Liverpool in financial trouble

[TheMaraudingDog]

Man Utd's debt >> Chelsea's debt >> Liverpool's debt

United are pretty much at melting point, really can't see the Glazer's hanging around for too much longer.

[Harry Carry]

Ambramovich will walk out soon.

[Dirk Gently]

What will most likely happen is that the Big 4 will be fine with their current levels of debt - as long as they carry on qualifying for the CL every year.

If one of them has a bad year (or if Villa, Everton, City or someone else has an exceptionally good year), then they might be in trouble, because their whole business plan is based upon getting the CL money in each year.

According to Deloitte the current level of PL debt is a total of £2.85 Billion, of which nearly 70% is the Big 4:

All figures are £M

1. Chelsea 710.5
2. Man Utd 649.4
3. Arsenal 318.1
4. Liverpool 299.8
5. Fulham 192.8
6. West Ham 141.9
7. Man City 137.5
8. Aston Villa 72.3
9. Sunderland 71.2
10. Wigan 66.4
11. Bolton 53.5
12. Portsmouth 50.1
13. Everton 36.7
14. Spurs 29.7
15. Wolves 20.7
16. Blackburn 16.9
17. Burnley 6.6
18. Hull 1
19. Stoke 0.1
20. Brum 0


For comparison, biggest European debts are :

Real Madrid 469
Athletico Madrid 450
Valencia 442
Barcalona 388
Inter 171.1
Rangers 104.1
Milan 60
Lyons 47.5
Celtic 19.1
Juventus 18.8
Bayern 0 (All German clubs are not allowed to go into debt)

[Thaumagurist*]

because their whole business plan is based upon getting the CL money in each year.

Why don't they also plan for the eventuality of not being in the CL?

[Dirk Gently]

because their whole business plan is based upon getting the CL money in each year.

Why don't they also plan for the eventuality of not being in the CL?

For the same reason that Newcastle didn't plan for relegation.

[Thaumagurist*]

because their whole business plan is based upon getting the CL money in each year.

Why don't they also plan for the eventuality of not being in the CL?

For the same reason that Newcastle didn't plan for relegation.

Would that be called "Arrogance"?

[Schards#2]

Man Utd's debt >> Chelsea's debt >> Liverpool's debt

United are pretty much at melting point, really can't see the Glazer's hanging around for too much longer.

They're not, as they have such a huge revenue flow, however, that doesn't make the above statement any less true. Their interest payments each year since the takeover are averaging around £70m.

[Dirk Gently]

Man Utd's debt >> Chelsea's debt >> Liverpool's debt

United are pretty much at melting point, really can't see the Glazer's hanging around for too much longer.

They're not, as they have such a huge revenue flow, however, that doesn't make the above statement any less true. Their interest payments each year since the takeover are averaging around £70m.

What I think is more worrying for them is that some of their debt (admittedly only about 20% of the total, though) has been sold off cheaply by US financial institutions who were desperate to gain liquidity a few months ago.

Some of this debt has ended up in the hands of less-reputable institutions, who would be much more likely to call those debts in if Man Utd weren't performing financially or if there is another major market crisis.

[TheMaraudingDog]

The Premier League champions made £71.8m for the season 2007-8 to put them at the top of the money tree globally.

In a season where United won the Champions League once you deduct the loan payments they break about even. Any slump in revenue will pretty much lead to a loss. Although of course even with £71.8m profit I'm sure there would have been a few £££ spent on players which is obviously an area where a club can easily reduce costs.

Something or other about some hedge funds that are also about to kick in which may add another £15-20m a year repayments.

[Alivey]

Problem with Liverpool is finding an owner who will inject money into the club. Even with all the debts they have acquired from trying to buy success, I don't see anyone wanting to going there. Could be troubling times for Liverpool.. I guess now Hicks & Cos money has all run out, they will go back to protesting.. 'you can't afford to buy success, go back to america!'

[rabidbee]

Man Utd's debt >> Chelsea's debt >> Liverpool's debt

United are pretty much at melting point, really can't see the Glazer's hanging around for too much longer.

They're not, as they have such a huge revenue flow, however, that doesn't make the above statement any less true. Their interest payments each year since the takeover are averaging around £70m.

More to the point, the debt has been passed on to the ticket-paying fans, so one wonders why any united fan would be laughing this off.

[Alivey]

manchester united are ruining football

[SpaceCruiser]

manchester united are ruining football

Since 1992.

[rabidbee]

manchester united are ruining football

Since 1992.

It was ever thus.

[Dirk Gently]

If you really want to know the club who ruined football, it's Spurs, and if you want to know an individual to blame, then it's Irving Scholar.

There used to be Rule 34 in the FA's books - this said that directors of football clubs could not derive their main income from their ownership of a football club and that dividends paid on shares in football clubs could not be more than 5% of their face value. There was also a clause that prevented clubs from being bought, asset stripped and then closed down for profit.

In 1983, Scholar's wanted Spurs to become the first club to float on the stock market, and they asked the FA if Spurs would be free to form a holding company to get round this rule about dividends and directors' salaries. The FA, for no reason that anyone has ever explained, simply said "yes" - and the rest is history.

Where football is today can be simply traced back to that single failure to make a decision by the FA in 1983.

Full story here

[Alivey]

real madrid is ruining football now
and if dirk is correct.. the fa is ruining it too!

[Dirk Gently]

The FA is starting to turn around, though - new people in charge after the Burns review, and the FA Council starting to grow some balls at least.

There's a big fight coming over financial regulation, with the FA, Football League, FIFA & UEFA on one side and the PL on the other side. That's one of the reasons journos are doing their best to smear Platini and many others - the PL has most sports journos in its pocket.

[Alivey]

'greed.. like platini talks alot of sense. enjoyed reading what mawhinney has been saying too..even if he is a bit of a religious nut.

[Dirk Gently]

'greed.. like platini talks alot of sense. enjoyed reading what mawhinney has been saying too..even if he is a bit of a religious nut.

Mawhinney if just a figure-head, really. They guys behind him who actually run the league are really switched on and coming up with some superb proposals. The biggest problem they have, though, is getting these approved by the 72 club chairman - that includes people like Ken Bates and Barry Fry!

[papereyes]

If you really want to know the club who ruined football, it's Spurs, and if you want to know an individual to blame, then it's Irving Scholar.

There used to be Rule 34 in the FA's books - this said that directors of football clubs could not derive their main income from their ownership of a football club and that dividends paid on shares in football clubs could not be more than 5% of their face value. There was also a clause that prevented clubs from being bought, asset stripped and then closed down for profit.

In 1983, Scholar's wanted Spurs to become the first club to float on the stock market, and they asked the FA if Spurs would be free to form a holding company to get round this rule about dividends and directors' salaries. The FA, for no reason that anyone has ever explained, simply said "yes" - and the rest is history.

Where football is today can be simply traced back to that single failure to make a decision by the FA in 1983.

Full story here

Sorry, Dirk, but they made a decision there. "Yes".

That they didn't begin to predict the consequences is another matter altogether.