Football Finances, come laugh at portsmouth

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Ray Parlour > Football Finances, come laugh at portsmouth

«‹›6 »

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Warning - Potential Navel-Gazing Alert...

One of the big questions that comes to my mind after reading all these posts and other articles is how profitable any football club can really be. I guess Spurs show that you can make some profit out of top level football, but if you looked at what else you could do with the money that it costs to run a club and keep it on the top level, soccer/football really isn't that great of an investment.

It seems like so many of the costs are endless and you don't have salary caps. For the most part, you don't have municipal assistance for infrastructure developments. All the money has to be generated on your own. In the meantime, your customers are picky, the media attention is intense, and your monetary layout doesn't necessarily get the results you would expect. There are probably a multitude of other niggling costs that I'm not thinking of either.

I could see how having a club would be a good part of a field of assets. For example, if you were an entertainment conglomerate or some other massive corporate holding company who could use the club for multiple purposes aside from the love of football. How often does that really happen, though? And that still doesn't take away from the fact that having top level football probably means seeing your money underperform as opposed to the other things you could be doing with it.

So unless you have a fan-owned club like Barca or Real Madrid, it seems like there is always going to be an eventual point where good football and good business sense conflict.

Stim posted:

What's worrying for Portsmouth is the fact parts of the stadium and surrounding land are owned by different parties. If Portsmouth go bust then I would not be surprised to see a few property developers swoop in and develop the land.

From a sheer numbers point of view, I wouldn't be surprised if it would make more sense to turn that land into some other kind of property development like a shopping center or an office park.

# ¿ Dec 31, 2009 17:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 23:19

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Something that I meant to say in my previous post but didn't get around to was basically that if any owners like Hicks & Gillett or the Glazers were counting on a big sale of the club at a high price to bail them out, they completely overestimated the allure of any football club, even a successful one, to attract any investor(s) rich enough to afford the prices they are seeking. Football clubs simply aren't great business opportunities from a purely financial sense compared to other options that an investor can sink money into. People like Abramovich are rare and even the stereotypical spendthrift Arabian tycoons have been looking at things like infrastructure, costs, and development potential before pulling the trigger.

Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Dec 31, 2009

# ¿ Dec 31, 2009 20:30

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

FullLeatherJacket posted:

I think the only way to do it is to buy low and sell high. If you got in big for United when they first floated and then sold to the Glazers, you'd have come out with a ridiculous amount of money.

Which is why people assumed, and may still assume, that the Glazers have some kind of meaningful strategy for increasing revenues. This is how a lot of business works. Beg or borrow money to buy a firm at its face value, increase revenues and make it worth more than what you paid for it.

That kind of leaves people like the Glazers or H&G up poo poo creek to a certain extent then, doesn't it? No new buyer is going to look at those clubs realistically and think, "oh, I'll buy this low and sell it even higher to someone else." You could do that with Birmingham, maybe, but not with an established player.

The leverage buyout approach assumes (at least in America) that you've purchased an undervalued, easily improvable asset. Using Man-U as an example, by the time the Glazers got in, could they really have improved Manchester United's revenues to the point where they could sell it for a price that would still give them the profit the seek without taking the major risks you've mentioned? I don't think so.

I think a lot of people interested in purchasing Liverpool or Manchester United have basically decided to wait until the present owners cash out because of the debt pressure and because cost-cutting will only serve to reduce the value of the clubs. That's not good news for the fans, but that's what I'd be doing if I was legally and professionally responsible for the proper investment of �1 Billion.

quote:

There are three strategies apparent. Either you increase traditional revenues (merchandise, tickets, anything Malaysians buy), you break the television agreement, or you break away from the league altogether.

I do wonder what the Glazers could do to increase revenues at this point. They've already been fantastic about merchandising the hell out of the club. What else could you do to increase the value of Manchester United? I guess you could say you haven't squeezed the full worth out of emerging markets in Asia, but even then, the worth of that has to be pretty limited.

I guess this is when you see how much a team can truly "sell out."

# ¿ Dec 31, 2009 21:46

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Outrespective posted:

They don't need to improve it at all though.

Glazers are risk free at this point afaik, all the debt is leveraged against the club, they could walk away from the club and let it slide into administration and get bought up by someone else and they'll not be the poorer for it.

The only reason they are holding onto the club as it stands is that it pays them a rather nice salary they've been allowed to set themselves based on the success of the club, as soon as the club stops being successful they can just wash their hands of it and walk out with lots of money.

They bought the club with loans, transferred the loans to the club so they themselves are now debt free, because they are in charge at the club they choose their own salary and keep taking from the club while the club struggles to pay it's interest on the loans. They won't sell unless someone comes in with a huge freaking offer that makes it more profitable to take a lump sum now instead of their wonderfully fat guaranteed salaries for the rest of their forseeable lives. This is why he got all his kids in on this too.

I was thinking more about the propsect of selling the club for that profitable lump sum and the huge end profit that a good businessman should always be seeking.

You're right in that they could just sell for a loss in comparison with their purchase price, but if they got enough in salaries and dividends during their tenure, they could still be just dandy. That approach just strikes me as slipshod, though, and if that's all you're looking to do when you buy a business, you're not maximizing the potential of your investment.

fullleatherjacket posted:

If United goes to poo poo, the Glazers still lose something like �250-300m of their own money, IIRC. Plus, banks don't really tend to let you gently caress up like that twice.

Yeah. I assume that the Glazers will continue to want to do business of some kind. If you build a reputation as a business killer, it's going to be hard to get your hands on investment cash or get people to sell things to you.

I think Hicks' reputation is pretty much shot at this point. MLB is already doing everything it can keep him from getting back into the Texas Rangers.

Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Dec 31, 2009

# ¿ Dec 31, 2009 22:01

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

PhillyLucky posted:

The real question is how the gently caress did they take out a loan with 14.25% interest. Thats about 5% less then what you will pay on those lovely store credit cards that anyone can get.

If you're a creditor with that much money at stake, you ideally want an interest rate that will outperform the return you'd get from other kinds of investments while not putting on so much of an obligation on the borrower that default becomes a certainty. 14.25% sounds about right.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2010 18:58

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Orange Carebear posted:

Calling it now: Man City and Liverpool are tied for fourth going into the last game of the season, Portsmouth is about to enter administration and give Liverpool fourth by discounting the 2 goal differential in our loss to them, so Man City buys Portsmouth, covers their debts and City get the CL spot.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work that way, right?

If Portsmouth gets relegated due to finances, I thought that just ends up as a massive point deduction. That would only mean the 2 other bottom teams would get bumped out with Portsmouth and one team would get lucky and dodge a bullet.

This is assuming, of course, that Portsmouth isn't going to spend the entire season in the bottom 3. That's a big assumption to make given their present situation.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2010 01:12

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Was this already shared here?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2010/jan/06/manchester-united-glazers-debt

Given the article that Lyric Proof Vest just posted, it seems a bit sensationalistic.

The Guardian posted:

One thing at Manchester United isn't going downhill: their debt
Manchester City, rather than United, are entering the new decade with the cocksure strut of a financial powerhouse

by David Conn

Apart from the snowfall which smothered the Carling Cup semi‑final between Manchester's two clubs, 2010 has dawned to wildly contrasting fortunes for City and United. Sunday's 1-0 FA Cup humbling by Leeds was accompanied by reports that United's owners, the Florida‑based Glazer family, are trying again to refinance the �700m debts which their 2005 takeover has imposed on the club. For City, Saturday's 1-0 Cup victory at Middlesbrough has been followed by the solid news that Sheikh Mansour, City's Abu Dhabi owner, has personally invested �395m in the club since he took over 17 months ago, converting all of it into shares, not loans.

In simple terms, the lottery of English football clubs being companies up for sale on the open market has delivered a winning ticket to the Blues, not the Reds. Mansour has made an enormous financial investment in City, while the Glazers, since they bought United in their bitterly contested takeover, have given the club not one penny to spend. Quite the opposite; their ownership has drained the club of huge sums of money. In only three years up to 30 June 2008, the closing date of their most recent published accounts, United became liable to pay a staggering �263m in interest alone. Despite that, the capital lump sum which United owe to banks and hedge funds has actually snowballed by �159m, from �540m in 2005, to �699m in 2008.

That increase is accounted for partly by the very high interest charged on the �275m the Glazers borrowed from three hedge funds to buy United. When the entire debt was refinanced only 15 months later in August 2006, the hedge fund debt had risen by �79.1m, which included �13.2m for "early redemption". The refinancing paid that off, leaving United with �525m owed to banks and �138m owed to hedge funds. An estimated �29m was paid in professional fees then, principally to bankers, lawyers and accountants. Reports that the Glazers have appointed two banks,JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank, to seek refinancing again with bank bonds should be understood in that context: huge fees will be charged, there are likely to be early repayment premiums again on the �175m hedge fund debt United now owe, and the refinancing is likely to increase the total debt owed.

The Glazer family's spokesman refused to comment this week on those reports, and both JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank issued no comments. However, City sources indicated the reports are correct, and the refinancing is thought to be concentrating on the hedge fund debt, which is accumulating interest at 14.25%. The interest is rolling up: �38m interest was payable to the hedge funds in 2006-07; �23m in the year to June 2008; �25m to June 2009. By the time the capital is due for repayment, in August 2017, if it has not been refinanced and already paid off, the accumulated capital will have risen from an initial �138m borrowed from hedge funds, when the Glazers refinanced in August 2006, to �580m. That is in addition to the �524m of bank and other borrowings which United owed at June 2008.

The club and the Glazer family's spokesman have insisted that despite the interest payable, �69m in the year to 30 June 2008, which helped push United from an operating profit of �80m to a �43m loss, Sir Alex Ferguson has money to spend. Ferguson has maintained since the summer that he has not done so because United-calibre players are not available, and there is not "value in the market". He argues that players are overpriced, partly because of Mansour's intervention.

After United lost the Champions League final in May, Ferguson might have been expected to substantially strengthen his squad, but instead, Cristiano Ronaldo was sold to Real Madrid for �81m, and the manager signed only Antonio Valencia, for �17.5m from Wigan, Michael Owen, on a free transfer, and Gabriel Obertan, for �3m from Bordeaux. Whatever their protestations that money remains available, United's weakening through injury, occasional underperformance and Ferguson's dismissive approach to buying players means United are simply not carrying themselves as proud, cash-rich, Premier League champions with the Ronaldo money still in the bank. Time is surely running out for the argument that the debts � now, with interest, certainly more than �700m, vastly more than any other English club � are not financially constraining.

The Glazers have overseen a period of sustained success at Old Trafford, winning three Premier League titles and the Champions League in 2008, and Ferguson has always spoken supportively of their regime, which he finds easier to deal with than the regulated stock market-listed entity United were before. United insiders credit the Glazers with bringing in some of the roster of sponsors whose lucrative deals reflect the club's global presence and popularity. However, by far the largest proportion of United's record �257m turnover was still earned in the UK in 2007-08, and the largest proportion, �101.5m, came from match days at Old Trafford.

There, ticket prices have been increased significantly since the Glazers took over, a policy presented as a commercial virtue when they sought the refinancing in August 2006. Although United still boast awesome near-76,000 full houses for Premier League matches, and 74,526 witnessed the Leeds crash on Sunday, tickets do now remain on sale for most matches. United's spokesman, Phil Townsend, confirmed this week that bookings of corporate hospitality packages are down in the recession, and a third-round FA Cup exit will not have been in Ferguson's plan for the season or the Glazers' financial projections.

Stories have seeped out of United this season about rounds of quite meagre cuts, and Townsend acknowledged that the club has indeed been looking to cut costs. Twelve staff have been made redundant recently, he said, although he pointed out that this was from around 550 people employed in various departments.

"Like all other businesses in the current financial climate we have been looking to keep costs down," he said. "The demand for match-by-match corporate hospitality packages has gone down, depending on the fixture, but our 55,000 season tickets are sold out. We present a stable business model, the interest payments are serviced from the operating profit, and the club has said there is money for the manager to spend."

It is difficult to decipher how far the Glazers' own fortunes have been affected by the economic downturn, because they operate principally as private investors in the US. The family's charitable foundation says of Malcolm Glazer on its website that he "owns, has owned or has been the largest shareholder" of companies including Harley Davidson, Formica, Tonka, and Omega Protein, but some of those interests were sold off several years ago. The US property industry, in which the Glazers are significant investors, particularly in shopping malls, via their First Allied Corporation, is one of the sectors most pulverised by the economic typhoon.

The family's NFL franchise, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, enjoyed sustained success under the Glazers, winning the 2003 Super Bowl, yet have just concluded a miserable season, finishing bottom of their division with three wins from 16 games. Media reports, never denied, consistently said the Bucs were spending $30m (�19m) less than the permitted $100m under the NFL salary cap; the system allows franchise owners to take surplus money out for themselves. In January last year, the Glazers replaced the veteran, Super Bowl-winning coach Jon Gruden with Raheem Morris, who at 32 was the youngest coach in the NFL. The Glazers are still hailing that as a "bold decision", but the series of defeats have led to profound disillusionment among Bucs fans, who have also endured ticket price rises, and crowds at the Tampa Bay stadium have declined.

With a United squad looking suddenly threadbare, and a vintage manager due for retirement himself before too long, United supporters cannot help but see parallels between Stretford and Florida. Duncan Drasdo, chair of the Manchester United Supporters Trust, said this week: "We warned from the beginning that the Glazer takeover would saddle the club with huge debts and now we can see them biting. If it were a race, then United are dragging their owners behind them like a tractor, while City's owners are providing rocket fuel."

Before the Glazers arrived in 2005, nobody could have foreseen this bizarre reversal in Manchester. United, then the world's richest club, are lurching into the new decade with punishing debts, while City, of all clubs, are being roundly criticised after the sacking of their manager for being too ruthless, driven and improbably rich.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2010 06:59

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Is there a particular reason the Spanish fan ownership model has not caught on in England or other countries? It seems to be a big part of why Real Madrid and Barca have been able to exercise a lot of financial power.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2010 16:50

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Lyric Proof Vest posted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/8468159.stm

West Hame apparently owed over twice as much as their owners declared when it was put up for sale. Looks like the new owners don't care about sinking money into it though so the fans can probably sleep easier knowing administration is a little further off.

quote:

Former Birmingham owners Sullivan and David Gold now control the Hammers after buying a 50% shareholding.

"It makes no commercial sense to buy this club," said Sullivan after laying out the scale of West Ham's borrowing.

"If there was any other club in this situation, then we would not be buying it. We bought this as supporters, not from a business point of view."

How depressing, but true.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2010 17:34

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

MoPZiG posted:

Whats depressing? Today I find my club in safer hands than at least 2 of the big 4.

If Sullivan's consortium plan for the remaining shares goes through and the likes of Fernandes buy significant shares we could well on our way to financial sanity and progress on the pitch very quickly. Im much less keen on leaving Upton Park however.

I was talking about the idea that buying any club in West Ham's situation is not necessarily a good business move, but it's a move you do out of love for a club and the desire to keep it alive.

I've said this before, but the more I read about football clubs, the more I'm convinced that they are pretty poor as actual, substantive investments unless you have a diversified set of holdings where the club helps enhance their value or potential.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2010 18:10

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Grez posted:

This has always been the case.

quote:

MrL_Jakiri]This is a good thing, not a depressing thing.

Scikar posted:

Football clubs that look like American businesses get bought by American businessmen.

I agree, but what does that say about the ability to make teams more competitive?

At some point or another, spending and probably incurring debts in the process) is needed to help break established pecking orders. Unless you can get the money from actual fans, which is rare, the only way you get the necessary funds nowadays is by turning clubs from these "ventures of love" to something exploitable and attractive to businessmen who have different priorities and will run clubs much, much differently than fans would. Unless we get UEFA-wide spending caps, salary caps, luxury taxes, or revenue sharing arrangements, I don't know how that's going to change.

A little bit of soul-selling is inevitable and necessary and isn't that just a bit depressing?

# ¿ Jan 19, 2010 20:22

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Pissflaps posted:

The way most clubs are getting the funds necessary to compete or even survive in the premier league isn't by turning football clubs into lean money making enterprises, it's by having a loving rich owner or borrowing.

What I've been trying to say is that they're not turning into money-making enterprises. What's making them attractive to big spending businessmen is that they can be used as status symbols by rich people who want to live out a dream or vehicles for self-dealing by the worst kind of parasites capitalism has to offer.

I don't think you can turn a club into a lean money-making enterprise, so the only way you get the mega-money to compete and potentially fulfill the dreams of your fans is to either try to get yourself bought up by a guy (or group of guys) who doesn't care about doshing out some cash or you risk being run by people who will squeeze as many benefits as they can from limited liability business structures because they have nothing on the line themselves.

EDIT: Have some consolidated analysis of the Glazers' most recent bond issue...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/19/manchester-united-finance-the-glazers

The Guardian posted:

Glazers could take �130m out of Manchester United next year
� Small print in bond offer reveals shock provisions
� Owners able to get cut of money from player sales

David Conn and Owen Gibson

The Glazer family, who own Manchester United, can take almost �130m cash out of the club next year alone if enough lenders sign up for the bond they have launched to borrow �500m for United.

Nestling in the small print of the 322-page bond prospectus are provisions allowing the Glazers to take �70m out of the club's cash reserves, which includes the money they have received from selling players such as Cristiano Ronaldo. The document also reserves for the Glazers the legal right to pay �25m out of the club in a dividend, and half of what is termed "consolidated net income". This is effectively the club's cash profits, which based on the most recent accounts would have meant �23m being paid out last year.

The bond's terms also note that the Glazers will have the right for �6m a year to be paid to companies they own "for administration and management services", and a further �3m "in respect of services provided by directors, officers or employees" of companies the Glazers use to hold their shares in United.

That money, added to the �70m and �25m one-off payments, plus the half of United's cash profit they can take out each year (equating to �23m last year), add up to �127m next year alone.

That huge figure is in addition to the straightforward payment of interest (yield) on the �500m the club will have borrowed via the bond, which at a mooted 9%, will be �45m. That will bring the total taken out of United to service the Glazers' borrowings, which were loaded on to the club after the family bought the club in 2005, to �172m next year alone.

It has become increasingly clear since the prospectus was launched last week that its principal purpose is to allow the Glazers to take cash out of United to reduce the amounts they owe in "payments in kind" to hedge funds, which are running at a punitive �14.25% interest. Standing at �175m in the year to 30 June, 2008, the "payments" accrued �25m interest in the year to 30 June, 2009, and so stand now at over �200m. That debt is secured on the United shares the Glazer family own, and it is clear their financial priority is to use United's giant turnover and profits to pay down that debt before the interest "rolls up" dramatically.

A calculation of the total cash which the bond would entail being paid out of United in dividend payments, the yield from the bond, management fees and the possible requirement for the club to lease the Carrington training ground, is more than �500m between next year and the maturity of the bond in 2017.

If the bond issue is fully taken up by lenders, it will mean that since the Glazer family bought United in May 2005 for �810m � �540m of it borrowed from banks and hedge funds � their takeover will have already cost United �340m in cash. That comprises �220m in bank interest plus "early-repayment premiums" made when the borrowings were first refinanced in August 2006. A further �120m will have been incurred in fees paid to bankers, lawyers and other professionals � the fees for this bond issue are noted as �15m � plus �35m incurred by the club's interest rate hedging arrangements.

On top of that, the "payments" have incurred interest payable of around �124m since the Glazers first borrowed the money to buy United.

A Glazer family spokesman, who also speaks for United on financial matters, declined to comment.

Nick Towle, chair of the Manchester United Supporters' Trust, said: "It is a shocking picture. These are immense amounts of money being leaked out of United to pay banks, lawyers, the Glazers themselves and interest, to pay for a takeover none of the supporters, or the United board itself, wanted.

"United's success and profits could have been used to keep ticket prices affordable or invest in the team but instead we see this heartbreaking waste, just because one family ultimately hopes to make a profit from the club."

Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Jan 20, 2010

# ¿ Jan 20, 2010 02:12

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Lyric Proof Vest posted:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank.html

Reminder for united fans that owing to the recent financial crisis that only the people on the first page can do what you want and take over united cash in hand. Abramovich lost half his money (was $16billion when he took over) so realisticaly its the top 15 and the top two won't buy a vanity team, so you have 13 people or a consortium of billionaires who can save you.

I don't think it's just United fans who need to be reminded of this. Your point is exactly what I was trying to drill into brapbrapbrap's head in the EPL thread earlier this week. I don't think it stuck.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2010 19:16

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:

Hicks Sports Group apparently has a deal in place to sell the Texas Rangers for $570 million. Will this yield any short or long term benefits for Liverpool?

No. Hicks & Gillett have sold assets before and all that has just gone to the owners for profit on the investment.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2010 21:03

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Der Shovel posted:

Maybe the long term benefit could be the possibility of them loving off and selling Liverpool to someone else as well?

As wayth said, Hanks & Gillett are ultimately not in it for the long haul. They both have histories of buying up businesses, increasing their values, and selling them for a profit as quickly as possible (or being in over their heads and filing for bankruptcy). If they had a different course of events in mind, they would have probably found a different kind of financing model to fuel their purchase of the club.

The possibility of a sale from these guys is bleak right now. The debt load that any purchaser will have to pay off to get control of the club is already ridiculous and then Hicks & Gillett are seeking money on top of that as the profit that made their investment worthwhile. All indications state that their valuation of Liverpool is ridiculously high and there aren't many people or companies with tons of money to spare who can pay that price. Why buy Liverpool when, for a tenth of the price, Randy Lerner got Aston Villa? If Hicks & Gillett had gotten the stadium built, it might be a different story. Right now, though, you have an expensive club playing in a league with limitless transfer costs, taxing its owners with high squad demands, stuck with a limited capacity ground, and mired in high amounts of non-productive debt.

I have no idea who is going to buy the club until things get so bad that Hicks & Gillett give up all hope of profit and just want to get out before their losses get totally out of control. That will probably mean some catastrophic results on the pitch as well, though.

EDIT: I don't know why I keep thinking "Hanks" when I mean "Hicks."

EDIT 2: I got the name of Villa's owner wrong too. I'm really batting it out of the park today.

Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jan 25, 2010

# ¿ Jan 25, 2010 17:37

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Fat Turkey posted:

*hates the idea of people wanting to make money from a business*
*likes his football like he likes his women. Preferably no money changing hands*

Short term, debt-fueled speculation is different that running a club like a long term asset like Tottenham's owners have. Arguably, the former is just gambling while the latter is running your club like a business.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2010 22:41

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

pimpslap posted:

Honestly, is it so far-fetched? The whole point of the article is that such a management strategy would not require a massive fanbase, massive revenues, or massive spending. However, it would require patience on the part of club and fans, a return to developing young talent, establishing a successful scouting network (either worldwide or in overlooked regions), and creating a club ethos that would help retain nurtured talent. So which one of those needs 100 million pounds annually?

I think a successful scouting network entails the ability to attract young players to play for your club and fight off offers from other clubs unless you're assuming that you're always going to be the only in the mix. Keeping young talent will also require success and/or wage spikes to keep players from jumping almost immediate to another big club once they rise to prominence. Plus, since not every find from your scouting system is going to be a success, you will have to plug holes with transfer spending and the more ambitious you get, the more money you will probably need to spend.

At some point, no matter how "smart" your operations are or how patient you can get people to be, a club will need to have a good amount of capital available to help fuel a push up the ladder. The more expensive football gets, the more capital you need even if you aren't trying to ape Real Madrid.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2010 00:39

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Liverpool fans and other curious people might be interested in seeing what Managing Director Christian Purslow has supposedly admitted about the club's finances.

http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/Minutes-from-Christian-Purslow-and-SOS-Meeting.html

There are some hilarious discrepancies between the fan minutes and Purslow's own minutes as well.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2010 20:18

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

cheese posted:

Gimme the tl;dr.

According to the fan group that met with LFC's managing director, the club's debt is at �237 million. RBS, the main bank with a stake in the club, is demanding that the club's debts be reduced by �100 million. The owners have apparently reached the limit of what they can actually invest of their own money in the club and no one will lend them any more money. This in turn means that a new investor will have to be brought in to meet this condition. In doing so, the owners may either have to give up a large degree of control or may be forced out of the club entirely.

At the same time, he says that results on the pitch may not change just because of less debt. Any transfer budget Benitez has will require the sale of players and will include costs such as wages and contract extensions. He also denied saying that work on the stadium would begin in April and says that they're looking at 2013-2014 at the earliest.

Purslow's own "approved" minutes leaves out a lot of anti-owner commentary. According to the fans, Purslow supposedly laid into Hicks & Gillett for having unrealistic expectations and making misleading promises when they bought the club in the first place.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2010 02:36

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

sticksy posted:

Seriously, why is Liverpool the franchise he doesn't seem to want to let go?

It's his most expensive asset and, in this economic climate, he can't unload it both quickly and at a profit.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2010 23:51

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

How many people does it take to sell a Merseyside football club?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article7020022.ece

The Times posted:

Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani sets sights on buying Liverpool from Hicks and Gillett
February 9. 2010
Helen Power, Business Correspondent, Matt Hughes, Patrick Kidd

Liverpool emerged as a takeover target for the seventh-richest man in the world last night as the pressure mounted on Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr to cut a deal to sell Anfield.

Mukesh Ambani, the wealthiest man in India, is one of two tycoons from the sub-continent competing to buy a stake in the Merseyside club.

The Sahara Group�s chairman, Subrata Roy, and Ambani�s Reliance Industries have each tendered similar bids to pay off Liverpool�s �237 million debt in return for a 51 per cent stake in the club.

Last night Christian Purslow, the Liverpool chief executive, denied any knowledge of either bid, but The Times understands that approaches began as early as November and that some preliminary talks have taken place.

Each deal requires that the present owners make a commitment to take no dividends or expenses out of Anfield for three years to allow the club to resume a secure financial basis. One of the potential owners has also indicated a willingness to allow supporters to take a 10 per cent stake in Liverpool.

A source close to Hicks and Gillett said that the duo would reject on principle any bid that left them with less than 50 per cent of the club�s shares unless it involved either of them selling out entirely. A sale of more than half of the total stake would mean they would lose control of the club.

It is understood that Liverpool�s banker, the state-backed Royal Bank of Scotland, is pressing Hicks and Gillett to cut their asking price.

The bank declined to comment last night, but a source close to RBS said that there has been plenty of interest in Liverpool from investors. However, the source added, the owners are blocking all deals on the table because they refuse to budge on price.

The source said the bank�s stipulation that the pair must pay off �100 million of the debt and inject tens of millions of pounds into the club was intended to push them into an agreement with a new investor that would permanently stabilise Liverpool�s finances.

A number of other potential bidders include a Saudi Arabian consortium and a United States-based buyer, who is prepared to pay the �100 million required by the lenders in exchange for 40 per cent of the club.

Roy, whose interest appears more serious, has been linked with ownership of one of the next IPL franchises, possibly to be based in the north Indian city of Lucknow, where the Sahara Group, of which he is chairman, is based.

Roy, 62, founded the company, which deals in property, media and tourism, in 1978. Its four-year sponsorship deal with the India cricket team, worth �55 million, expires this year and Roy could be looking for a new project. Sahara was linked with shirt sponsorship of Manchester United last February, a deal that fell through.

Ambani, 52, is said to be worth $19.5 billion (about �12.5 billion) � more than the combined worth of Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abramovich � from his investment in Reliance Industries, a petrochemicals giant, according to Forbes business magazine.

His father, Dhirubhai, turned a small textiles company into one of Asia�s largest conglomerates, but after Ambani Sr�s death in 2002, Mukesh and his younger brother, Anil, had a bitter feud over the company�s direction, eventually splitting the assets.

Mukesh Ambani is already a big player in sport. In 2008 he created the Mumbai Indians, one of the eight teams in the Indian Premier League (IPL), having paid �70 million to buy the franchise. Anil Ambani has been linked with a bid for one of two new franchises in the IPL that will be put up for auction at the end of the month, with a starting price of �140 million.

Gillett and Hicks took over at Anfield three years ago in a leveraged buyout costing nearly �300 million, including �70 million for a stadium that remains unbuilt. Despite promises to the contrary, they loaded the debt on to the club via a �350 million loan with RBS and have struggled to service the debt since the credit crunch began 18 months ago.

Before the economic climate changed for the worse, the American duo turned down an offer from Dubai worth almost �500 million � a deal that would have allowed each of the owners to walk away with a clear profit in the region of �125 million.

The Americans are unpopular with the supporters and the hostility at Anfield has increased as it has become clear that there is no money available to strengthen the team.

Purslow, whose background is in private equity, joined the club last summer with a brief to bring in investment but, despite repeated briefings that an influx of cash in close at hand, there has been little to suggest investors are keen to take a minority stake in the club.

While these latest offers will almost certainly be rejected, it marks the beginning of a period of jockeying for position in the ownership battle. It is a battle that, ultimately, RBS may have to resolve.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2010 05:08

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

I wonder what they're going to do with all those man-made islands.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2010 17:17

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Transatlantic Gulp posted:

If I was stinking rich and owned one of them I wouldn't care if the rest of Dubai went to poo poo as long as it still had a functioning airport and port so I could get at my private island

That'd be great except most of those islands are packed with housing and hotel complexes, making them less than ideal places to have your supervillain lair.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2010 17:25

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

I came across this link on RAWK and thought this might be helpful when talking about wages.

http://www.futebolfinance.com/en/os-50-maiores-salarios-de-jogadores-de-futebol-20092010/

quote:

Salaries of footballers 2009/2010
# Player Club Monthly Annual
1 Ronaldo Real Madrid CF � 1,083,000 � 13,000,000
2 Zlatan Ibrahimovic FC Barcelona � 1,000,000 � 12,000,000
3 Messi FC Barcelona � 875,000 � 10,500,000
4 Samuel Eto'o Internazionale � 875,000 � 10,500,000
5 Ricardo Kaka Real Madrid CF � 833,000 � 10,000,000
6 Emmanuel Adebayor Manchester City � 708,000 � 8,500,000
7 Karim Benzema Real Madrid CF � 708,000 � 8,500,000
8 Carlos Tevez Manchester City � 666,000 � 8,000,000
9 John Terry Chelsea � 625,000 � 7,500,000
10 Frank Lampard Chelsea � 625,000 � 7,500,000
11 Thierry Henry FC Barcelona � 625,000 � 7,500,000
12 Xavi FC Barcelona � 625,000 � 7,500,000
13 Ronaldinho Milan � 625,000 � 7,500,000
14 Steven Gerrard Liverpool FC � 625,000 � 7,500,000
15 Alves FC Barcelona � 583,000 � 7,000,000
16 Michael Ballack Chelsea � 541,000 � 6,500,000
17 Raul Gonzalez Real Madrid CF � 541,000 � 6,500,000
18 Rio Ferdinand Manchester � 541,000 � 6,500,000
19 Kolo Toure Manchester City � 541,000 � 6,500,000
20 Wayne Rooney Manchester � 500,000 � 6,000,000
21 Robinho Manchester City � 500,000 � 6,000,000
22 Iker Casillas Real Madrid CF � 500,000 � 6,000,000
23 Victor Valdez FC Barcelona � 500,000 � 6,000,000
24 Frederic Kanoute Sevilla FC � 500,000 � 6,000,000
25 Deco Chelsea � 500,000 � 6,000,000
26 Didier Chelsea � 458,000 � 5,500,000
27 Gianluigi Buffon Juventus � 458,000 � 5,500,000
28 Francesco Totti Roma � 458,000 � 5,500,000
29 Toni AS Roma (loan) � 458,000 � 5,500,000
30 David Villa Valencia � 458,000 � 5,500,000
31 Arjen Robben Bayern Munich � 458,000 � 5,500,000
32 Bastian Schweinsteiger Bayern Munich � 458,000 � 5,500,000
33 Ashley Cole Chelsea � 458,000 � 5,500,000
34 Fernando Torres Liverpool FC � 458,000 � 5,500,000
35 Gareth Barry Manchester City � 458,000 � 5,500,000
36 Patrick Vieira Internazionale � 458,000 � 5,500,000
37 Charles Puyol FC Barcelona � 416,000 � 5,000,000
38 Andres Iniesta FC Barcelona � 416,000 � 5,000,000
39 Sergio Aguero Atletico Madrid � 416,000 � 5,000,000
40 Andrea Pirlo Milan � 416,000 � 5,000,000
41 Willy Sagnol Bayern Munich � 416,000 � 5,000,000
42 Ribery Bayern Munich � 416,000 � 5,000,000
43 David Bechkam Milan � 416,000 � 5,000,000
44 Wayne Bridge Manchester City � 416,000 � 5,000,000
45 Diarra Real Madrid CF � 416,000 � 5,000,000
46 Berbatov Manchester � 400,000 � 4,800,000
47 Andrei Arshavin Arsenal � 400,000 � 4,800,000
48 Nicolas Anelka Chelsea � 400,000 � 4,800,000
49 Ryan Giggs Manchester � 400,000 � 4,800,000
50 Alessandro Del Piero Juventus � 400,000 � 4,800,000

Notes:
(1) The figures are the result of research carried out in more than 30 publications worldwide that specialize in football. Of which, the major newspapers and magazines of the top leagues in the world.
(2) The figures are unofficial and approximate, and depend on new hires, or renewals of each contract.
(3) Figures refer to gross wages of the players (before tax), which of course does not include advertising contracts, gaming awards, signing bonuses, or other extra pay.
(4) There may from time to time differences with the figures, due to exchange rate in relation to players do not receive their salaries in euros.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2010 20:35

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Mickolution posted:

Sad?

As Liverpool fans, we're not entitled to gloat at all.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2010 00:20

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Lyric Proof Vest posted:

Just wear a monocle or something, would be pretty sweet if TRP owned a football club.

I've got a couple of savings bonds. Let's buy David Villa and David Silva.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2010 16:55

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

w00bi posted:

So if Liverpool doesn't start adjusting or making preparations for it right now, and indeed they don't make the CL, then it's possible they might go down a similar road?

I guess what I'm wondering is can Liverpool financially keep acting like a CL club if they aren't actually in the CL next year? I haven't seen anything about the latest Liverpool loans, which is why I'm curious.

I don't think relegation would be certainty, but if the club does not make the CL for next year and then stumbles again after that, which is highly possible. Liverpool will have to sell whatever awesome players it has left. It will probably get stuck in midtable mediocrity for a rather long while.

willkill4food posted:

I don't think thats the difference, you will have Voronin, Babel and Ngog on just as silly money if you are going to be out of the CL.

You haven't been following Liverpool in the past months, huh? We sold Voronin.

N'Gog's almost certainly not on silly money wages. Babel might be on his way out anyway, regardless of what gets said to the press. While Babel was fairly pricey due to market demand at the time, Voronin was brought in on a free transfer and sold on a profit while N'Gog was bought from PSG for a "whopping" 1.5 million.

This isn't anything like the crazy spending that Leeds was engaging in, from what I understand. Benitez has been forced to shop for Bosmans (with admittedly middling results) for a while now. He's been selling to buy for a long time too.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2010 18:24

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Big Black Sock posted:

How does 40 mil for Johnson and Aqui fit into this theory? And don't say he was forced to se Xabi, he ran him the gently caress out of town.

Arbeloa wanted to leave, Portsmouth still owed Liverpool money from the Crouch sale that Liverpool was likely not going to see, UEFA CL rules (chuckle) mandated having more Englishmen on the team, and Liverpool needed an extra attacking threat. That's why Benitez got Johnson.

You don't seem to want to hear what I'd say about the Alonso sale, so I don't know if you're going to listen to me about Aquilani. Regardless of why Alonso went, though, Alonso's transfer paid for Aquilani with the profit going to debt service. Aquilani was also chosen because he could be purchased on the equivalent of layaway from Roma. There was a fairly low up-front payment with extra costs coming into effect depending on whether the club met certain goals by playing him. Given how the season has been going, I'm not sure if that's going to come to pass.

I'm not saying that either of those players were objectively cheap, but to equate those purchases with the kind of transfer spending Leeds United was engaged in before the big crunch is not accurate either.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2010 14:50

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Big Black Sock posted:

Is there any way too see what kind of installments the transfers were paid? I can't imagine the fees were paid up front.

Sources? Not that I don't believe you I'd just like to see the numbers.

Aquilani: http://www.asroma.it/UserFiles/988.pdf - This lists the installment payments, albeit in Italian.

Johnson: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=656751&cc=5901
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Rafael-Benitez-defends-cost-of-Glen-Johnson-transfer-article27339.html

EDIT: I can't seem to find that recent interview Benitez had with the Times where he lays out the math of the Johnson transfer. Sorry.

Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Feb 28, 2010

# ¿ Feb 28, 2010 15:08

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Holy crap. I didn't realize Redknapp had a record like that.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2010 17:39

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_5997759,00.html

Sky Sports posted:

Pompey to return to court
Inland Revenue takes hard-line stance over crisis club

Portsmouth's administrator has told Sky Sports News that the club will return to the High Court on Tuesday as Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is contesting their voluntary administration.

The Inland Revenue is said to be furious that the Premier League's rock-bottom side managed to avoid Monday's winding-up order for a �7million unpaid tax bill by entering administration on Friday.

Administrator Andrew Andronikou has confirmed to Sky Sports News that he and Portsmouth's lawyers are due back in court at 10.30am on Tuesday as a result.

This is a hard-line stance from the Inland Revenue due to a reported anger over the fact that it is not considered a priority creditor.

Andronikou remains calm and is not overly concerned by the latest development, saying: "We're having to go to court to show that the debenture is valid.

Problems
"I don't understand the exact reason why this is, we're just following normal protocol. We're not unduly worried.

"It's not standard procedure but I'd imagine that HMRC are basically crossing their Is and dotting their Ts.

"We're expecting the administration to proceed as it was."

Victor Cattermole had confirmed earlier on Monday that he is still interested in buying Portsmouth.

The New Zealand businessman believes his Endeavor Plan consortium is well-placed and he feels the problems at Fratton Park are not as bad as has been suggested.

I find it so odd that British law has taken away the tax collector's usual status as a preferred creditor. If I was in HMRC, I'd be pissed off too.

Iggy Pop Barker posted:

Actually, Redknapp's attitude towards European competition when he does qualify has always been pretty shocking, hasn't it? plays kids and 3rd stringers to avoid fixture congestion... so that they can concentrate on getting back into europe next season?

How often has he had to deal with European competition? He had a UEFA Cup run last season. Anything else?

Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Mar 1, 2010

# ¿ Mar 1, 2010 19:51

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

brapbrapbrap posted:

Just had a text about some group launching a bid to buy Man Utd. Anyone heard anything?

Told you all something like this would happen.

If rumored bids and indications of interest meant actual purchases, Liverpool would have had at least 3-4 new owners by now.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2010 22:31

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11667_5997961,00.html

quote:

Sky News sources understand leading city financiers have met to discuss a potential takeover bid for Premier League champions Manchester United.

Representatives from law firm Freshfields and investment bank Goldman Sachs, among others, are understood to have been involved in the secret meeting.

Informally known as 'the Red Knights', the group held talks regarding a potential offer to buy out the Glazer family, who are unpopular with United fans.

The mammoth debts at Old Trafford have recently sparked a green and gold protest from supporters as the fans call on the Glazers to leave the club.

A �500million bonds issue has been used to help refinance the debts, and Sky sources understand the Glazers are not looking to sell.

However, Keith Harris, who has been involved with the group considering a potential takeover, recently called on supporters to start boycotting matches in an attempt to force the Glazers' hand.

Harris said last week: "Turning up to games 10 minutes late and things like that just doesn't do the job.

"The green and gold protest is fabulous, a symbolic and significant message to the owners. It is like the white handkerchiefs in Spain. But that won't force the Glazers to sell to us.

"However, if enough people - and I am talking about thousands - stop turning up to matches and do not renew their tickets, then that does it. The supporters have to hurt the Glazers in their pockets.

"They have to be prepared to take the pain of not watching their club in order to achieve a long-term gain. Supporters have to be galvanised to say, 'We will not come. We will not buy programmes and merchandise'.

"It's a big ask, it's a risk, but that is what must happen. The Glazers are thick-skinned and seem impervious to protest. They will not be impervious to enormous drops in their revenue.

"I would not talk about this if I didn't have full confidence in our ability to raise the money to do this. I never talk publicly unless I have confidence. Getting the money together is the easy bit.

"But we can't make an offer until the Glazers are placed in a position where they are forced to consider it."

This is all very preliminary conjecture.

EDIT: Also, if you need a fan boycott to damage the targeted business' revenue and force someone to sell, that basically means that there's not enough money or interest among people who work with actual business concerns in mind right to purchase the club (at least at an asking price which will leave the present owners relatively whole). Manchester United is going to have to take some major hits in order to make the Glazer family sell and take the huge loss on the club because no one is going to raise that much money just to pay off someone else's debts.

Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Mar 1, 2010

# ¿ Mar 1, 2010 22:37

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

brapbrapbrap posted:

"However, if enough people - and I am talking about thousands - stop turning up to matches and do not renew their tickets, then that does it. The supporters have to hurt the Glazers in their pockets.

"They have to be prepared to take the pain of not watching their club in order to achieve a long-term gain. Supporters have to be galvanised to say, 'We will not come. We will not buy programmes and merchandise'."

I've been saying this for ages, since this whole Glazer thing started. That's the only way of standing by your convictions and sending a message.

I wonder how many feel so strongly about the issue that they're prepared to give up their Champions League finals, Cup finals and Premiership title races? Very few I would guess, as has been proven so far by the little amount of interest in FC United (and half of that lot still go and watch Man Utd anyway).

Then why did you say this?

brapbrapbrap posted:

Told you all something like this would happen.

You're basically saying that the club is going to have to go down in value or prestige before lowering in price and getting bought up by someone else, but you don't seem to agree when anyone else basically says the same thing.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2010 23:06

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

brapbrapbrap posted:

You've lost me. I've always said that if this anti-Glazer lot actually cared as much as they want people to think they do, they'd stop going to games and start protesting in meaningful ways. They'd still be absolute cretins of course but I'd at least have SOME respect for them for standing by their convictions. As it is, they're content to buy Newton Heath scarves (who sells these by the way? - nice little earner), whilst watching their team lift the Carling Cup and play in the Champions League etc - still pissing and moaning about the evil Glazers, whilst hypocritically continuing to feed the monster they claim to hate. Even the majority of the FC United retards still go to Man Utd games. Says it all really.

I got the impression that you have always assumed that the Big 4 would stay the Big 4 because there's always a billionaire or a group of billionaires waiting to buy something up and perpetuate the old order, regardless of what kind of trouble a club like Liverpool or Man-U found itself in. I don't see how the situation with Manchester United's potential buyout supports that idea, which you appeared to reiterate by saying "I told you something like this would happen."

This is a separate issue from your disdain for most Manchester United fans.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2010 23:46

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

brapbrapbrap posted:

I never said the Big 4 would always remain the same, my point was that there is absolute no way a club like Man Utd would be allowed to be relegated, never mind go out of business. There'll always be someone out there to bail them out before it got close to that kind of situation.

Well, I think that all the measures that you point out as being necessary in order to shift Manchester United to a more sustainable business and ownership model would probably result for a short, steep decline in fortunes that could easily result in relegation.

I don't think dissolution is that strong of a possibility, but as many clubs have shown, certain massive financial corrections are going to result in undesirable results on the pitch.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2010 23:58

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

The new Deloitte list is out...

http://in.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idINIndia-46573820100302

quote:

MILAN (Reuters) - Real Madrid and Barcelona topped the world's richest club followed by Manchester United, according to an annual survey by accountancy firm Deloitte released on Tuesday.

The combined revenues of the top 20 clubs grew by 26 million euros ($35.16 million) to over 3.9 billion euros in 2008-09, amid the global economic downturn.

However, nine of the clubs reported a decrease in revenues in local currency on the previous season.

Following are details of the top 10 clubs by revenues featuring in the latest Deloitte "Football Money League". (All 2008/09 figures in million euros, previous position in brackets).

1 (1) REAL MADRID
Revenues: 401.4 (from 365.8)
Matchday: 101.4
Broadcasting: 160.8
Commercial: 139.2

2 (3) FC BARCELONA
Revenues: 365.9 (from 308.8)
Matchday: 95.5
Broadcasting: 158.4
Commercial: 112.0

3 (2) MANCHESTER UNITED
Revenues: 327.0 (from 324.8)
Matchday: 127.7
Broadcasting: 117.1
Commercial: 82.2

4 (4) BAYERN MUNICH
Revenues: 289.5 (from 295.3)
Matchday: 60.6
Broadcasting: 69.6
Commercial: 159.3

5 (6) ARSENAL
Revenues*: 263.0 (from 264.4)
Matchday: 117.5
Broadcasting: 89.0
Commercial: 56.5
(*In million pounds: 224 from 209.3)

6 (5) CHELSEA
Revenues: 242.3 (from 268.9)
Matchday: 87.4
Broadcasting: 92.9
Commercial: 62.0

7 ( 8 ) LIVERPOOL
Revenues: 217.0 (from 207.4)
Matchday: 49.9
Broadcasting: 87.6
Commercial 79.5

8 (11) JUVENTUS
Revenues: 203.2 (from 167.5)
Matchday: 16.7
Broadcasting: 132.2
Commercial: 54.3

9 (10) INTER MILAN
Revenues: 196.5 (from 172.9)
Matchday: 28.2
Broadcasting: 115.7
Commercial: 52.6

10 (7) AC MILAN
Revenues: 196.5 (from 209.5)
Matchday: 33.4
Broadcasting: 99.0
Commercial: 64.1

(Editing by Alison Wildey; To query or comment on this story email sportsfeedback@thomsonreuters.com)

# ¿ Mar 2, 2010 02:47

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Adnar posted:

how does Chelsea make so much more than Liverpool on matchday? double ticket prices or do they have THAT much more corporates?

i was surprised by that too, since Anfield has a slightly higher capacity in terms of pure numbers. I wasn't sure how much of it was the fact that everything in London is apparently much more expensive, though.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2010 04:39

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/03/red-knights-manchester-united-david-gill

Apparently, the Red Knights are going nowhere and the Glazers will dig in.

Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Mar 4, 2010

# ¿ Mar 4, 2010 01:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 23:19

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

willkill4food posted:

I would take Roman any day over the Americans at Liverpool or Man U.

So from what I remember reading, Chelsea really owe Abramovich a ton of money in the form of low interest loans which he has made to the club, correct? I guess if anyone else wanted to buy Chelsea from him, depending on the state of his own finances, he could just take a bath on those loans he has made?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't know that much about Chelsea's financial situation except that they haven't quite made a profit yet.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2010 19:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Ray Parlour > Football Finances, come laugh at portsmouth

«‹›6 »