Football Money League

redspider

The Deloitte Football Money review for last season was published recently and it makes interesting reading. What happens there has a direct impact on the pitch, and what happens on the pitch has a direct impact on the money, etc.

The first aspect I've looked at are the English clubs and how they have fared. The Deloitte figures are soley for the Income part of the clubs finances. Costs are in some cases not directly related to Income.

The Total Income table is as follows (figures are in Euro):

Man Utd 246.4
Chelsea 220.8
Liverpool 181.2
Arsenal 171.3
Newcastle 128.9
Tottenham 104.5
Celtic 92.7
Man City 90.1
Everton 88.8
Rangers 81.6
Bolton 78.6
Middlesboro 77.0

Liverpool are up to 3rd, ahead of Arsenal, clearly bouyed by the CL run and an increase from 140 the previous season. Liverpool have twice as much income as Celtic. Chelsea have a sizeable 221m, which is very similar to the season before that, of 217m. Ranieri was just as successful money-wise as Mourinho has been. Man Utd are 3 times "as big" as Everton.

The breakdown of those figures are insightful. Deloitte provides breakdown in terms of Matchday, which is related to the home game receipts, Broadcasting, which is related to TV and online, and Commercial, which is related to marketing, etc.

There are leagues within leagues. In terms of Matchday, Man U are clearly well out in front with their large capacity:

Man Utd 102.5
Chelsea 83.7
Arsenal 55.4
Newcastle 52.2
Liverpool 49.0
Celtic 46.5
Tottenham 31.2
Everton 27.7
Man City 22.3

Chelsea also are well ahead of the others, over 30m ahead of Liverpool. Newcastle punch well above their weight, and Celtic are right up there, both thanks to their large fan bases.


In terms of Broadcasting, here is the table:

Chelsea 82.0
Liverpool 75.5
Arsenal 71.9
Man Utd 71.7
Everton 43.7
Newcastle 41.3
Man City 38.7
Tottenham 37.8
Celtic 25.3

Chelsea doing the best, Liverpool also good, probably from the decent CL runs, but Arsenal and Man U also do very well, and there is a clear gulf between these 4 clubs and the others, Everton are about 30m behind. And Celtic lag considerably, which is the key reason why they want (or at least some of the owners do) to join the EPL.

Finally, Commercial:

Man Utd 72.2
Liverpool 56.7
Chelsea 55.1
Arsenal 44.0
Tottenham 35.5
Newcastle 35.4
Man City 29.1
Celtic 20.9
Everton 17.4

Once again, Man U have the edge, the global brand although Real Madrid had an income of 124.0m in this category, so are way out in front in terms of a global brand. Beckham is a factor in this. Liverpool did quite well on 56m along with Chelsea on 55m, leaving Arsenal in their wake at 44m. Celtic, at about 21m, is just not at the races however, and again, appearing on English TV would help enormously. Why dont the BBC just include their games in Motd which is what marketeers want?

I'll do more analysis including the European teams later, on this thread.

redspider

A Dub in Glasgo

Those figures really do put the (lack of) money exposure of the SPL into perspective

I am surprised that Celtic are 6th in the gate receipts league but I suppose that reflects the cheaper entrance price to view the SPL over the prices charged by the EPL clubs (especially Chelsea)

Any figures on how the clubs fare with outgoings and the profitibility of the clubs?

redspider

I dont have the profit/loss figures to hand, and I wish that Deloitte would include these in their study/report.

Liverpool made a profit of UKP 7.5m (ie: they spent about 165m eur), but they lost UKP 18m the season before that (no CL, Houlliers + others exit costs included). Liverpool's debt is 17m.

Arsenal made a profit of ukp 19.3m (ie: they spent about 140m eur)

Man U made profits of ukp 46m or so, ie: costs are approx 175m eur (but note that Man U were 540m ukp in debt due to the leveraged Glazer take-over!)

Chelsea made a book loss of ukp 140m, some of that was asset write-down I believe, and the club finances are shrouded in a bit of mystery. If actual losses are around ukp 100m, it means they spent approx. 370m eur, about 2.5 times that of Arsenal !!

According to an article in The Scotsman, Celtic have a debt of 13.5m UKP and do make a profit, although I couldnt find that figure. (Edit: found it. See Post Below)

Whilst Celtic and Newcastle have fanatical support, and the fans do more than their fair share to maintain their success, they lack some global appeal and perhaps need to exploit that better to improve their finances. Succes on the pitch is paramount and for Celtic that means not only domestically in the SPL, but especially in the CL. That is the most important competition for them to develop. And if that doesnt work out then it should be the Uefa Cup, where they have had some success in recent years. A win in that would be great exposure and a start to further CL success.

TV deals would of course help and ironically its access to the English market which I think is holding them back, where the BBC need to show more of their games.

redspider

redspider

el rabitos wrote:

i think newcastle think they're a bigger club than they actually are.

astrofool wrote:

having a big fanbase makes a big club, which makes Newcastle a big club.

There are many ways to measure a football club, but what makes a club "big" is subjective in certain respects. Its a label that is attached to many clubs by footballers, managers, and media alike. ie: such-and-such are a big club.

Clearly, the clubs mentioned in the Money League list shown above (which is a measure in terms of income) are big clubs. And we all know a big club when it is mentioned. Real Madrid are a big club, Shelbourne are not a big club, and somewhere in between is the dividing line.

For Newcastle, in these terms (ie: Income), they are the 5th in Total Income (in England/Scotland), broken down as 4th for Matchday (the large fanbase helps, regularly filling St James Park with 52,000 fans), 6th for Broadcasting and 6th for Commercial. Even though they are not winning anything, they have a huge fanatical following, most of it local it has to be said, and that is a driving force for the club. If anything, their fans deserve special praise as other fan bases have not shown similar levels of loyalty with the lack of trophies.

Newcastle have the wherewithal to make a good challenge on the top-4 again, and to have successful runs in Cups. So to me, they are a big club, whichever way you look at it.

redspider

el rabitos

Newcastle have the wherewithal to make a good challenge on the top-4 again, and to have successful runs in Cups. So to me, they are a big club, whichever way you look at it.

thats your opinion, and i'm sure your sticking to it.

for me, newcastle are a big club on tynside, nice stadium, chairman with some cash, plenty of fans in newcastle.

but for me to consider any club to be "big" they have to win championships, and if they're not winning championships they have to be winning cups or at least challenging consistantly for honours. newcastle have won nothing, and its as simple as that

they huff and puff like a big club, but i dont consider them a big club. i dont look at the league or the cup fixtures and say, "oh no, newcastle are there".

i'd say they are potentially a big club, simply because of local support and good facilities, other than that, nothing.

actually, this is how i regard the premiership, in no particular order.

big clubs:-

arsenal
man u
liverpool
chelsea

periphery clubs:-
Spurs
Newcastle
Bolton
Everton
Charlton
blackburn
man city
villa

the little people:-
west ham
Middlesbrough
Fulham
Birmingham
wigan

porthsmouth, west brom, sunderland = gonners imo

"periphery clubs" are the ones in my opinion that on any given season are capable of having a good run and could finish in the top 4

"the little people" are the ones that will sell they're best players or are not capable of keeping them if a bigger club comes along. i like west ham, but i'd rather they made a better effort of keeping they're top youth players.

anyway, thats how i see things

redspider

el rabitos wrote:

but for me to consider any club to be "big" they have to win championships, and if they're not winning championships they have to be winning cups or at least challenging consistantly for honours. newcastle have won nothing, and its as simple as that

I understand the point you are making. No honours/trophies or challenging for them, => not big.

I use a different way to rate them. Looking at the money-side, a club that can generate 130m of income is a big club to me. Newcastle generate 40m more than Celtic. I agree with you that Newcastle arent challenging as much as the big-4 are, but they were a couple of seasons ago and this current period may be a blip. Liverpool had a similar one because of Souness! Only time will tell if Newcastle get back up to challenge like they did in recent time.

For me, a big club doesnt have to challenge all the time. I give them some grace period. eg: I still rated Man Utd as a big club even when they were relegated in the 1970's. Likewise with Arsenal when they had several off seasons.

Lets see what happens to Newcastle in the next few seasons.

redspider

redspider

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/2006/02/celtic-interim-accounts-show-player.shtml

Celtic plc, interim results for the SIX MONTHS to 31 December 2005
Turnover fell to £33.3m (2004: £39.2m)
Retained loss for the period was £961,000
Reallocated £4.6m of non-equity share capital (preference shares) as debt. net debt was £13.3m.
Invested £6.55m in the acquisition of football player registrations
Merchandising brought in £9.6m (2004: £6.5m).
£25.3m on the balance sheet, the December share issue lifted this from £11.4m.

+++

An early exit for Europe has cost Celtic in terms of income in comparison to the previous financial year which was included in the Deloitte report.

redspider

redspider

el rabitos wrote:

big clubs:- A, M, L, C
periphery clubs:-
Spurs, Newcastle, Bolton, Everton, Charlton, blackburn, man city, villa

We are in agreement on the top-4. Boro fans might want to dispute their "little people" label. But if you had to pick a 5th out of the periphery, who would it be?

For me, over the last 5 years it has been Newcastle.

redspider

ps: I didnt see all of your post the first time for some reason ....

el rabitos

We are in agreement on the top-4. Boro fans might want to dispute their "little people" label. But if you had to pick a 5th out of the periphery, who would it be?

tbh i'd have to give it to either bolton or spurs. neither are a team i look forward to liverpool playing. but if i was to give it to 1 of them it would be spurs. purely based on my idea that bolton wouldnt be as effective without sam allardyce.

both teams have been consistant in my eyes over the past few years, and i like spurs' policy of signing the best young players in england.

i'd like to see newcastles books, i wonder who's been bank rolling them. if its out of the chairmans pockets and not from loans i'd be suprised tbh

*edit*

regarding boro; i just see them as a team of mercenaries. i dont see any structure to that team at all. its 1 or 2 good players surrounded by players that failed at bigger clubs. decent manager, bit over rated.

Dont be at yourself

But over the next five years? Perhaps Spurs. Over the last 100 years? Perhaps someone else. I wouldn't rate Newcastle as any bigger than a lot of other teams in that list, despite their obvious desires.

But then, as has been said, it all rests on one's definition of what a 'big club' is. Depends from where you're looking from, I guess. To a non-league team, Newcastle are a big club, whereas to Real Madrid, they're nowhere in the same league as Liverpool, Bayern Munich, Juventus and co.

Kingp35

redspider where do you get those figures? Do you know how to see the figures for the Championship clubs?

segadreamcast

That is some great analysis Redspider - are you involved in economics in any capacity? Or report writing? That is really top-notch analysis indeed - resembles academic material.

redspider

Kingp35 wrote:

redspider where do you get those figures? Do you know how to see the figures for the Championship clubs?

They are presented in the Deloitte Football Money League 2006 report (google it). You can download it from their website after a registration. Its a 28-page report. This latest annual version was published in Feb 2006 and covers the year 2004-05. Most clubs end their financial year in June and they try to present comparable figures.

I haven't looked up any figures of clubs from the 2nd level. No doubt the info is out there somewhere. I read that Wolves had an income of ukp 11m in 2000, and that Reading had ukp 14m. Seemingly they have a hotel at the stadium which boosts this figure.

NoelRock wrote:

That is some great analysis Redspider - are you involved in economics in any capacity? Or report writing? That is really top-notch analysis indeed - resembles academic material.

errm, I attend the University of Life and am reading a Ph.D in 'Footballology' ..... ;-)

> resembles academic material.

Must do better so ..... ;-)

redspider

redspider

I will do further analysis of the European teams, when I get around to it (ok Mike? ;-) ), but before I do, here are the finances of an LOI club I came across, Finn Harps:

21st February 2006
The cost of running Finn Harps FC rose by over 100,000 euro last year. Shareholders attending the club's Annual General Meeting meeting were informed that it cost 454,257 euro to run the club in 2005 compared to 345,689 euro in '04.

Income for the year totalled just over 440,000 euro which was almost 70,000 euro more than the previous year.

The biggest single expenditure in 2005 was for 'Employees/Coaching/ PAYE & PRSI/Transfer' fees which cost 269,650 euro, over 40,000 more than the previous year. Meals, travel and accommodation cost the club over 34,000 euro last year, 13,000 euro more than in 2004.

The income figures for last year were also significantly up. Income for 2005 totalled 440,035 euro compared to 372,984 euro the previous year. The main sources of income included Gate Receipts (170,871 euro), Sponsorship and Advertising (106,650 euro) and the 500 club draw (35,747 euro).

---

So, an income of 440k compared with Man U's 246m, thats a factor of approx 560 !!!
So, 560x Finn Harps = 1x Man Utd !!
That puts the difference between LOI clubs and the English clubs into perspective.

Does anyone have the finances collated for the top clubs in the LOI?

redspider

redspider

Here are the lastest financial results from Spurs. They are running at a profit although from this report its not clear how much is operational profit and how much was just a boost from off-loading some players:

Tottenham have announced pre-tax profits of £4.4million (E6.32million) for the six months ended December 31, 2005.

The north London club's turnover for the period was £36.3million, up from £32.9million for the same period the previous year.

Spurs chairman Daniel Levy said in a statement to the Stock Exchange: "We shall look to consolidate the areas that have seen change and to continue to improve performance in all departments within the club.

"Much has been achieved and there is still much to do."

The sale of players such as Fredi Kanoute, Erik Edman and Timothee Atouba contributed to an £8.3million profit on the sale of intangible fixed assets.

Gate receipts were healthier to the tune of £1.4million when compared to the same period of 2004, but the early exit from the Carling Cup at the hands of Grimsby has slashed cup gate receipts by £1million compared to the six months to the end of 2004.

Losing to Leicester in the third round of the FA Cup in January will have an impact on the next set of figures.

Media and broadcasting revenues fell by £1.1million, largely due to appearing in three fewer live matches. Levy insists the club will continue their policy of investing in young talent, with Spurs possessing some of England's most exciting up-and-coming players.

"We will continue to look for excellent young talent in a bid to ensure the club is in the best possible position to prosper now and in the future," Levy added.

"A lot of investment continues to be focused on academy recruits, with scouting taking place throughout the world looking for, and competing for, stars of the future."

redspider