Deloitte Money League

redspider

Here is the Deloitte Money League table based on Revenues for 2005/06 in
millions of euro. Figures in brackets are from the previous season (04/05):

1. Real Madrid - 292.2 (275.7)
2. FC Barcelona - 259.1 (207.9)
3. Juventus - 251.2 (229.4)
4. Manchester U - 242.6 (246.4)
5. AC Milan - 238.7 (234.0)
6. Chelsea - 221.0 (220.8)
7. Internazionale - 206.6 (177.2)
8. Bayern Munich - 204.7 (189.5)
9. Arsenal - 192.4 (171.3)
10 Liverpool - 176.0 (181.2)
11 Olympique Lyon - 127.7 (92.9)
12 AS Roma - 127.0 (131.8)
13 Schalke 04 - 122.9 (97.4)
14 Newcastle U - 124.3 (128.9)
15 Tottenham H - 107.2 (104.5)
16 Hamburg SV - 101.8
17 Manchester C - 89.4 (90.1)
18 Rangers - 88.5
19 West Ham - 86.9
20 Benfica - 85.1


This money table is perhaps the most real table of a football clubs success, although the profit table is the ultimate business test. Does anyone have that?

The English clubs compared is as follows:
4. Manchester U - 242.6 (246.4)
6. Chelsea - 221.0 (220.8)
9. Arsenal - 192.4 (171.3)
10 Liverpool - 176.0 (181.2)
14 Newcastle U - 124.3 (128.9)
15 Tottenham H - 107.2 (104.5)
17 Manchester C - 89.4 (90.1)
18 Rangers - 88.5
19 West Ham - 86.9

Note that Celtic dropped out but will be back I think next year.


Redspider

county

redspider wrote:

Here is the Deloitte Money League table based on Revenues for 2005/06 in
millions of euro. Figures in brackets are from the previous season (04/05):

1. Real Madrid - 292.2 (275.7)
2. FC Barcelona - 259.1 (207.9)
3. Juventus - 251.2 (229.4)
4. Manchester U - 242.6 (246.4)
5. AC Milan - 238.7 (234.0)
6. Chelsea - 221.0 (220.8)
7. Internazionale - 206.6 (177.2)
8. Bayern Munich - 204.7 (189.5)
9. Arsenal - 192.4 (171.3)
10 Liverpool - 176.0 (181.2)
11 Olympique Lyon - 127.7 (92.9)
12 AS Roma - 127.0 (131.8)
13 Schalke 04 - 122.9 (97.4)
14 Newcastle U - 124.3 (128.9)
15 Tottenham H - 107.2 (104.5)
16 Hamburg SV - 101.8
17 Manchester C - 89.4 (90.1)
18 Rangers - 88.5
19 West Ham - 86.9
20 Benfica - 85.1


This money table is perhaps the most real table of a football clubs success, although the profit table is the ultimate business test. Does anyone have that?

The English clubs compared is as follows:
4. Manchester U - 242.6 (246.4)
6. Chelsea - 221.0 (220.8)
9. Arsenal - 192.4 (171.3)
10 Liverpool - 176.0 (181.2)
14 Newcastle U - 124.3 (128.9)
15 Tottenham H - 107.2 (104.5)
17 Manchester C - 89.4 (90.1)
18 Rangers - 88.5
19 West Ham - 86.9

Note that Celtic dropped out but will be back I think next year.


Redspider

how do you work that one out,what have real won in the last how many years?

redspider

county wrote:

how do you work that one out,what have Real won in the last how many years?

Success as measured in business terms. Revenues are an important neasure of a succesful football club business. The more revenue you have, the more likely you are able to buy success on the pitch. Income drives football success, or at least gives you the tools to do so, and fotball success brings in more income. Its a virtuous circle.

In Real Madrid's case, they have not converted income success to trophy success. Look at Barcelona as a better example.


In callous business terms though, its all about profits. I've heard that Man Utd top this league with a profit of 50m or so. That is an interesting figure as it shows mow much money a club could have invested in football success but didnt. An interesting table to see would be what profits in percentage terms are being taken out by owners. Overall, its not a huge amount for most clubs as they put their profits back into the club, some have to pay off debts, etc.

The key point is that the money side of football drives what we see on the pitch, and all of the money ultimately comes from fans either attending, buying merchandise or watching it on TV or other digital channels.

ts a funny old game .....

Redspider

SectionF

It's not a funny old game. It's a corrupted old game, run by cynics in pursuit of profit.
I fail to see how this 'league' of global franchises is in itself of any more interest than, say, the top 10 oil companies, PC makers, or weapons manufacturers. What is relevant is the nefarious influence of an insatiably greedy business that simply seeks more revenue from supporters, from television and from merchandising. 'Callous' is a well-chosen adjective in the context.

bucks73

There was a guy on from Deloitte on SSNews this morning saying that if Uniteds deal with Nike was based on shirt sales they would be top or second. Instead they get a lump sum.

Raekwon

I hope to see my team Villa in this league next season. With the money from the new TV deals, a new billionaire chairman plus our recent signing of kit deal with Nike we defo should be there soon

Btw I find it strange to see 'The Old Lady' so high up the table after their resent corruption scandal and subsequent relegation from Serie A :rolleyes:

iregk

Why? Juve are one of the biggest more recognisable brands in world football. An off season will not stop their commercial success. Also the list is for last year, before all this came about.

Raekwon

iregk wrote:

Why? Juve are one of the biggest more recognisable brands in world football. An off season will not stop their commercial success. Also the list is for last year, before all this came about.

Ah......I missed that it was for the 05/06 season, I thought it was for 2006 as a whole.

Besides that, any one of the top ten teams in that list are just as big (maybe even bigger) and certainly just as recognisable as Juventus. Plus with Juve not in the Champions league and the fact that their average attendance is below 15,000, all that must have put a pretty big dent in the clubs coffers. I'd be very surprised to see them even in the top ten of next seasons money list.

Reganio 2

Rangers are in it and Celtic are not? I thought Celtic would have earned alot more especially the past few seasons.

eirebhoy

Reganio 2 wrote:

Rangers are in it and Celtic are not? I thought Celtic would have earned alot more especially the past few seasons.

Knocked out of the CL in the qualifiers. Knocked out of the Scottish cup in the first round. Only the league and league cup last season.

I don't know how Celtic aren't on that list still though. They were 16th in 04/05 with £62.6m (€92.7m). As you can see here:
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3328/turn05et2.jpg

That figure is backed up in Celtic's reports:
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8955/celtsturnoverop9.jpg

But if you look at the figure for 2006. £57.9m which is equal to €87m bang on. That should put us into 18th. I'm just assuming those figures are turnover as it'd be a pretty big coincedence if they aren't.

Dempsey

Rangers sold their merchandise to JJB for about £18M initially and £3M min per season for the next 10 years. They also made £12M from UCL success.

Celtic lost about £10M minimum from not qualifying for the UCL

Celtic will be back in it next year and they also reduced costs of running the club significantly over the last 2 years

eirebhoy

Ah, I just realised Deloitte aren't using the current exchange rate so Celtic would be just outside the top 20 this year. Probably 21st or 22nd. Next year there'll be a difference of about £20m.

redspider

In terms of Celtic, they are likely to be bubbling under the top-20. In previous reports, Deloitte used to list those clubs just bubbling under, the likes of Boton, Middlesboro, and some clubs from South America such as Corinthians and Boca Juniors, I think. I have no doubt tat Celtic will be in the tope-20 next year.

One major change you will see in the forthcoming years is the rising of English clubs as their new TV deal will start to kick in. That spells bad news for Celtic in relative terms.

SectionF wrote:

It's not a funny old game. It's a corrupted old game, run by cynics in pursuit of profit. I fail to see how this 'league' of global franchises is in itself of any more interest than, say, the top 10 oil companies, PC makers, or weapons manufacturers. What is relevant is the nefarious influence of an insatiably greedy business that simply seeks more revenue from supporters, from television and from merchandising. 'Callous' is a well-chosen adjective in the context.

You could also say that the top 10 oil companies, PC makers, weapons manufacturers and any other business you care to mention is possibly run by cynics in pursuit of profit.

The revenue table has a direct bearing on what the clubs do on the pitch, and like it or lump it, this is the current system that we have. If you are suggesting that a better system is needed, I fully agree with that and I've been making relevant suggestions on how to do so over the years.

> insatiably greedy business

The business would not get the money if the fans stopped paying it. Its not as if they are being forced to. Also, some clubs are owned by the fans, so the fans in those situations see it in a different way where the more money they put in, the more success they can get on the pitch, etc .......

Its a funny old game, and world. ;-)

Redspider

Raekwon

redspider wrote:

The revenue table has a direct bearing on what the clubs do on the pitch

West Ham?

therecklessone

Raekwon wrote:

West Ham?

FA Cup finalists and a top 10 finish, Upton Park full all last season.

mr_angry

I reckon you'll see Arsenal jumping a few places aswell, following a whole year in the Emirates Stadium.

redspider

Chelsea were:
6. Chelsea - 221.0 (220.8)

They have announced their latest financial results today:

Chelsea FC wrote:

Chelsea FC plc will today (Monday) announce the company has reduced losses by £60 million to the year end June 30, 2006. Chelsea will also confirm significant increases in turnover, merchandising and football activities. The main figures are:

-Losses reduced by 42.9% from £140.4 million (2004/5) to £80.2 million (2005/6)
-turnover increased by 2.3% from £146.6m (2004/5) to £150.0m (2005/6)
-merchandising increased by 44% from £7.7m (2004/5) to £11.1m (2005/6)
-football activities increased by 6.3% from £122.7m (2004/5) to £130.4m (2005/6)

Using todays EUR/UKP rate of 1.48, that makes:

Revenue 222m (eur)
Costs 340m
Loss 118m

So Chelsea spent a huge 340m. Given that Man Utd's profits were in the order of 50m, their costs were something like 190m. Profits at Arsenal and Liverpool are low usually less than 10m, so the spending table looks something like this:

Chelsea 340m
Man Utd 190m (est)
Arsenal 180m (est)
Liverpool 170m (estimated)


Its hard to believe that Chelsea are spending about twice as much money as Liverpool and are way ahead of the other clubs as well.

Abramovich is still using Chelsea as his bling/yacht-like plaything, but given the rumblings within the camp that even reached the public and the chances that they wont win the league or the CL given their current less than brilliant form, it remains to be seen how this all plays out. Will he get bored? Chances are that he will reduce his losses to zero as announced in the next few years, no matter what happens on the field.

Redspider