The Finances of Football

If there are that many Sheikhs out there with money to piss up the wall, how come one of them didn't go for Liverpool? I know a fair few Man United fans who are being astonishingly complacent about this. At some point the size of the debt is going to put off any investor.

Should I move the Evil Glazer thread over here?

broughton last week said something to the effect that there just aren't that many sheikhs or abramovichs out there. i like the sound of henry so far i have to say. obv early days but he seems v measured and relaxed.

Does anyone (Ismael?) have any final numbers on what the net result of the whole Liverpool thing was for Hicks and Gillett? I read a lot to the effect that they had each lost £75m, but I'm not clear how that's calculated, or whether it includes money taken out of the club as dividends etc.

or the difference between all the loans they took out against the club vs what total remained to be paid on their behalf.

I don't, no, I was mostly going by what was reported at any point in time (and therefore frequently felt totally lost) - Chris had some good figures at one point as I recall. It was usually quoted at c£150m, though I'm not even sure if it was public knowledge come to think. There was also a 25% stake owned by Wells Fargo that was almost never written about.

Would point out though that dividends don't necessarily equate to a profit though - if you've borrowed the money in the first place they are in a sense recompense for your cost in doing so; if it's your own money they're recompense in interest foregone by not being able to e.g. lend it out.

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/data/teams/team-29.htm

That City figure is so far out there I barely saw it. And Portsmouth are massively in the black?

Yeah they made a profit selling players they couldn't afford to buy or pay.

Weird how everyone thinks Man U are fucked as they aren't investing in the team (~£2m a year) yet Arsenal are very well managed etc when they're investing £7.5m less every season than United. The selling of Rooney should put Man U approx level with Arsenal.

Net spends don't really paint enough of a picture really, though it shows how much City, Spurs and Villa had to spend to join the big four (and how much Liverpool spent leaving it).

There's a difference between being well-managed as a business and well-managed as a football team looking to win things. On the latter, Man United and Arsenal are roughly even at the moment (although I'd argue United are in rapid descendency there). On the former, Arsenal ARE well-managed whereas United are a basket case.

Indeed, that's why net spend doesn't mean anything. Like Wolves = Chelsea

It does kind of give away which teams are spending their cash on things that aren't the team though - the big turnovers have to go somewhere, and in Utd and Arsenal's case it's not on top players (really need to take wages into account here too I guess)

I think Arsenal fans know its not going on top players and are ok with it (by and large).

wtf did spurs spend so much on?

also just buy selling bentley and rsc, blackburn have done terrific in the market

by*

wtf did spurs spend so much on?

Nine million of your English pounds iirc
http://www.givemefootball.com/GMF/files/dd/ddada7a2-8f1b-4bcb-9983-393d3a0dd028.jpg

bentley, modric, bent- 50 million right there

10m+ plus each to brinng robbie and defoe back

11m for crouch, thereabouts for corluka, woodgate, 14m pav

we dont get too many bargains. vdv, bale, lennon, thudd. dont make us arsenal. but most of the time we sell high, it's a useful rep for levy to have given us.

you spent 11m on woodgate? lols.

Also, RIP Pompey?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49625000/jpg/_49625888_frattonpark466.jpg

Nice photo. Don't see it now myself - did at the time, but the point of greatest danger was months ago, and surely liquidation is in nobody's interests now?

Hope it works out.

Pompey out of administration and safely sold

http://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article/newsitem=724/title=footballers+using+tax+loophole+to+save+millions

pity dave b doesn't post anymore else we could have a football coops/communities thread

I'm sure he could be persuaded to make a special appearance for that thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/03/jeremy-hunt-premier-league-debt-rules

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-15/manchester-united-to-pay-off-353-million-of-soccer-team-s-corporate-debt.html

The PIKs are reportedly about to be paid off, which suggests either another refinancing job or possibly a stake in the club sold to a third party.

Refinancing at a better rate I'd guess - the last refinancing was at about the worst possible time iirc, getting finance is a lot easier now aiui

rumours that 150-200m to come out of club funds just scaremongering?

The club still has funds? Or enough players to make that much in the Market?

As I understand it, they aren't taking the money out of the club's bank account, which (as I said) points to another refinancing (i.e. borrowing new money to pay off these debts) or perhaps some kind of partial sale.

I suspect it's a refinancing, so a lot depends on the interest rate on that new debt, but getting the PIK's off the books can only be a good thing surely?

(Very busy at work so can't write much)

If we accept that the PIK debt was the club's responsibility then refinancing it to avoid the savage >16% interest rates is a good thing. But Gill has repeatedly sworn blind that the PIKs are nothing to do with the club and are solely the Glazers' responsibility (though virtually no one believes him). If this is the result of a refinancing and the end result is that the PIK debt (albeit no longer in the form of PIKs) *is* saddled onto the club, that is a bad thing and reveals the lie.

best case is this comes out of club, and is returned promptly when new financing is sourced at a lower rate

It can't *all* come out of the club, because the club doesn't have that much cash

ah, misread you above, was wonderin tbh

Why Bolton have so much debt - terrific, straightforward article envisaging tough times for trotter

1. they have gone backwards to the tune of 3.7m in gate receipts within five years? because people miss allardyce's total football compared to what they see now?

2. 20+m a year on "other expenses"?

3. how about you stop complaining about high wages and just fucking pay within your limits?

4. i'm surprised that a team like bolton hasn't gone to the big 10 european clubs and said 'hi guys want a feeder club at the highest level' yet. think about bolton - have had dealings with real before, need quality players, could have given guys like granero and mata essential playing time early in their career in a top level league.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/11/milans-age-of-austerity.html?utm_source=BP_recent is also fascinating; it seems selling kaka etc. didn't even put a dent in their losses

juve+ac+inter+roma still make less in gate receipts than arsenal

Will read. I tackled the Ajax one at lunchtime. The inescapable conclusion of that and all sorts of other stuff I've been pondering, is that club football all over Europe is going to be dead within the decade outside the top five leagues, and maybe only Russia and Turkey have a chance of avoiding that fate.

I dunno I just think clubs need to wake tf up and learn to run themselves properly.

...and learn to run themselves properly so that they can they fall prey to hostile takeovers

Clubs pay £67m to Agents. I presume there are a couple of super-agents raking in £66m, and all the others share the rest between them for telling their pet feckless idiot what car to buy.

Liverpool - £9,032,528.49

good job all involved

apropos of hughton's sacking
http://transferpriceindex.com/sample-chapter/

lol just posted that in the other thread.

ha "When that approach ‘inevitably’ failed (and I say inevitably purely because it’s Newcastle)..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-burma-manchester-united-takeover

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jan/11/uefa-footballpolitics

It will be interesting to see how on earth City comply with this, given that their wage bill is actually higher than their entire turnover.