* Sport * Football * Uefa Premier League clubs owe 56% of Europe's deb

Dempsey

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/feb/23/premier-league-clubs-europe-debt

Concerns over English football's financial wellbeing are set to deepen further with the impending release of a report from Uefa which shows that Premier League clubs owe more money than all the other clubs in Europe's top divisions put together.

Its almost like watching the recession all over again!

OhNoYouDidn't

Where are all the LoI bashers now?

I knew English football was broken, but I didn't realise how big the problem was.

Gavin "shels"

Sooner the better UEFA bring in the planned rule of clubs with a clean slate can play in European competitions is enforced. Hardly fair that the likes of Man Utd are something like £600 million in debt, sure if every club had that kind of debt Shels won be winning Champions League trophies and all.:D

OhNoYouDidn't

Gavin shels wrote: »

Sooner the better UEFA bring in the planned rule of clubs with a clean slate can play in European competitions is enforced. Hardly fair that the likes of Man Utd are something like £600 million in debt, sure if every club had that kind of debt Shels won be winning Champions League trophies and all.:D

There is a legitimate point there. Look at the competitive disadvantage German clubs are at because they do things right financially.

But it is absolutely flabbergasting that the only two responses on this massively important subject for English football are from LoI fans.... You would almost swear the barstoolers are sticking their fingers in their ears and going 'nananananana, can't hear anything'.

everdead.ie

Just out of curiosity does anyone know which clubs broke even in the past year I know arsenal and spurs both made profits and united did but only because of the Ronaldo fee they recieved abromovich converted all the debt to shares what about the rest of the league?

PHB

United did thing right financially. We were the model of every club in the world of how to run a football club financially.

But then UEFA and the PL turn a blind eye to letting people take over a club and leverage them with debt. Too little too ****ing late. And the only reason they are bloody doing it is because they are angry that English clubs are winning. United are where they are in spite of the debt, not because of it.

Nonetheless, I welcome the legislation, if not the spirit of it. I think leveraged take-overs should be banned, or at least severely discouraged barring special circumstance. I also think debt should be broken down betwen investment debt for stadiums and capital, and other debt.

I don't think that clubs should be allowed pull a Leeds or pull a Portsmouth. I also think that spending should be restricted in relation to turnover, barring rules allowing for certain levels of investment based on non-lending.

All in all, while i hate the spirit of it, and it's just trying to keep PL clubs down, I think it'll be a good thing.

DazMarz

Was the LOI (well Cork City F.C. to be exact) not splashed all over the news yesterday for going bust??? LOI clubs and Prem clubs both buy players they cannot afford, pay them wages they cannot afford to pay and so on. It's not limited to the English game and it most certainly exists in LOI clubs.

Mr. Incognito

How does it make sense to allow someone to borrow X, use it to "buy the club and then the club owes X back to the banks.

Stupid. If you can't buy the club with real money you can't afford to run it so piss off.

Dempsey

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

How does it make sense to allow someone to borrow X, use it to "buy the club and then the club owes X back to the banks.

Stupid. If you can't buy the club with real money you can't afford to run it so piss off.

How the Glazers were able to get the finance to buy United then get United to foot the bill for them buying the club makes me want to go to business school :pac:

Basically buying the club on the strength of its profit margins and using those profits to foot the cost of the takeover is ingenious!

djpbarry

DazMarz wrote: »

It's not limited to the English game and it most certainly exists in LOI clubs.

The LOI is often dismissed as being financially unstable. I think the point that was being made here is that it's not limited to LOI clubs and it most certainly exists (quite obviously) in the English game.

28064212

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics"

Without blindly defending the EPL, the 56% figure is almost entirely meaningless out of context. For a start, the figures are from 2007-08. That season, the EPL had 75% of the Champion's League semi-finalists. Does that mean they were actually doing better than the other leagues relative to their debt?

Without some kind of debt-to-turnover-to-wages-to-fees ratios, 56% of Europe's total debt means nothing.

MementoMori

PHB wrote: »

Nonetheless, I welcome the legislation, if not the spirit of it. I think leveraged take-overs should be banned, or at least severely discouraged barring special circumstance. I also think debt should be broken down betwen investment debt for stadiums and capital, and other debt.

I don't think that clubs should be allowed pull a Leeds or pull a Portsmouth. I also think that spending should be restricted in relation to turnover, barring rules allowing for certain levels of investment based on non-lending.

All in all, while i hate the spirit of it, and it's just trying to keep PL clubs down, I think it'll be a good thing.

Would agree with this especially the part about using LBOs to buy football clubs - there is no good reason to allow LBOs to be used to buy football clubs. Liverpool and Utd have already been screwed by LBOs, no need for other clubs to be screwed up by them.

Also the article could be a bit more accurate regarding the current level of debt Liverpool's is down to £237m and the chief executive has stated the current goal is to reduce it by £100m in the next few months. Utd's is £716m and they don't seem to have any plan to reduce it currently.

Would also agree with the break down allowable debt and unallowable debt.
Clearly borrowing money to pay salaries is madness, borrowing money to pay for developing stadiums etc is not.

dreamers75

28064212 wrote: »

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics"

Without blindly defending the EPL, the 56% figure is almost entirely meaningless out of context. For a start, the figures are from 2007-08. That season, the EPL had 75% of the Champion's League semi-finalists. Does that mean they were actually doing better than the other leagues relative to their debt?

Without some kind of debt-to-turnover-to-wages-to-fees ratios, 56% of Europe's total debt means nothing.

LOI fans call that the "head in the sand " effect.

Dont worry its all grand everything will be fine.

UnitedIrishman

PHB wrote: »

United did thing right financially. We were the model of every club in the world of how to run a football club financially.

But then UEFA and the PL turn a blind eye to letting people take over a club and leverage them with debt. Too little too ****ing late. And the only reason they are bloody doing it is because they are angry that English clubs are winning. United are where they are in spite of the debt, not because of it.

Nonetheless, I welcome the legislation, if not the spirit of it. I think leveraged take-overs should be banned, or at least severely discouraged barring special circumstance. I also think debt should be broken down betwen investment debt for stadiums and capital, and other debt.

I don't think that clubs should be allowed pull a Leeds or pull a Portsmouth. I also think that spending should be restricted in relation to turnover, barring rules allowing for certain levels of investment based on non-lending.

All in all, while i hate the spirit of it, and it's just trying to keep PL clubs down, I think it'll be a good thing.

Spot on.

themont85

PHB wrote: »

United did thing right financially. We were the model of every club in the world of how to run a football club financially.

But then UEFA and the PL turn a blind eye to letting people take over a club and leverage them with debt. Too little too ****ing late. And the only reason they are bloody doing it is because they are angry that English clubs are winning. United are where they are in spite of the debt, not because of it.

Nonetheless, I welcome the legislation, if not the spirit of it. I think leveraged take-overs should be banned, or at least severely discouraged barring special circumstance. I also think debt should be broken down betwen investment debt for stadiums and capital, and other debt.

I don't think that clubs should be allowed pull a Leeds or pull a Portsmouth. I also think that spending should be restricted in relation to turnover, barring rules allowing for certain levels of investment based on non-lending.

All in all, while i hate the spirit of it, and it's just trying to keep PL clubs down, I think it'll be a good thing.

100% agree. Its hilarious the level of blissful ignorance at the finances of clubs.

kryogen

Gavin shels wrote: »

Sooner the better UEFA bring in the planned rule of clubs with a clean slate can play in European competitions is enforced. Hardly fair that the likes of Man Utd are something like £600 million in debt, sure if every club had that kind of debt Shels won be winning Champions League trophies and all.:D

your figures are wrong for a start

and Manchester United did not rack up over 700 million of debts by bad running of a club, the club was always profitable, and is now still making massive profits

Manchester United the football club has always been a perfect business model

the debt we have is the loan secured against the club and facilities by the owners, the football club makes record profits regulary

the holding company makes bigger losses each year wiping it out unfortunately


EDIT: just saw PHB's post- what he said

Fratton Fred

The turn over to expenditure arguement is fine, bit that would effectively rule out anyone bar Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal from competing and just increase the gap between the rich clubs and everyone else.

frostie500

It's a crazy situation and I can't believe that people say that this is an attempt by UEFA to knock the English clubs off their new found position as Europe's top teams. Something needs to be done about the state of finances in the English game. The self regulation of the Premier League clearly is not sufficient. This is shown by Portsmouth's plight and West Ham's difficulties prior to their takeover.

Another poster said something along the lines of 'even while saddled with such debt the Premiership still had 75% of teams in the semis of the CL.' Surely it's easier to get to the last four when you take no fiscal care whatsoever in your attempts to buy players at inflated prices and pay them massive wages. The Premiership has the largest collective TV contract in the world yet there is still a disproportionate amount of debt in the league.

The Premier League have clearly shown that they can not regulate themselves and someone must step into the breach to control the clubs spending, whether its UEFA short term or the English FA something needs to be done otherwise there could be a spate of Leeds' over the next ten years. If I was UEFA I would limit the Premierships Champions League slots until they get their house in order. The only way to sort out the plights of this debt are with harsh measures. As someone said why should teams that run themselves well be put at a competitive disadvantage in relation to the English clubs?