The Finances of Football

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?

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

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.

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.

1) not any more, but they used to. Last season was the first time in a very VERY long time that there was a public sale of tickets for the Rangers game
2) no idea off the top of my head, tbh. Don't think there's a huge walk-up crowd, hence empty seats all over the place.

I'll see if I can google up some stats for you.

some xposts

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?

I don't think attendances are substantially down, but demand is substantially down. If you go back maybe seven or eight years, there really was excess demand for season tickets and significant excess demand for members' tickets for individual matches. That has largely evaporated: partly due to the huge price hikes inflicted post-takeover (on top of the huge inflation-busting price rises at *all* football grounds from the late-80s onwards), and partly due to two waves of boycotting. They're now reduced to putting season tickets and matchday tickets on general sale and hawking them wherever they can, but there's still just about enough interest to more or less fill the ground for league matches.

I was a waiting list for a year before I got my first season ticket in 1998 - was sharing one with my brother before that. Waiting list would have got longer after Martin O'Neill showed up. Can't find figures, but I reckon it's dropped from about 45k season ticket holders to around 30k (home support capacity in the region of 57k, I think). There's always been a large allocation to supporters clubs so the season ticket thing isn't necessarily an indication of regular attendance.

I've seen a definite decline in the people who go anyway, from being able to sell out almost every game in the league. I've toyed with the idea of not renewing the last couple of years, but from a personal financial point of view rather than a lack of support for the club. Any evidence that others are doing the same would be purely anecdotal.

Just saying, though. Celtic were full to capacity a few years ago, it was difficult to imagine that they'd still be hawking decent seats on the halfway line seven games into the season to anyone that wanted them.

was *ON* a waiting list. fucking hell, I can't type, so don't expect any coherent points. I suspect darragh has a point about the glory hunters all fucking off again though, which can happen to just about anyone. Even Man Utd.

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

(sorry to Ailsa if she's typing something up - ah xpost she already did)

1) No, average attendances are down to something around 47000 from 58000 a couple of years back
2) Vast majority I reckon. When we were selling out 60000 we had 53000 season ticket holders.

I get season tickets for my sons for £50 each - five years ago it would have cost hundreds extra to upgrade to a parent and child seat.

It'll be interesting to see if we sell out the Rangers game at the end of the month...

lol I was about to say onimo would probably have the stats to hand, so good to see they don't vary massively from my estimates, apart from number of season tickets sold, I was reckoning on the supporters bus allocation as still being a thing separate from season tickets, but I haven't been on a supporters bus since 1992, so I have no idea if that's actually true really, I'm just going on stuff people say on the internets.

...and people coming in to pick up bundles of actual paper tickets every time I've had occasion to be in the ticket office.

The reason I was asking is that I had a theory that a lot of people got season tickets because it was the only way they could guarantee getting a ticket for the games that they *really* wanted to see (say City, Liverpool, and probably Arsenal and Chelsea for United; presumably just the Rangers matches for Celtic). So the ground might well be full every week (or at least the quoted attendance figure would indicate a full ground, as it reported seats sold as opposed to seats occupied), but that wasn't necessarily an indication of the real demand on a match-by-match basis. In some strange hypothetical world where Old Trafford was infinitely large, instead of getting circa 76,000 for every game, they would probably (pre-2005) have drawn a crowd of 150,000 for a match against Liverpool, but only 40,000 for a match against Middlesbrough (for example). The fact that 76,000 would have watched (or at least paid for seats) against Middlesbrough didn't so much reflect a desperate longing to see that particular fixture, more a case of a large number of season ticket holders having to watch that game as part of the package they'd signed up for, combined with a large number of ordinary members fighting for a small number of tickets sold on a match-by-match basis who would count themselves lucky to get into *any* match.

Once the bubble is burst, I reckon that demand falls away pretty sharpish. Many people will have swallowed the season ticket price rises on the understanding that they could still guarantee themselves a seat for the *key* matches, and flog their ticket (possibly at a reasonable profit) to other people for the matches that they don't want to go to. Once they discover that a) there isn't anyone looking to buy their season ticket off them for the games against Birmingham and Sunderland because those people could just get tickets on general sale, and b) it's easy enough to get tickets for most games anyway on a match-by-match basis, then season tickets seem a lot less attractive. Once fewer people have season tickets, then crowds fluctuate a lot more (just like they used to) depending on how attractive an individual match is.

That's almost definitely what is happening at Celtic Park. I always liked my season ticket status as allowing me the possibility of tickets for cup finals, champions league games (and, of course, I got a ticket to go to the UEFA Cup Final out of it as well). It's not a necessity any more for any of those things, but if I didn't chuck it this season, I probably never will. Also, I go to nearly every game anyway, think I've missed maybe five in the last five years or so due to holidays, illness, unbelievably bad weather and, um, forgetting to leave the pub.

Like, not just because I've already paid for them. I actually, mostly, like going.

Once the bubble is burst, I reckon that demand falls away pretty sharpish. Many people will have swallowed the season ticket price rises on the understanding that they could still guarantee themselves a seat for the *key* matches, and flog their ticket (possibly at a reasonable profit) to other people for the matches that they don't want to go to.

Getting the kids tickets so cheap is my main incentive to buy a season ticket. If I wasn't taking the kids I'd probably buy on a match by match basis, taking the risk of missing out on Rangers games and possibly Champions League games should we ever get there again.

Hence my "It'll be interesting to see if we sell out the Rangers game at the end of the month..." --- if they don't sell out derby match with both teams possibly still on 100% records then a lot more people will question the value of a season ticket.

Getting the kids tickets so cheap is my main incentive to buy a season ticket.

:-( and here was me thinking it was the guarantee of my sparkling company once a fortnight, with the kids an added bonus.

My main incentive is that, um, I give Celtic my money regardless of whether they are shite or not. It's like smack addiction without any of the highs, tbh.

Aye that as well :)

smack addiction without any of the highs

the best inside forward since Charlie Tully

This drug thing is more widespread than I thought! Nurse! Aye, even when time is actually STANDING STILL on a Saturday afternoon, it brings a warm glow to my heart to know I've paid enough upfront to cover Glenn Loovens for one whole game of standing looking confused as people run round him.

I suspect darragh has a point about the glory hunters all fucking off again though, which can happen to just about anyone

pfft i get blamed for every semi-controversial comment around here these days eh??

Whoops! As you can probably tell from my sentence construction last night, I was not entirely awake and paying attention :-)

granted, granted, i'm just trying to minimise unpopular opinions registered to my name.

well, the ones that don't actually belong to me at least.

I posted this in the SPL thread a while back - well worth a read to see how precarious Celtic's financial position could be, particularly with falling attendances.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/09/celtic-if-you-know-history.html

58% of Celtic's income comes from matchday revenue with 17% from TV. Compare that with Juventus who bring in 7% from matches and 65% from TV and you see just how important bums on seats is to Celtic. Juventus losing 20% of their supporters gives them a manageable ~2% drop in income, whereas for Celtic it would represent a huge drop in turnover. Couple that with the £10m drop from not having European football and things look very grim indeed, good job we had an Aiden McGeady to sell.

isn't man united's average attendance this year still something stupid like 75,000?

yeah, as (I think) NBS said, the demand is still above what the staidum will hold, but not to the tune of 10x Old Traffords like it was a few years back or w/e

Yet they're punting season tickets?

The point, I think, is that excess demand gives United a lot more earning power. If there are say a thousand extra people wanting to get into games, they can raise income in all sorts of ways - directly raising prices, making entry contingent on also buying less attractive products (i.e. season tickets), charging an extra £100 for a sandwich buffet beforehand, etc etc. All they have to worry about is burning off the extra thousand punters who aren't getting to give United their cash anyway.

But if they're not selling out anymore and thereby stuck with excess supply, any attempt to raise income by doing those things then starts burning off those punters who *are* giving United their cash, either by driving them away outright or by giving them the option to buy a less expensive product.

It'd even be possible to make more money by reducing capacity and charging punters more, depending on how elastic demand at various levels of capacity is.

I thought the Glazers were more interested in selling to the occasional visitor than the season ticket regular as they'd be more likely to sell merchandise to those visitors.

xpost following my own post on

http://www.emfootball.co.uk/attend.html

It takes Wigan four games to fill an Emirates. They'll be hoping that Bosman of TV Rights woman doesn't win.

Usmanov probably dug up all those he's buried, went through the pockets and took the spare change:

Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour has returned to the top of football's rich list, according to the latest figures from FourFourTwo magazine.

The 40-year-old's vast fortune is estimated to have risen by £3billion, moving him back in front of QPR shareholder Lakshmi Mittal, whose fortune has dipped to £17bn.

Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, whose wealth once dwarfed all other fortunes on the list, has now dropped as far as fourth - displaced by Arsenal shareholder Alisher Usmanov, whose estate has exploded to rise from £1.3bn to £8bn.

Usmanov's fellow Arsenal shareholder Stanley Kroenke is eighth on the list with a fortune of £1.85bn, while Mittal's partner at QPR, Bernie Ecclestone, also makes it into the top 10 with his £1.4bn estate.

The controversial owners of Manchester United, the Glazer family, are ranked ninth with an estimated fortune of £1.53bn.

Others figuring in the top 10 are Southampton owners the Liebherr family, fifth with a fortune of £3bn, Tottenham owner Joe Lewis, sixth at £2.7bn, and Celtic's Denis O'Brien, seventh with a fortune of £1.87bn.

Tom Hicks and George Gillett, whose ownership of Liverpool could come to an end if the club's other directors are able to force through a sale, do not feature on this year's list at all. Having been listed joint 16th last year with an estimated £500million each, analysts said it was now impossible to verify their worth as the turmoil continues at Anfield.

Allegedly.

Celtic's Denis O'Brien, seventh with a fortune of £1.87bn.

^does not own Celtic, or even 5% of it iirc

does not own 1.87bn either tbf

I thought the Glazers were more interested in selling to the occasional visitor than the season ticket regular as they'd be more likely to sell merchandise to those visitors.

To some extent, yes, but only if they have a never-ending supply of such people. What they don't want are any unsold seats and season tickets guarantee that while also providing large sums of money up front (which is also very important if you're experiencing, um, 'cashflow problems').

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/oct/06/football-fans-tighten-wallet-merchandise

The survey of 4,000 Premier League fans reveals that 42% of supporters will spend less on goods including replica shirts, programmes, general club clothing and household goods.

Some of this doesn't sound like the bad news it's painted as e.g. "Around 34% of Tottenham fans won't buy a new kit this season despite the club launching five new shirts."

Translates as "66% of Tottenham fans will buy a new kit this season as the club launched five new shirts" which seems a pretty handy return to me. Although FIVE new shirts WTF Spurs?

"the average matchday cost (including a pint of lager, a match ticket, a replica shirt, and a match programme as well as some travel expenses)" WAHT?! People count replica shirts as a matchday cost?

Although FIVE new shirts WTF Spurs?

Is that because we've now got two sponsors, depending on whether we're in domestic or Champions League football?

xp

yeah but only one pint included let's get real here

I assumed 5 shirts = 5 different designs which seemed stupid and against the rules. I don't think having the same shirt with a different sponsor makes it a different shirt.

Possibly counting home & away goalie shirts to get to five - I don't think I've seen one of these since I was about eleven (were always quite popular with kids though for some reason)

teams have had european shirts for a few years, and teams have had 3rd shirts for a few years.

i've never got the 'teams have too many shirts out' argument tbh

It creates classmate competition for getting all the shirts and the concomitant wheedling of parents for same

kids wouldn't do any of that stuff if replica shirts didn't exist

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/10/united-we-stand-divided-we-fall.html
A very detailed account, if you've got time to read it all.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TLQcFEoJTHI/AAAAAAAACVc/CoaSiWfIowo/s400/3+Utd+Profit

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TLQe3217jMI/AAAAAAAACXU/ZAlq2rKiMx4/s400/18+Utd+Player

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TLQfhy0-J8I/AAAAAAAACXk/0Fx4z1nr4ww/s400/19+Utd+Debt

In fact, they’re a lot worse with Barcelona’s “leading” the way last year with £224 million

this cannot be sustainable, surely? no wonder they had to get a huge loan to bail them out in the summer and rossell is taking laporta to court.

Also surprised Stoke are paying so little* on wages. If they are being well run financially they could do p well when/as everyone around them starts to crumble.

*of their % turnover compared to others in the league, obv

lots of these articles making the obvious points about koscielny costing less than smalling and vdv only costing a million more than future ilfhof star bebe, which makes me lolwtflol the more i see it.

Even after all those interest payments, the debt has not reduced. In fact, the gross debt has slightly increased this year to £522 million, though net debt has fallen to £358 million, as cash balances are higher.

utd are so boned.

However, this is nothing compared to the Payment in Kind (PIK) notes, which is the most expensive debt in the Premier League. The interest rate was already a stratospheric 14.25%, before it rose to an eye-watering 16.25 % this summer after United broke the covenant whereby debt was not allowed to go above 5 times EBITDA. Unlike with a normal loan, the club do not have to pay back the principal on the debt in instalments – all the money is due to be repaid in 2017. This makes it an even more expensive way to borrow, as the club must pay interest on the growing balance. In this way, when the PIKs are due for repayment, the debt will have snowballed to £588 million, giving total debt of £1.1 billion.

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

Also Messi apparently earns 100 times more than Junior Firpo.

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.

Do ittttt