• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

11th Richest Club

T

totman

Jose Dominguez
Manchester United are falling behind Barcelona and Real Madrid in the 'Money League' of the world's richest clubs, according to a new report.

The report by analysts Deloitte says although United's revenues continue to grow they have not kept pace with the Spanish giants, who have the advantage of being able to negotiate their individual TV rights deals.

United's failure to qualify from the group stage of the Champions League this season will see the gap widen further next year, say Deloitte.

Real Madrid remain top of the money league with revenues in 2010/11 of 479 million euros (?ú438m) with Barcelona second on 451m euros (?ú398m) and Manchester United third on 367m euros (#349m).

The report states: "We are starting to see widening gaps between clubs at the top of the Money League.

"Manchester United's consistent on-pitch success has helped establish it as a continued fixture in the top three of the Money League, yet in recent years a gap has grown between themselves and the Spanish giants Real Madrid and Barcelona, rising again to 83.7m euro in this year's edition.

"United's failure to qualify for the 2011/12 Champions League knockout phase will have a detrimental effect on revenues relative to the top two, which may result in this gap increasing to over 100m euro.

"In addition, there is a 70m euro gap between fourth-placed Bayern Munich and fifth-placed Arsenal.''

Chelsea remain sixth in the Money League, but Liverpool have fallen a place to ninth behind Inter Milan and the report states the Reds' lack of European football could see them drop out of the top 10 unless they at least qualify for the Europa League.

"The club needs European football each year to maintain its status in the Money League top 10 in future editions,'' says the report.

"In the medium to longer term, the Warrior Sports kit deal will underpin further commercial revenue growth, whilst formulating a viable plan to either redevelop Anfield or move to a new home is key in driving matchday revenue increases."

Tottenham are 11th in the Money League, just in front of Emirates Marketing Project thanks to last season's Champions League income, but the value of the huge Etihad sponsorship deal, which could total ?ú400m, should see City break into the top 10 next year.

Alan Switzer, a director of Deloitte's sports business group, said: "The club's heavy squad investment secured Champions League football for 2011/12. When combined with the groundbreaking 10-year partnership with Etihad, this will provide substantial growth across all three revenue sources and will see City break into the top 10 in the Money League next year."


Thats with one year in the CL, and running self sufficient. Quite impressive.
 
11th is pretty amazing considering we've had just the one year of CL football. Also I'd love to see a breakdown of how it's all measured when Chelsea are in 6th and City 11th despite bottomless pits of wedge.
 
Think we were 14th for a while...long before we ever played CL footy. Look at the teams above us, and their CL history or owners. Incredible if you ask me.

imo
 
Roy1983 said:
11th is pretty amazing considering we've had just the one year of CL football. Also I'd love to see a breakdown of how it's all measured when Chelsea are in 6th and City 11th despite bottomless pits of wedge.
Click to expand...

It's purely on revenue. Not money given to the club by rich owners.

Just goes to show what a history of entertaing football can do. Everton and Villa are historically similar to us yet at poor in comparison - much of that comes from an international fan base that few teams with our lack of recent success can boast.
 
Roy1983 said:
11th is pretty amazing considering we've had just the one year of CL football. Also I'd love to see a breakdown of how it's all measured when Chelsea are in 6th and City 11th despite bottomless pits of wedge.
Click to expand...

It says it's revenue, but that hides so many financial calamities behind the curtain, such as wages higher than turnover or a massive debt, or a "personal loan of one billion pounds" like those 2 stinking clubs you mentioned.

I remember around 10 or so years (?) ago Real Madrid sold their training ground for some stupid amount in a crooked deal to keep them afloat/"wealthy" and attracting Galacticos... this revenue table isn't particularly interesting as it hides the truth - you may as well rank teams on "highest fee ever paid for a player" or something
 
Don't like the fact that they call this the rich list when it just measures turnover. Especially with the likes of Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project spunking away way more than than their turnover each year on obscene wages and transfer fees. Measuring profits would be a fairer reflection.

Ah, bullet got there first, although he should considering how fast he must be :)
 
Tottenham Hotspur have leapfrogged Emirates Marketing Project into 11th place in the Money League, just short of their highest ever position. Spurs generated record revenues of ?ú163.5m (Ôé¼181m) which represents a 36% (?ú43.7m) increase from the 2009/10 season. This is primarily due to the clubÔÇÖs inaugural participation in the UEFA Champions
League where they reached the quarter-final stages, which helped the club increase all three revenue streams.

The most notable increase was the 61% (?ú31.6m) growth in broadcast revenue to ?ú83.1m (Ôé¼92m), including the receipt of Ôé¼31.1m (?ú28.1m) in UEFA distributions.

Matchday revenue increased by 18% (?ú6.5m) to ?ú43.3m (Ôé¼47.9m). This is largely due to the Champions League campaign and that 27 competitive home matches were
played in 2010/11 compared with 24 in 2009/10. It is also testament to the fact that White Hart Lane continued to be sold out for all Premier League matches.

However, the club does remain constrained by the relatively small capacity of its stadium. With 36,240 seats, White Hart Lane was only the 10th largest stadium in the Premier League in 2010/11.

SpursÔÇÖ commercial revenue increased by 18% (?ú5.6m) to ?ú37.1m (Ôé¼41.1m) with two shirt sponsorship deals, one for Premier League matches, and another for European
and domestic cup competitions. Autonomy and Investec are the sponsors respectively with the deals reportedly worth a combined ?ú14.5m (Ôé¼16.1m) per season.

The club has announced a new five-year kit deal with Under Armour from 2012/13 which will further boost commercial revenue. TottenhamÔÇÖs participation in the Champions League provided them with the increased revenue required to move up the Money League in 2010/11 but with no Champions League involvement in 2011/12, we expect them to slip back in our next edition.

Spurs now have planning consent for a new stadium and a significant regeneration project in Tottenham. A glance across North London to Arsenal leaves little doubt that
increased matchday revenue opportunities arise from a modern stadium development. This coupled with a continuation of their recent on-pitch form could secure a
Money League top ten position on a frequent basis
 
Just goes to show how important a stream of revenue playing in the Champions League is, hopefully we can make a regular habit out of it and preferably at the expense of the scum up the road.

No one can compete with Real and Barca (well without a Sheik' billions anyway) as they are effectively funded by the Spanish state.
 
Yeah its a good job we are putting ourselves in a decent position to play CL football again. It was an important year to qualify again, with the stadium, and Modric etc.
We still need that elusive striker too, so sitting pretty in 11th, is a great thing.

Credit to the club.


imo
 
totman, what's with the 'imo''s with every post?

Has this stemmed from a heated discussion elsewhere?
 
Not good being among the richest clubs when we can't attract top players. Hard to accept the fact our most expensive signing ever is Bentley ! We still lack a top striker who can score 20 league goals every season.
 
Spurs7891 said:
Not good being among the richest clubs when we can't attract top players. Hard to accept the fact our most expensive signing ever is Bentley ! We still lack a top striker who can score 20 league goals every season.
Click to expand...

Not good?

Perhaps it would be better to be lower down on the list, then?

We may be "among the richest clubs". But there is a huge disparity even within that group of richest clubs.

Real Madrid have a turnover that is 265% bigger than Spurs'.

Man Utd have a turnover that is more than 200% bigger than Spurs'.

That's after our highest ever (by a big margin) turnover figure.
 
Spurs generate £1.6 million per home game. More than Liverpool who have 10,000 extra seats! But nearly half what Arsenal and Utd generate. There in lies the problem.
 
SteveAWOL said:
Just goes to show how important a stream of revenue playing in the Champions League is, hopefully we can make a regular habit out of it and preferably at the expense of the scum up the road.

No one can compete with Real and Barca (well without a Sheik' billions anyway) as they are effectively funded by the Spanish state.
Click to expand...
Kind of. But spurs spent most of that cl revenue on bonuses and wage demands and gold taps.

I made the last bit up
 
Leeds Spur said:
Spurs generate ?ú1.6 million per home game. More than Liverpool who have 10,000 extra seats! But nearly half what Arsenal and Utd generate. There in lies the problem.
Click to expand...

Indeed. ARSEnal made ?ú93.9m last year purely from matchday takings, compared to our ?ú36.8m. Even Liverpool made ?ú42.9m last season according to Deloitte

Football Finance - 2011 Football Money League | Deloitte UK

The sooner the new higher capacity stadium is built the quicker we can narrow that gap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back