Premiership Debt

[Sylar]

If this descends into a city of Manchester back and forth, I'll delete this again, but I came across an article this morning which outlines the sheer over-inflation of football finances in the English Premiership:

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/03/13/footall-its-only-a-matter-of-life-death-and-money-13030/

The article is generally focussing on UEFA and the Financial Fair Play legislation, but here are some truly staggering stats:

City made a financial loss last season of £16,416,667 per month, or £547,222 a day, £22,801 an hour, £380 a minute, £6.33 a second.
That amount per second is just a bit more than the British minimum wage worker will make in an hour.

What about United, and the amount the Glazers have leeched from the club? On 28 June 2005, Malcolm Glazer increased his stake in the club to 98 per cent, enough for a compulsory buyout of the rest, and total control. In the 2,377 days between then and the end of 2011, interest, bank charges and the like – to help the Glazers buy United with United’s resources – have cost United’s coffers £497.5m.

That’s £209,297 a day, or £8,721 an hour, £145 a minute, or £2.42 per second, every second for six and a half years.

What about Chelsea?

Abramovich has spent a billion pounds net in eight years, maybe a little more. But let’s just call it a round billion. That’s £125m a year, or £342,466 a day, £14,269 an hour, £238 a minute, or £3.96 a second. Every second since June 2003.

One billion pounds is the GDP of Burundi, a nation of 10 million souls, according to the World Bank.


Staggering.

[CallumLaidlaw]

And though their turnover is still light years away from the spl, you have to take your hat off to the Norwich, Swansea's, newcastles and evertons who are holding their own in the league on a fraction of the spend.

[KeithTheHibby]

And how many times have those clubs collectively won the champions league in the last 10 years? Once. Says it all.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

When the wheels finally come off that cart - and unless there is some game changer here I believe it will I will shed no tears. Completely obscene and when people vilify the fat cats they should ask themselves where the players stand in this.

The game changer could well be a Sky/broadcaster consortium playing pied-piper yet again to the moneymen. Leaving a wake of devastation of the clubs that reached for the sun and fell like Icarus if they are not the chosen few to move to a new (pan-European?) setup.

[lapsedhibee]

If this descends into a city of Manchester back and forth, I'll delete this.

But Manchester U aren't even in the city of Manchester! :grr: :panic: :wink:

[Viva_Palmeiras]

http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=16839

Lemmings...

[ScottB]

Thing is, Man Utd can afford to service their debt, and as long as the likes of Chelsea and Man City hold the attentions of their mega rich owners, so can they.

The real debt issue in the Premiership is the smaller clubs, the Evertons and so on, while they may not be as astronomical, they are much more dangerous.

I fully expect a couple smaller EPL clubs to hit the bricks in the coming years.

[blackpoolhibs]

Thing is, Man Utd can afford to service their debt, and as long as the likes of Chelsea and Man City hold the attentions of their mega rich owners, so can they.

The real debt issue in the Premiership is the smaller clubs, the Evertons and so on, while they may not be as astronomical, they are much more dangerous.

I fully expect a couple smaller EPL clubs to hit the bricks in the coming years.

Not sure if Everton are in real trouble debt wise, but i'm sure i read Bolton were up to £100m in debt.

Now if they get relegated, they could be in real trouble?

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Not sure if Everton are in real trouble debt wise, but i'm sure i read Bolton were up to £100m in debt.

Now if they get relegated, they could be in real trouble?

That was the gist of the 200percenters hence the lemmings spending what they ain't got to avoid dropping into the abyss crazy

[jgl07]

If this descends into a city of Manchester back and forth, I'll delete this again, but I came across an article this morning which outlines the sheer over-inflation of football finances in the English Premiership:

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/03/13/footall-its-only-a-matter-of-life-death-and-money-13030/

The article is generally focussing on UEFA and the Financial Fair Play legislation, but here are some truly staggering stats:

City made a financial loss last season of £16,416,667 per month, or £547,222 a day, £22,801 an hour, £380 a minute, £6.33 a second.
That amount per second is just a bit more than the British minimum wage worker will make in an hour.

What about United, and the amount the Glazers have leeched from the club? On 28 June 2005, Malcolm Glazer increased his stake in the club to 98 per cent, enough for a compulsory buyout of the rest, and total control. In the 2,377 days between then and the end of 2011, interest, bank charges and the like – to help the Glazers buy United with United’s resources – have cost United’s coffers £497.5m.

That’s £209,297 a day, or £8,721 an hour, £145 a minute, or £2.42 per second, every second for six and a half years.

What about Chelsea?

Abramovich has spent a billion pounds net in eight years, maybe a little more. But let’s just call it a round billion. That’s £125m a year, or £342,466 a day, £14,269 an hour, £238 a minute, or £3.96 a second. Every second since June 2003.

One billion pounds is the GDP of Burundi, a nation of 10 million souls, according to the World Bank.

Staggering.

I would not read too much into last year's accounts. Many of the clubs are preparing for FFP which will start to kick in with this years' accounts. The clubs were probably loading a lot of costs and depreciation on last year's to make this year's results look better.

[Gatecrasher]

If this descends into a city of Manchester back and forth, I'll delete this again, but I came across an article this morning which outlines the sheer over-inflation of football finances in the English Premiership:

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/03/13/footall-its-only-a-matter-of-life-death-and-money-13030/

The article is generally focussing on UEFA and the Financial Fair Play legislation, but here are some truly staggering stats:

City made a financial loss last season of £16,416,667 per month, or £547,222 a day, £22,801 an hour, £380 a minute, £6.33 a second.
That amount per second is just a bit more than the British minimum wage worker will make in an hour.

What about United, and the amount the Glazers have leeched from the club? On 28 June 2005, Malcolm Glazer increased his stake in the club to 98 per cent, enough for a compulsory buyout of the rest, and total control. In the 2,377 days between then and the end of 2011, interest, bank charges and the like – to help the Glazers buy United with United’s resources – have cost United’s coffers £497.5m.

That’s £209,297 a day, or £8,721 an hour, £145 a minute, or £2.42 per second, every second for six and a half years.

What about Chelsea?

Abramovich has spent a billion pounds net in eight years, maybe a little more. But let’s just call it a round billion. That’s £125m a year, or £342,466 a day, £14,269 an hour, £238 a minute, or £3.96 a second. Every second since June 2003.

One billion pounds is the GDP of Burundi, a nation of 10 million souls, according to the World Bank.


Staggering.

Thats a sickening amount of money

[Lost_Mackem]

http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=16839

Lemmings...

It's astounding, and I speak as a fan of a Premier League club with a great history and tradition just like Everton.

The difference is, although our previous Chairman got plenty of stick, he managed to build us a modern, brilliant stadium on the cheap, and then invested a lot of his own money into building a state of the art academy and training ground. It made the club an attractive proposition and we have now managed to get a billionaire in charge of the club who has dramatically reduced the debt.

Everton are a massive club, but any potential investor will have to take on a mountain of debt, in order to generate new revenue Everton will need to build a new stadium and that won't exactly come cheap. You're looking at having to invest £300m+ before you even begin to worry about new players etc...

The mind boggles, Everton have played more seasons in the top flight than any other club and it would be a sad demise if/when they finally do get relegated. They came close a few times in the 90's and early 2000's but managed to stay up by the skin of their teeth. When Moyes eventually leaves it could spark a downward spiral.

[Killiehibbie]

Thing is, Man Utd can afford to service their debt, and as long as the likes of Chelsea and Man City hold the attentions of their mega rich owners, so can they.

The real debt issue in the Premiership is the smaller clubs, the Evertons and so on, while they may not be as astronomical, they are much more dangerous.

I fully expect a couple smaller EPL clubs to hit the bricks in the coming years.The thing about Man Utd is the way the rules allowed those Glazers to buy the club on borrowed money then transfer the debt to the club, that should've been illegal.
The whole lot is unsunstainable and big changes will be needed or clubs will disappear.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Thats what folk dont seem to realise when the mega rich take over their clubs.

They think that these guys, consortiums, whatever spend their personal cash to finance everything. If thats the case why are these huge debts appearing on the balance sheets of the clubs ?

Thats what the Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City .... Hearts fans will find out some time in the future. The rich guys walk away still rich and the clubs are left with the huge debt.

Tick Tock as they say

[ScottB]

Thats what folk dont seem to realise when the mega rich take over their clubs.

They think that these guys, consortiums, whatever spend their personal cash to finance everything. If thats the case why are these huge debts appearing on the balance sheets of the clubs ?

Thats what the Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City .... Hearts fans will find out some time in the future. The rich guys walk away still rich and the clubs are left with the huge debt.

Tick Tock as they say

To be fair, the debts as these two clubs wouldn't even be noticed by the owners as far as their bank balances go, particularly Man City!

The whole Man Utd takeover, in a similar respect the Rangers one too, should be illegal, I mean technically anybody could pull that sort of crap off! If some crazy billionaire wants to wave bye bye to some of their money, good luck to them, but buyers using a clubs own resources to purchase them stinks.

[jgl07]

Thats what folk dont seem to realise when the mega rich take over their clubs.

They think that these guys, consortiums, whatever spend their personal cash to finance everything. If thats the case why are these huge debts appearing on the balance sheets of the clubs ?

Thats what the Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City .... Hearts fans will find out some time in the future. The rich guys walk away still rich and the clubs are left with the huge debt.

Tick Tock as they say

Maybe but Manchester City have no debt. There have been losses but covered by investement not borrowing.

The Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) have not only invested large sums in the playing staff but are currently underwriting a £1 billion regeneration programme for East Manchester in partnership with the City Council.

This includes a £100 million state of the art training complex including a 7,000 seat stadium for reserve and youth team matches, one indoor and fiftteen outdoor pitches. This will be adjacent to the main stadium connected by a iconic footbridge (costing nearly £10 million).

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1417210

The complex will also include a new sixth form college and an institute for sports medicine in association with the University and the NHS. ADUG are also contributing £3 million to the City Council to build a new swimming pool and another adjacent site.

That is before the development of the 'collar site' next to the stadium (once earmarked for a super casino) starts. This is intended to be a sport/leisure development including a (seven star?) hotel.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=436685&page=133

You do not commit to this level of infrastructure development and walk away. It may not fit into the preconceptions of some, but these people really mean business.

[frazeHFC]

City made a financial loss last season of £16,416,667 per month, or £547,222 a day, £22,801 an hour, £380 a minute, £6.33 a second.



:eek:

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Maybe but Manchester City have no debt. There have been losses but covered by investement not borrowing.

The Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) have not only invested large sums in the playing staff but are currently underwriting a £1 billion regeneration programme for East Manchester in partnership with the City Council.

This includes a £100 million state of the art training complex including a 7,000 seat stadium for reserve and youth team matches, one indoor and fiftteen outdoor pitches. This will be adjacent to the main stadium connected by a iconic footbridge (costing nearly £10 million).

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1417210

The complex will also include a new sixth form college and an institute for sports medicine in association with the University and the NHS. ADUG are also contributing £3 million to the City Council to build a new swimming pool and another adjacent site.

That is before the development of the 'collar site' next to the stadium (once earmarked for a super casino) starts. This is intended to be a sport/leisure development including a (seven star?) hotel.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=436685&page=133

You do not commit to this level of infrastructure development and walk away. It may not fit into the preconceptions of some, but these people really mean business.


Dubai investments don't always work out...
http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/30/abu-dhabi-stock-market?cat=business&type=article

[Kaiser1962]

The thing about Man Utd is the way the rules allowed those Glazers to buy the club on borrowed money then transfer the debt to the club, that should've been illegal.
The whole lot is unsunstainable and big changes will be needed or clubs will disappear.

Is that not what Whyte appears to have done at Rangers?


That said most big purchases are bought with borrowed money. Makes sense if the model is going to work at all.

[Kaiser1962]

Maybe but Manchester City have no debt. There have been losses but covered by investement not borrowing.



Is that definitely the case?

I dont know about ManC but this was believed to be the case at Chelsea for a long time before it was outed as nonsense. Chelsea owe Roman a cool £740m which has not been written off.

You only have to look across the city when, not long ago, Vlad's right hand man uttered something along the lines of, I paraphrase, that they had no debt as they owed it to themselves. Changed days indeed.

[Gus]

And how many times have those clubs collectively won the champions league in the last 10 years? Once. Says it all.

because the likes of Barca operate within a profit aye?