank).

There's a decent article about it here:
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.com/murray-international-holdings/

ailsa, Monday, 27 September 2010 09:57 (eleven years ago) link

Dunno why Rangers would have to do that considering they were already the big dawg?

a hoy hoy, Monday, 27 September 2010 09:59 (eleven years ago) link

I'm presuming 750m >>> 250m no? Liverpool can make that up by say selling their whole squad - Utd can't. Also 250m debt + 250m stadium cost + 100m for new players >>> still cheaper to buy than Utd.

a hoy hoy, Monday, 27 September 2010 10:01 (eleven years ago) link

* what does 'turning debt into equity' even mean? If Abramovich already owned 100% of the club, how can he have got any more equity out of the swap? aiui equity is just what's left when liabilities are taken away from assets, so the only way it makes sense if he's basically written off the loan

Yeah, it means that if I own all 100 shares in Calumerio FC Limited, but am owed forty billion pounds, I can convert the debt into equity - receive new shares in Calumerio FC Limited that are worth a total of 40 billion pounds, which means that Calumerio FC Limited now have (a) exactly the same ownership stucture (still owned 100% by dessicated plutocrat calumerio) but (b) no longer have the debt.

But if the creditor company (or individual) doesn't own 100% of the shares of Calumerio FC Limited, then it gets a bit more complicated.

calumerio, Monday, 27 September 2010 10:04 (eleven years ago) link

Dunno why Rangers would have to do that considering they were already the big dawg?

Assuming this isn't a "lol Celtic" attempt to get a rise out of me, Scottish football in the 80s saw Aberdeen and Dundee United get to European finals, and the title ending up in one side of Glasgow or the other was in no way the foregone conclusion it is now.

ailsa, Monday, 27 September 2010 10:27 (eleven years ago) link

ok but at some point the past 20 years he could have thought - hmm, maybe we have spent enough and/or use it 'sensibly'

a hoy hoy, Monday, 27 September 2010 10:32 (eleven years ago) link

and no, it wasn't to get a rise. y'all the barca to their real - one couldn't work without the other anymore.

a hoy hoy, Monday, 27 September 2010 10:33 (eleven years ago) link

a hoy hoy, yes, you would think. It's just been teetering about precariously for some time now, and it's only over the last few years when things have gone badly wrong (recession hitting MIH hard, Rangers failing to qualify for the Champions League) that they've had to rein it in (see no new players for two whole years while getting rid of everything that moves and isn't Kenny Miller).

He bought over an ascendant Rangers (if history had panned out in an alternate universe, this could have been happening to Ayr United!) and flung money at them to make them enormous. It sort of worked for a bit, but bubbles have a habit of bursting.

He has been trying to get out, but it's not working. Mysterious buyers keep appearing then disappearing (Murray has claimed that potential buyers' visions for what they want to do with Rangers when they buy it off him doesn't square with his therefore Not For Sale signs go up even with offers apparently on the table).

ailsa, Monday, 27 September 2010 10:45 (eleven years ago) link

It's also because throughout the nineties it wasn't inevitable that we were going to end up with the structure we've got now. It's only in retrospect that it looks laughable - the incredible wealth of the Premiership, the dominance in the CL of the big leagues, gargantuan wages, etc all might've panned out differently. Remember that Red Star, Ajax, Steaua, Benfica, Marseille were big, big fish in one way or another over the period. In that context, a side from Glasgow spending big just looked ambitious, rather than insane.

(have an article in gestation about this right now btw, this stuff is manna for me)

Ismael Klata, Monday, 27 September 2010 11:06 (eleven years ago) link

would read this article

caek, Monday, 27 September 2010 11:08 (eleven years ago) link

^^^^^^

a hoy hoy, Monday, 27 September 2010 11:13 (eleven years ago) link

Me too. Get writing!

ailsa, Monday, 27 September 2010 11:14 (eleven years ago) link

if you have any questions about sheffield united finances then feel free to post them to ☰☰☭☰☰ SHEFFIELD UNITED ☰☰☭☰☰ THE OFFICIAL THREAD ☰☰☭☰☰

caek, Monday, 27 September 2010 11:15 (eleven years ago) link

new board not as yet proving a boon to productivity tbh

Ismael Klata, Monday, 27 September 2010 11:19 (eleven years ago) link

I've done work experience and some temp work at a football club. I did a degree in International Business, and was all geared up for pursuing a career in the football industry. After recent events at Liverpool and a conversation with someone in the know, I no longer want anything to do with football. I'll stick to being a fan.

The referee was perfect (Chris), Monday, 27 September 2010 11:36 (eleven years ago) link

Crikey. Without saying too much, what in particular puts you off?

Ismael Klata, Monday, 27 September 2010 11:49 (eleven years ago) link

Oh nothing sinister, I've not been told anything groundbreaking or anything. The people I've worked with were amazing. I just came to the conclusion that I don't think I want to get that close after all.

The referee was perfect (Chris), Monday, 27 September 2010 12:27 (eleven years ago) link

the same thing happened to me, but with socks instead of football

i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Monday, 27 September 2010 21:55 (eleven years ago) link

also thks for running with thread, hope to be able to contribute more to it than sad sock stories (lol ilx)

i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Monday, 27 September 2010 21:57 (eleven years ago) link

Multiple xp to Ismael (re: 'type 3 debt'):

The thing is if you load ALL the debt onto the club then you have ZERO personal exposure, so it's a risk-free venture. It doesn't matter if the business "has enough spare capacity that it can afford to throw off spare cash at the top" - maybe it can't. Maybe it can't meet the interest payments. But you still lose nothing, because you've put nothing in. The club can go bust, but you're not hurt, you just shrug and say "Maybe next time it'll work out better" then move onto the next club.

Running the Gantelope (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Monday, 27 September 2010 22:04 (eleven years ago) link

essentially the club income is paying off your own personal debt, like, say, yr typical small business startup loan?

i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Monday, 27 September 2010 22:06 (eleven years ago) link

It's more like 'here's a business that can afford a parasite, come and join me in the endeavour'. I'd be surprised it's legal if it didn't actually happen, seeing as the whole scheme is essentially irrelevant to the business and interests of the company. I can only assume the principle is that you can do what you like with it once it's yours, but it's just surprising that you can act that way in capacity as an office-holder of it.

I can't think of a business better-suited to harbouring such a parasite than Man Utd btw - generating huge amounts of cash in a conservative business, with a massively-protected competitive position, against a background of industry-wide growth.

Ismael Klata, Tuesday, 28 September 2010 06:57 (eleven years ago) link

Schumpeterian Creative Destruction going on imo, these yanks are tearing up the old game and bringing something new and fresh to the market.

i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Tuesday, 28 September 2010 09:11 (eleven years ago) link

http://blog.emiratesstadium.info/archives/8072 a quick and easy guide to the figures arsenal released. its quite different to the situations of our immediate rivals.

a hoy hoy, Tuesday, 28 September 2010 12:52 (eleven years ago) link

This book's released on 9th November. Looks like it'll be a good'un.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0955925339

Synopsis

As billionaire ‘super-benefactors’ fight for the right to own English football clubs, Pay As You Play takes a detailed look at the correlation between success and transfer spending.

Tactics, motivation, fitness and luck play a part; but is an expensive squad increasingly essential for success?

Which managers have excelled in the transfer market? And who blew their budgets on bad buys? Which clubs punched above their financial weight, and which ones punched well below theirs? What players proved to be great value for their price tag, and who ended up as a shocking waste of money?

By converting all Premier League transfer fees since 1992 to current-day prices – using our specially devised Transfer Price Index (TPI) system to give precise ‘football inflation’ figures – teams could be accurately assessed against one another, whether from 1993 or 2010. How would the prices paid for Dean Saunders, Roy Keane or Frank Lampard compare with Thierry Henry, Wayne Rooney or Robinho?

All 43 clubs to have played in the Premier League up to May 2010 are analysed, with noted writers and journalists – including Jonathan Wilson, Gabriele Marcotti and Oliver Kay – also providing their views on the club they support or report on.

All in all, it makes for an entertaining and revealing read on the world’s most popular game, and its most appealing league.

The referee was perfect (Chris), Saturday, 2 October 2010 11:51 (eleven years ago) link

yes!

i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Saturday, 2 October 2010 12:02 (eleven years ago) link

ooooh would read. and then act even more smug.

a hoy hoy, Saturday, 2 October 2010 15:51 (eleven years ago) link

^ cosign

Ismael Klata, Saturday, 2 October 2010 16:14 (eleven years ago) link

United still trying to flog season tickets to all and sundry, now on a pro rata basis two months into the season:
Dear Supporter

The 2010/11 season is well and truly underway and the Theatre of Dreams has already seen some great football with plenty of goals and moments to remember. We have just released some fantastic seats in the South Stand at pro-rata pricesand we also have limited numbers of seats available in alternative areas within the stadium. Don't miss this opportunity to secure your own seat for the remainder of the season and support the Reds in their campaign to reclaim the Barclays Premier League.

All Season Tickets sold over the next 2 weeks will be effective from (and including) our home game vs.Tottenham Hotspur on Saturday 30 October. Please see below for a list of areas where we have seats available, complete with re-calculated prices. Don't forget that we have Season Tickets available for juniors in North Stand tier 3 for just £150.

New pro-rata (adult) prices as follows:

North Stand Tier 3 - £495.00 (Over 65s - £247.50) (Juniors - £150.00)
East Stand Tier 2 - £540.00 (Over 65s - £270)
North East / North West Quad T1 - £555.00 (Over 65s - £277.50)
North East / North West Quad T2 - £615.00 (Over 65s - £300)
South Stand Lower - £645.00 (Over 65s - £300)
North / South Wings - £690.00 (Over 65s - £300)
North/ South Stands Centre - £735.00 (Over 65s - £300)

If you're interested in purchasing a Season Ticket, call 0161 868 8000(Option 1)from 8am to 8pm weekdays, or 9am to 5pm on Saturdays and Sundays.

This won't stop know-nothing journalists still referring to the fabled 'waiting list' tens of thousands long.

Meanwhile they've decided to close two sections of the ground for the Carling Cup match against Wolves due to low ticket sales.

Running the Gantelope (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Tuesday, 5 October 2010 21:25 (eleven years ago) link

That sounds worryingly like Celtic who have been half-season tickets and five-game packages and the like for a couple of years now, and closed the top tier of all stands for the recent cup game against SPL opposition (OK, only Caley Thistle, but the game was only £10 for season ticket holders, and was still pretty empty).

The Celtic website has been showing photos taken from various parts of the season and going "Seat of the Day! This could be your view!"

ailsa, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 21:49 (eleven years ago) link

Various parts of the season?

Running the Gantelope (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Tuesday, 5 October 2010 21:54 (eleven years ago) link

stadium. it's late.

ailsa, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 22:07 (eleven years ago) link

Why are attendances at United down? Beyond just Ronaldo being gone? I can see that financially things may not be rosy but the on-field product is still really pretty good?

Gravel Puzzleworth, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 22:13 (eleven years ago) link

Ailsa, just out of interest:
1) Do Celtic fill the ground for most/all home league games?
2) What proportion of the crowd are season ticket holders?

Running the Gantelope (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Tuesday, 5 October 2010 22:14 (eleven years ago) link

Is it? 10 years ago they were undoubtably watching the best team in the world, now they are watching Owen and Macheda up front not being able to break down a defence with Titus Bramble in it.

xpost

a hoy hoy, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 22:14 (eleven years ago) link

Like no offense to the Utd fans here but we can establish many are glory hunters, right? And the only way for Utd is seemingly down for the near future. That and protesting by not spending money to pay off the debts of people they don't want owning the club.

a hoy hoy, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 22:16 (eleven years ago) link

Also if you gave up yr season ticket its not like you are going to be struggling for decades to get one back atm or post-glazer mess.

a hoy hoy, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 22:17 (eleven years ago) link

Also lol at no ManC ???

Man C - 169.6

― le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), donderdag 9 februari 2012 19:15 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Missed them, soz

Flag post? I hardly knew her! (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 9 February 2012 21:51 (nine years ago) link

The EPL bubble has been about to burst for about 12 years. I've resigned myself to the fact that it's not gonna happen.

once a weak eye sample (onimo), Friday, 10 February 2012 14:04 (nine years ago) link

Wenger says it will, and people hate him for it.

Ismael Klata, Friday, 10 February 2012 14:07 (nine years ago) link

Wenger less reliable on football than onimo imo

Charles Kennedy Jumped Up, He Called 'Oh No'. (Tom D.), Friday, 10 February 2012 14:09 (nine years ago) link

i dunno, onimo what are your thoughts on mertesacker?

pandemic, Friday, 10 February 2012 14:14 (nine years ago) link

I thought he was a great signing but he's looking increasingly like a Big at a club that doesn't suit them.

once a weak eye sample (onimo), Friday, 10 February 2012 14:25 (nine years ago) link

a measured response there, Tom D might be on to something.

pandemic, Friday, 10 February 2012 14:51 (nine years ago) link

two weeks pass...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17197269

Villa lost 53m (pre-selling Young and Downing) last year. It is amounts like this which make me assume the league is fucked, long term. Lerner is not going to want to pay that off.

a hoy hoy, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 04:14 (nine years ago) link

Swiss Ramble does Arsenal

Ismael Klata, Thursday, 1 March 2012 20:08 (nine years ago) link

That's a great piece. It'll be really interesting to see what happens in the battle between Stan Kroenke and Alisher Usmanov over the next few years as well. The latter's possibly the most transparently crooked man with a stake in a major European club (with the possible exception of Akhmetov at Shakhtar) but he has the resources to put a pretty attractive bid together.

Mohombi Khush Hua (ShariVari), Thursday, 1 March 2012 20:28 (nine years ago) link

Berlisconi surely

a hoy hoy, Thursday, 1 March 2012 20:51 (nine years ago) link

From the link that IK provided

There are clearly issues with Arsenal’s equitable wage structure, which means that the best players like Robin Van Persie are not particularly well remunerated (by modern standards), while fringe players like Abou Diaby, Marouane Chamakh and Manuel Almunia are handsomely rewarded for their efforts. This was epitomised recently by Johan Djourou’s new £50,000 a week contract, which seemed more in recognition of his frequent interviews with Arsenal.com than his defensive ability.

#shotsfired

pandemic, Thursday, 1 March 2012 20:54 (nine years ago) link

xp, as bad as Berlusconi might be, i think the worst allegation i've heard against him is that he got started by taking money from the mafia to build a business empire and might have done favours for them along the way.

Usmanov is the mafia.

Mohombi Khush Hua (ShariVari), Thursday, 1 March 2012 21:03 (nine years ago) link

'fringe' is a hell of a euphemism for 'utter shite' imo

Streep? That's where I'm a-striking! (darraghmac), Thursday, 1 March 2012 21:05 (nine years ago) link

Djourou could get a massive contract hosting the National Lottery and game shows for the BBC, no wonder Arsenal are throwing money at him.

James Mitchell, Thursday, 1 March 2012 21:50 (nine years ago) link

Arsenal’s expertise can be evidenced by two great statistics: (a) the last time that they reported a loss was way back in 2002; (b) in the last four years alone, they have accumulated staggering profits of £153 million.

Only another 120m to go and we pay off the stadium. I'm convinced they are trying to pay it off early. I just wish that were this the strategy, they'd fucking say so. Otherwise that 153 fucking million, could help us ummm, maybe improve a little.

a hoy hoy, Friday, 2 March 2012 06:47 (nine years ago) link

I thought it the article that the board specifically said they weren't going to pay it off early because it was 'good debt'

pandemic, Friday, 2 March 2012 07:31 (nine years ago) link

here it is

Many ask whether it would be possible for Arsenal to pay off the outstanding debt early in order to reduce the interest charges, but Gazidis has previously implied that this is unlikely, arguing that not all debt is bad, “The debt that we’re left with is what I would call ‘healthy debt’ – it’s long term, low rates and very affordable for the club.”

pandemic, Friday, 2 March 2012 07:34 (nine years ago) link

Yeah sorry, long article, should have read the whole thing before commenting etc.

So basically it is 2014 or bust? hmmm.

a hoy hoy, Friday, 2 March 2012 07:41 (nine years ago) link

So hang on, the owner's plan is to get Arsenal debt-free, then flog it for substantially more than they paid for it, leaving the owners filthy rich and Arsenal FC and the fans with a team fully capable of mounting a serious challenge for a Europa League spot? Is that right?

get ready for the banter (NotEnough), Friday, 2 March 2012 08:52 (nine years ago) link

Owners already did that/died and now Kroenke is hoping to do that again, I think.

a hoy hoy, Friday, 2 March 2012 09:00 (nine years ago) link

Swiss Ramble on Villa
http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2012/03/aston-villa-prophets-and-losses.html

P fucking bleak. Wages-to-turnover ratio of 91%! just for starters.

pandemic, Saturday, 10 March 2012 16:15 (nine years ago) link

I don't know what Lerner wants out of this tbh

Ismael Klata, Saturday, 10 March 2012 16:18 (nine years ago) link

To lose £100m+ it seemingly

pandemic, Saturday, 10 March 2012 16:19 (nine years ago) link

Should be no 'it' there.

pandemic, Saturday, 10 March 2012 16:20 (nine years ago) link

It's hard think of a way to blow £100m without having some kind of fun, but that might be it.

Ismael Klata, Saturday, 10 March 2012 16:21 (nine years ago) link

Thing is from the outside looking in you would think it would have been possible to spend £100m less and still be in roughly the same position they are in now.

pandemic, Saturday, 10 March 2012 16:25 (nine years ago) link

three months pass...

Manchester United Ltd, the world's best-supported soccer club, filed with U.S. regulators on Tuesday to raise up to $100 million in an initial public offering of its Class A common stock.

The company told the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in a preliminary prospectus that Jefferies, Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, BofA Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank Securities are underwriting the IPO.

boxall, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 21:17 (nine years ago) link

I'm still amazed by people trying to make money long-term from football. It's football! All you need is a couple of season of bad injuries and your'e fucked! This financial asset-stripping is only good for people who don't like football.

give me back my 200 dollars (NotEnough), Wednesday, 4 July 2012 12:00 (nine years ago) link

three weeks pass...

If anyone fancies part owning Panathinaikos :

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/feature/_/id/1126919/paraskevas:-panathinaikos-reborn-under-fan-ownership?cc=5739#

pandemic, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 11:01 (nine years ago) link

two months pass...

http://bundesligafanatic.com/financial-fair-play-the-implications-for-the-teams-in-the-bundesliga/

Great article on how things are working out in the Bundesliga

D'anesh (dan m), Thursday, 18 October 2012 00:31 (nine years ago) link

That's excellent.

What I'm having trouble with is how the new, enormous EPL television deal is going to feed in to conditions elsewhere on the continent. Are English clubs going to sweep the board for the next five years?

Ismael Klata, Saturday, 20 October 2012 09:57 (nine years ago) link

Not too sure. If we pretend that wages in the Prem stay exactly the same as they are now and then add in the new TV money how many clubs in the league would still fall foul of ffp?

Are the majority of clubs here living so far beyond their soon to be increased revenue that they wouldn't be able to increase salary anyway?

pandemic, Saturday, 20 October 2012 11:27 (nine years ago) link

the Glazer family have taken the unusual step of buying out DHL, so certain are they of negotiating even greater revenue

I'm giving up trying to understand this stuff

Ismael Klata, Friday, 26 October 2012 07:02 (eight years ago) link

surely it's pretty simple, they want a new and bigger deal immediately so they end the dhl deal now?

Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Friday, 26 October 2012 08:03 (eight years ago) link

tbf I did get that bit, it's why anyone would pay even more that is the mystery

Ismael Klata, Friday, 26 October 2012 08:04 (eight years ago) link

one year passes...

Bolton in £163.8m of debt. Turnover £25.8m. I don't see how they can ever hope to pay that back.

Ismael Klata, Tuesday, 31 December 2013 17:19 (seven years ago) link

seven years pass...

Barcelona cannot register any new signings, not Memphis Depay, Sergio Agüero, Eric García or Emerson Royal, after exceeding the La Liga salary limit.

Despite selling Konrad de la Fuente, Jean-Clair Todibo, and Junior Firpo, Barcelona need to reduce their wage bill by €200,000.

— Zach Lowy (@ZachLowy) July 5, 2021

Extraordinary

fix up luke shawp (darraghmac), Monday, 5 July 2021 23:19 (three months ago) link

Lmao. They are supposedly even going to pay some players to leave on a free, like Pjanic

a hoy hoy, Tuesday, 6 July 2021 07:36 (three months ago) link

hmmm, that may account for Trincão coming to us

Southgate Serves Imperialism (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 6 July 2021 07:40 (three months ago) link

lol yeah next tweet mentions that

Southgate Serves Imperialism (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 6 July 2021 07:41 (three months ago) link

€200,000 can't be the right figure there?

Tim, Tuesday, 6 July 2021 09:39 (three months ago) link

Saw a clarification that its about the weight of pesos in kilos or some similar slang!

fix up luke shawp (darraghmac), Tuesday, 6 July 2021 10:11 (three months ago) link

Also just presumed it was per week, and with messi not yet signed i figured that was..... serious

fix up luke shawp (darraghmac), Tuesday, 6 July 2021 10:12 (three months ago) link

Oh haha yes I suppose it could be a week. Though even that is probably only a mid-range player or three for them.

Tim, Tuesday, 6 July 2021 10:16 (three months ago) link

i assumed that was a weekly figure i guess, Football Manager not always the best metric for understanding this stuff

Southgate Serves Imperialism (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 6 July 2021 10:17 (three months ago) link

Pjanic is on about €300k a week so no major surprise he didn’t volunteer to cancel his contract.

Scampo di tutti i Scampi (ShariVari), Tuesday, 6 July 2021 10:18 (three months ago) link

Also Messi apparently earns 100 times more than Junior Firpo.

Scampo di tutti i Scampi (ShariVari), Tuesday, 6 July 2021 10:20 (three months ago) link

I am keen that Pjanic doesn't come to the Premier League because of the temptation his name would cause to every my-age, indie-arsed, Egg-from-This-Life football journalist with an untreated Smiths obsession.

Tim, Tuesday, 6 July 2021 10:24 (three months ago) link

Do ittttt

fix up luke shawp (darraghmac), Tuesday, 6 July 2021 10:29 (three months ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.