Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Groundhog63]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

By way of example, here’s the income figures for last season:

 

Man Utd: £662m

Spurs: £528m

NUFC: £320m

 

Our income last season was closer to your local pub team than to Man Utd’s.  Man Utd’s wage bill was higher than our turnover - they’ll be back, because ultimately money talks 

I know it's a daft question but I'll ask it anyway and do so not to curry favour with the likes of @Froggy

BUT how much of those two club's turnover is

A) profit and, more importantly

B) squirreled away by the owners/shareholders

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

I know it's a daft question but I'll ask it anyway and do so not to curry favour with the likes of @Froggy

BUT how much of those two club's turnover is

A) profit and, more importantly

B) squirreled away by the owners/shareholders

About £60m per year goes to pay for the Glazer’s leveraged buyout 

 

Spurs lost about £30m and Man Utd about £110m post-tax.  Spurs’ loss is pretty normal for a PL club. 

[tarie4]

3 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Unlikely, given that they would still have an income which outstripped 95% of the top division

 

Looking at Man Utd and Spurs’ current position and thinking that this is anything other than a blip is wishful thinking.  They’ll both be back amongst it, maybe even as early as next season (Man Utd are the bigger basket case of the two, so do need more work).  FFP builds in the advantages to these clubs, so they could have multiple years like this one and still outspend the likes of us or Villa

That's wrong, some of those clubs' income depends on European football. Missing two CL seasons would really hurt them.

 

But the main thing you're overlooking is the difference between FFP wiggle room and actual cash. Spurs and Man U are losing money. Forget FFP for a sec – they're in the red, huge debts. Spurs are finding this out now. You can have FFP headroom, but you also need owners willing to keep funding it because the club itself isn't making money. It's losing money.

 

 

So yeah, if the Glazers/Sir Jim or the Lewis trust/Levy are willing to keep funding them for years, fine, but I seriously doubt that. Multiple seasons without CL would be a disaster for either team.

 

If Chelsea miss the Champions League this season and next season, it'll really hurt them (include spurs and man u). Because while they're struggling, we and Villa are just getting stronger. 

[r0cafella]

Chelsea have gamed the system so well. They actually have a lot of ffp headroom and clear lake show signs of stopping. Given they are an investment fund I'd love to know how the plan on making actually money out of this. 

[tarie4]

18 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Chelsea have gamed the system so well. They actually have a lot of ffp headroom and clear lake show signs of stopping. Given they are an investment fund I'd love to know how the plan on making actually money out of this. 

So being a fund and all, the plan's to boost the team's worth, simples.  New stadium, better facilities etc, a young hotshot team to rake in cash for years through player trading and sponsorship etc, then sell the club for a profit. Classic American investor model. 

 

The Glazers' primary motivation for acquiring Manchester United was likely financial gain. Their subsequent success in this endeavor is evident. copy and paste that to Clearlake

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by tarie4

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, tarie4 said:

So being a fund and all, the plan's to boost the team's worth, simples.  New stadium, better facilities etc, a young hotshot team to rake in cash for years through player trading and sponsorship etc, then sell the club for a profit. Classic American investor model. 

Yeah I get all of that, the issue is the amount they've spent already and the amount they will spend in the future. I don't see how they make money in the long run especially considering the opportunity cost. 

[tarie4]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Yeah I get all of that, the issue is the amount they've spent already and the amount they will spend in the future. I don't see how they make money in the long run especially considering the opportunity cost. 

They're billionaires, so obviously they've got better vision than me. I'm sure they know what they're doing. Will it help Chelsea? Maybe not. But I bet they'll make a ton of money off it.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, tarie4 said:

That's wrong, some of those clubs' income depends on European football. Missing two CL seasons would really hurt them.

 

But the main thing you're overlooking is the difference between FFP wiggle room and actual cash. Spurs and Man U are losing money. Forget FFP for a sec – they're in the red, huge debts. Spurs are finding this out now. You can have FFP headroom, but you also need owners willing to keep funding it because the club itself isn't making money. It's losing money.

 

 

So yeah, if the Glazers/Sir Jim or the Lewis trust/Levy are willing to keep funding them for years, fine, but I seriously doubt that. Multiple seasons without CL would be a disaster for either team.

 

If Chelsea miss the Champions League this season and next season, it'll really hurt them (include spurs and man u). Because while they're struggling, we and Villa are just getting stronger. 

Spurs' income was over 200m more than ours when we had CL football and they didn't.  The gulf is absolutely massive - and yes, they're losing money, in Spurs' case in part due to stadium costs.

 

Man Utd are going absolutely nowhere when it comes to income - I think some are genuinely deluded if they think that Man Utd are going to suffer significant financial harm in the long run.  They're a monster of a club, they have huge global reach - they'll be England's biggest club in 50 years time, never mind right now.  Man Utd and Spurs are absolutely not dependent on European football - they aren't Leeds c.2002

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

Yeah I get all of that, the issue is the amount they've spent already and the amount they will spend in the future. I don't see how they make money in the long run especially considering the opportunity cost. 

The question would be 'where are the buyers?'.  We're already at the point of nation states buying clubs.  Who is going to pay 4bn for Chelsea?  The club that Abramovich sold was English football's most successful club of the century to date, but they aren't Man Utd.  4bn is the purchase cost + what Boehly and co. has poured in to date.  I'm just not seeing that happen - football clubs have tiny revenue streams (and profit potential) against their 'value'.  Football clubs are not good investments at all.