Financial Fair Play

[metalgear]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

i wonder what the payout for that world class teaching, training and treatment facility - i'm sure it took a lot of money to build but will be hard to justify. the idea of course is to develop talent which is cheaper than buying, but with the Bosman rule you can never be sure who profits!

 

[braineclipse]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

i wonder what the payout for that world class teaching, training and treatment facility - i'm sure it took a lot of money to build but will be hard to justify. the idea of course is to develop talent which is cheaper than buying, but with the Bosman rule you can never be sure who profits!

I struggle to see how we could ever become a top class side without a top class training facility.

Not only supposed to help us develop young talented players, but also help us develop our first team players.

If there is a correlation between the quality of the training facility and the player improvement for the players then I think it's a sound investment. That might be too much of an assumption, but it seems reasonable to me.

 

[jts1882]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Hi, I'm no expert but the key thing is they are our figures excluding player trading.

That's to say if our spending on players was neutral we'd have made a profit. (Before tax and interest payments)

That's a very basic and maybe wrong explanation, but my understanding.

What they're basically saying is we're trading soundly, and can afford to spend money on players.

It's interesting the final profit/loss figures are only about £5m different from the season before, despite no CL.

We partly covered our 'CL deficit' by the better media deals the Prem has got.

Of course without the full analysis of cash flow etc, it's hard to make an in-depth analysis of the situation

It looks like we're basically breaking even, and next year may well turn in a profit, even without CL, partly due to more increased Prem media deals.

That is my understanding too. Players are treated as assets so transfers don't get counted as operating revenue/expenses.

The other thing I assume would be excluded is stadium related expenses, although these might be in one of the network of property companies associated with the club.

P.S. Our spending on players might be close to neutral, but that doesn't mean there isn't an accounting profit because of amortisation. Berbatov was a £25m profit despite the difference in transfers being £20m because half the transfer fee had been written off. Similarly, a lot of Modric's transfer would have been written off, at a guess around £11m of it, so the profit was upwards of £25m.

 

[ArcspacE]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Tottenham Hotspur announce financial loss of £4.3m

Someone's pay-off? :-"

 

[jts1882]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

I struggle to see how we could ever become a top class side without a top class training facility.

Not only supposed to help us develop young talented players, but also help us develop our first team players.

If there is a correlation between the quality of the training facility and the player improvement for the players then I think it's a sound investment. That might be too much of an assumption, but it seems reasonable to me.

There are also intangibles. Good players will have many clubs interested. While wages and champions league football will be bigger factors, an impressive training facility could be enough to swing a close decision.

 

[P.D.]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Net debt of £57m is fairly high and has probably increased a bit to say £65m with the payments for training facility.

We often hear of teams like Everton being in debt with debts of £70-£80m etc but ours never seems to be picked up?

 

[Spursalot]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Net debt of £57m is fairly high and has probably increased a bit to say £65m with the payments for training facility.

We often hear of teams like Everton being in debt with debts of £70-£80m etc but ours never seems to be picked up?

It's because we can afford to pay our debt without any radical action. Whilst Everton have to resort to selling off their big players every so often (though if they reach the CL they may not have to).


Selling your big players to pay debt raises far more media profile.

 

[indianspur]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Someone's pay-off? :-"

the trend these days is not to pay off sacked managers with one lump sum, but to continue to pay their salaries under the terms of their contracts until they find a new job

 

[braineclipse]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Net debt of £57m is fairly high and has probably increased a bit to say £65m with the payments for training facility.

We often hear of teams like Everton being in debt with debts of £70-£80m etc but ours never seems to be picked up?

Everton's revenue is substantially smaller than ours.

Everton's wages are a higher percentage of their turnover compared to us.

Our debts are related to what seems like a very realistic stadium project, along with that comes the realistic plan to pay this back. Everton seemingly has no realistic new stadium project.

We make operating profits somewhat regularly, Everton generally end up with losses.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

In the case of Everton:

EVERTON FC insist they have not increased their debt by taking out a new loan based on their Premier League television income for next season.

Last month the Blues signed a loan agreement with British Virgin Islands based Vibrac Corporation for one year to the value of £14m, after repaying a similar deal for the same amount to previous lenders, banking firm Investec.

One national newspaper report today detailed the club’s new loan, but club officials say it is a rolling agreement which has been part of their finances for more than four years and was clear to see in their last set of accounts.

And they say the interest rates they have agreed with Vibrac will actually save them money compared to the terms offered for renewal by Investec and other banks.

Borrowing against TV income for the following year is not uncommon among top flight football clubs, and the club’s latest loan has been approved by the Premier League.

Everton are aware of the risk to both lender and mortgager of such loans should they be relegated, but insist that even in the unlikely situation that they were consigned to the Championship they could cover it from the bumper parachute payments from the Premier League.

And club officials say Vibrac’s agreement to loan them the £14m is a sign of their confidence that Everton will remain in England's top division.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/everton-fc/everton-fc-news/2011/09/20/everton-fc-insist-new-loan-based-on-next-season-s-premier-league-tv-income-will-not-increase-debt-100252-29456193/

That's what happens when you don't have the necessary cash flow.

 

[JPG_357]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Net debt of £57m is fairly high and has probably increased a bit to say £65m with the payments for training facility.

We often hear of teams like Everton being in debt with debts of £70-£80m etc but ours never seems to be picked up?

We may have a net debt of £65m, but our assets are way in excess of that.

In our last annual report that gave full figures, our assets stood at about £290m. I'm confident they're similar or more by now.

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/media/docs/annual_report_2011.pdf

I would guess our assets are in excess of Everton too, so the debt weighs heavier on them, especially as our revenue is higher than theirs too.

Given our assets and income, I think our debt is easily manageable, so there would be no need to make a fuss over it. Of course some papers might do so anyway

Here's some figures from 2010

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ebt-league-how-much-do-clubs-owe-1912244.html

Utd had a net debt of over £700m, now that's debt for ya

They're still the best team in England though.

Interestingly a year or two later their debt has shrunk dramatically

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...l-health-of-the-Premier-League-laid-bare.html

But it's still way in excess of ours

I'm assuming all these figures are correct. I haven't got a scooby.

 

[JPG_357]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

We're 13th in the new Deloitte 'rich list'.

http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/fourfo...s-deloitte-s-football-money-league-2013.aspx?

Interesting that Saudi Sportswashing Machine have broken in at 20th. I guess the power of the Prem deals and their big gates have swung it for them.

Presumably we will slip down the Deloitte table next year on the back of our revenue fall just reported.

I'd guess we'll still be 6th amongst the English clubs, can't see Toon overtaking us.

With regards to 'financial fair play' Spain is an embarrassment. Their big two head the list and that's it for the top 20.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Position Club Revenue (€m)

(last season) 2011-12 (2010-11)

1 (1) Real Madrid 512.6 (479.5)

2 (2) Barcelona 483 (450.7)

3 (3) Manchester Utd 395.9 (367)

4 (4) Bayern Munich 368.4 (321.4)

5 (5) Chelsea 322.6 (253.1)

6 (6) Arsenal 290.3 (251.1)

7 (12) Emirates Marketing Project 285.6 (169.6)

8 (7) Milan 256.9 (234.8)

9 (9) Liverpool 233.2 (203.3)

10 (13) Juventus 195.4 (153.9)

11 (16) Borussia Dortmund 189.1 (138.5)

12 (8) Internazionale 185.9 (211.4)

13 (11) Tottenham 178.2 (181)

14 (10) Schalke 174.5 (202.4)

15 (20) Napoli 148.4 (114.9)

16 (14) Marseille 135.7 (150.4)

17 (17) Lyon 131.9 (132.8)

18 (18) Hamburg 121.1 (128.8)

19 (15) Roma 115.9 (143.5)

20 (-) Saudi Sportswashing Machine 115.3 (98)

 

[Spursalot]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

We're 13th in the new Deloitte 'rich list'.

http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/fourfo...s-deloitte-s-football-money-league-2013.aspx?

Interesting that Saudi Sportswashing Machine have broken in at 20th. I guess the power of the Prem deals and their big gates have swung it for them.

Presumably we will slip down the Deloitte table next year on the back of our revenue fall just reported.

I'd guess we'll still be 6th amongst the English clubs, can't see Toon overtaking us.

With regards to 'financial fair play' Spain is an embarrassment. Their big two head the list and that's it for the top 20.

Partly due to how the money from their tv deals are distributed.

 

[ArcspacE]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Those 2 clubs are safe - they're profitable year after year

 

[jts1882]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

I think City have doubled their revenue in two years. While they will get more merit and TV money, plus 20-30m for the CL group phase, most of the increase is their new commercial deals, which are nearly all from related businesses. It will be a real test of the UEFA rules how they deal with this. While clearly the deals are beyond what they would get from neutral sponsors, they can point to similar or higher numbers at United. I doubt UEFA will challenge this.

 

[P.D.]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

How can city have the 2nd highest commercial revenue in the league, they aren't too far behind UTD. Joke if they get away with it.

UTD get big number becauses they are a massive pull worldwide, simple as. No way could city generate those levels on the open market.

 

[SWP29]

How can city have the 2nd highest commercial revenue in the league, they aren't too far behind UTD. Joke if they get away with it.

UTD get big number becauses they are a massive pull worldwide, simple as. No way could city generate those levels on the open market.

It's not like we're the only ones to sign big sponsorship deals. Ours aren't even the biggest in the league anymore, I'm sure I remember Liverpool signing a massive one
Have you seen the type of sponsorship deals that United have signed recently? They have something ridiculous like an official paint partner, which is worth a good few million. Every team is pinching pennies.

 

[jts1882]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Well with the players they have signed they can justify some increase, but clearly they wouldn't get anything close if their owners family didn't own their main sponsors.

On checking the Deloitte report, their revenue has gone from €102m in 2009 to €153m to €170m to €286m in 2012.

7.Emirates Marketing Project
2012 Revenue €285.6m (£231.1m)

2011 Revenue €169.6m (£153.2m)
2011 Position (12)

As forecast last year, Emirates Marketing Project enter the Money League top ten for the first time in their history jumping up five places to seventh. Their inaugural participation in the UEFA Champions League and the commencement of the club’s ten-year partnership with Etihad Airways contributed to revenue growth of £77.9m (51%) – the highest of all Money League clubs. On the pitch, City became English League Champions for the first time in 44 years after a dramatic climax to the Premier League season. However, their strong league form did not translate to the European stage and they failed to qualify from the group stages of the UEFA Champions League and were knocked out of the UEFA Europa League at the last 16 stage.

City’s broadcast revenue increased by £19.4m (28%) thanks largely to the receipt of UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League distributions totalling £22.5m (€27.8m). This compares with Europa League distributions in the previous year of £5.5m (€6.1m) and highlights the importance of UEFA Champions League participation to the top Money League clubs. Domestically, City were the recipients of the highest payout of all Premier League clubs receiving £60.6m (€74.9m) in broadcast payments after winning the Premier League, an increase of £5m (€6.1m) from the previous season when they finished in third place.

Despite playing two fewer home matches in 2011/12 than in the previous season matchday revenue grew by £4.2m (16%). The 3% increase in average home league attendance to 47,045 and the quality of match on offer to the fans through UEFA Champions League participation were the major factors in this increase. The club achieved an impressive 99% utilisation of the Etihad Stadium in 2011/12 for league matches. On-pitch success has brought more fans through the turnstiles with the club reporting that attendances have grown by 10% since 2008/09.

Commercial revenue almost doubled to £112.1m (€138.5m). The most significant component of this growth was the commencement of the new partnership with Etihad Airways. As Premier League champions and now regular Champions League participants, the club will undoubtedly look to capitalise commercially on their global status. In 2012/13 they have already agreed a new deal with Hugo Boss and announced a kit deal with Nike from the start of the 2013/14 season. City’s impressive revenue growth has seen them climb the Money League rapidly. In order to have a chance to maintain a top ten place or challenge the top five, the club must strive for improved UEFA Champions League performance and continue to develop their commercial potential.

And look at the commercial revenue, only Bayern, the El Firm and United ahead of them:

 

[jts1882]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

An our entry:

13. Tottenham Hotspur
2012 Revenue €178.2m (£144.2m)

2011 Revenue €181m (£163.5m)
2011 Position (11)

Tottenham Hotspur drop two places to 13th position in the Money League, with total revenue decreasing by £19.3m (12%) to £144.2m (€178.2m) in 2011/12. This is primarily down to the failure to qualify for the UEFA Champions League, following their successful debut in the 2010/11 season. Spurs had an ultimately frustrating 2011/12 season, reaching the semi-finals of the FA Cup, and despite finishing in 4th place in the Premier League, missed out on Champions League qualification owing to Chelsea’s triumph in the Champions League final.

Spurs’ broadcast revenue decreased by £21.5m (26%) to £61.6m (€76.1m), as a direct result of missing out on Champions League football. UEFA distributions of €3m (£2.4m) for Spurs’ group stage exit in the UEFA Europa League pale in comparison to the previous season’s €31.1m for their quarter-final run in the Champions League. On the domestic front, Spurs received £57.4m (€70.9m) in broadcast payments from the Premier League, an increase of 8% (£4.3m) from the previous season’s payments as a result of finishing one place higher and having six more live matches broadcast.

Matchday revenue decreased slightly by £2.2m (5%) to £41.1m (€50.8m), in part due to one fewer home game played compared to the 2010/11 season. Capacity constraints at White Hart Lane continue to limit Spurs’ average matchday revenue per home match to £1.6m (€2m).

Spurs continue to impress on the commercial front, with revenue increasing by £4.4m (12%) to £41.5m (€51.3m). 2011/12 was a second season where Spurs incorporated a dual shirt sponsorship set-up, with Aurasma on the shirt front for Premier League matches, and Investec taking the cup (both domestic and European) matches.

Spurs have received planning permission to build a new stadium adjacent to its existing site and this will play a key role in the regeneration of the surrounding Tottenham area. Phase One of the development has started, however it is a major scheme and it will, therefore, be some time before Spurs will be able to compete with the matchday revenues that their North London rivals Arsenal achieve. This highlights the importance of securing Champions League football in their efforts to climb the Money League table in the shorter-term.