Football Economics - European Football (EPL, UEFA, La Liga) (3) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Entertainment / Sports / European Football (EPL, UEFA, La Liga) / Football Economics (4046 Views)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Football Economics by edoyad(m): 9:07am On Jan 23, 2010 |
Simple mathematics to solve Man Us woes: Zamalek of Egypt would gladly pay something in the region of £700 k for Berbatov. Sir Alex Ferguson is a high wage earner, so replacing him with Paul Ince/Scholes or Lee Sharpe would be a good business move. Other revenue boosting measures could be taken eg. Two people per seat at Old Trafford would mean 140k thousand-plus paying fans. By so doing ticket prices could be cut by 20% and Utd would still rake up a whopping 60% jump in revenue from ticket sales. Another example is replacing the bottled water players use during matches with pure water, lots of Nigerians in the UK would give technical assistance in that area. |
| Re: Football Economics by RuuDie(m): 10:40am On Jan 23, 2010 |
I've read a lot of arguments over this UTD-Glazer debt matter & it appears the crux of the entire issue is centered on the PIK loans. . . . & from the UTD angle, as far as i understand this loans are solely in the name of the Glazers, not UTD. . . . . the only thing is the Glazers are using money from UTD to pay off some of these debts. But as far as i know, there is nothing hindering them from stopping this and reverting to their other avenues of income to service those debts. |
| Re: Football Economics by tkb417(m): 12:37pm On Jan 23, 2010 |
@edoyad U dey crase o. Lol |
| Re: Football Economics by Sauron1: 1:10pm On Jan 23, 2010 |
RuuDie: The most annoying part is a lot of retards here are just shooting their mouths off without really grasping the basic principles behind the £500m bonds. . . Man Utd is a global brand. The fact that within a week 500 million was raised just goes to show how much of a global brand United are, therefore there will always be takers for Man Utd. There will always be investors and brands who would fall over trying to associate themselves with the United brand, such is the global awareness of United. The successful bond issue just speaks volumes for the appetite for the brand, to raise such investment in a week especially in this economic climate just goes to show how much faith investors still have in the United brand. Unfortunately Man United are a Brand first, a football team 2nd. . . .as are all Premiership teams. Man Utd have two debts. . . . .£500m and £216m. The £500m has to be paid first . Unfortunately the second debt is racking up interest at 14.25% and would reach £588m by the time the first debt -the senior debt - is paid off. So the Glazers have now raised the money to pay off the senior debt, which they have now done . This allows them to concentrate on paying down the crippling PIK debt . All we need now is some fresh blood throughout the club and things will carry on just the same . I can understand why some fans are angry over the Glazer takeover. It woulda made loads of sense if this debt had been used to develop the football club through stadium expansion, world class players and state of the art facilities but i blame the English FA for allowing this mess to happen in the first place. If the Platini move to clampdown on clubs owing massive debt goes through, the big clubs in Europe will break out of UEFA and form their own super league. Can UEFA afford to evict big names like Man Utd, Real Madrid, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, etc? Not in a billion years. . . . . . |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 7:42pm On Jan 23, 2010 |
RuuDie:That was before the bonds issue. With the bonds issue, the Glazers have been able to make provisions so that the club's earnings can be used to pay the PiK loan. The Glazers have shown no intention of paying the PiK loan with their own money (else they wouldn't have let it balloon this much) and the bonds move confirms their intent to make the club pay. So in addition to the £45m interest bill to be paid on the bonds, the clubs money will be used to pay the PiK which is going to attract an interest of £29m this year alone (and interest will likely increase to 16.25% in August) making a total of about £74m to just keep the debt principal value from growing further. In previous years, with all the success, united has only been paying the £40 - £50m associated with the senior debt (that will be refinanced with the bonds) and their accounts were in the red (except for last year when they sold CR). A look at United's 2009 financial (£91.3m earnings before deductions, plus £80.7m profit from player transfer, less £81.9m deductions in amortization, depreciation etc ), shows that without the profit from player transfers, United would have had a net profit of £91.3m - £81.9m = £9.4m available to service the loans. In fact the raw earnings of £91.3m before deductions can barely cover the projected interest bill of £74m. Thus united cannot sustain servicing both loans without selling some assets and/or reducing expenses. A drop in revenue and consequently profit margin, and things could get messy real fast. Nobody is questioning the brand appeal of united, but that brand appeal is not an infinite source of money. The glazers will service the PiK loan to save their own behinds, while either selling assets or taking loans against the club. By 2017, the PiK will be paid off making the Glazers debt free, while the club will likely be indebted well north of the present £716m or deprived of most of its key assets. The glazers will sell off the club, and let the hyenas feed on what is left. Next year's financial will likely confirm most of these, as so far, all as played out as most unbiased onlookers expected. |
| Re: Football Economics by tkb417(m): 8:43pm On Jan 23, 2010 |
Nice one Sauron Ure learning this trade Send me ur cv!!! Lol! |
| Re: Football Economics by nateevs(m): 9:29pm On Jan 23, 2010 |
This brand thing is really getting in the way of simple figures. There is one thing you all should know especially Chac. The debt has not been paid off like you claim. The debt has only moved ownership. The big question here is . . . Will there be interest payments on the bonds? If YES, then UTD are back in the same boat. With what biina said about the increase in interest payments, these are not good times. Without the sale of another Ronaldo, UTD will barely have £10m with which to service interest payments. If NO, then UTD are in a slightly better situation. As profits could go directly into paying off the PiK loans at least for some years. However, as the bonds are due in 7 years time. UTD will have to have sold one Ronaldo every season to make anything reasonable towards a payoff. As this is not feasible, one can only assume that Biina perception of "The postponement of doomsday" holds true. This scenario is with the assumption that UTD doesn't pay interests on the bonds (I don't know about that) . . The safe scenario. How bad then will things be if they do pay interests. . ? The brand thing is simply getting in the way. Those who secured bonds have nothing to lose. . because their money is secured against UTD assets as I understand. That's the main reason why the bonds what successful . . There is nothing however to suggest that ManU can pay off their debts except they sell assets. Until anything otherwise, the situation doesn't look good. |
| Re: Football Economics by Sauron1: 9:59pm On Jan 23, 2010 |
nateevs: Of course, there are interest payments but they are fixed @ 9% unlike the 14%-16% United were paying before now. The £500 million raised will pay off the senior debts and United can concentrate in reducing the PIK before 2017. Na simple logic - Nateevs.
One Ronaldo every season? This is insane. What has the sale of Ronaldo gotta do with this? What about revenue, stadium expansion and the success on the pitch? Duh!!!
Do or Don't? If they pay the interests, the organisation will tick on nicely and if they don't pay it. . . .the sharks might come for the Glazers and naturally, they will be forced to sell to another Billionaire from Dubai. If a useless outfit like Citeh can attract a Billionaire owner, i am 1000000% confident United will attract more Billionaires in this world than any other club. It's a global brand - as popular as Coca Cola.
Raising £500 million within a week is no joke. It would take the best part of 2 years for other clubs in the PREM to raise half a billion pounds in bonds.
They will. Ticket prices will soar and United might soon break out of the collective TV deal they hold with the FA/SKY. |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 1:46am On Jan 24, 2010 |
~Sauron~:That is just pure misinformation. United were not paying 14%-16% on the loans. manU debts prior to the Bonds were : 1. A £509.5m bank loan secured against the club's assets at about 5% above LIBOR which was equivalent to about 8.25% last year. The interest bill was £41.9m last year and this is the only loan the clubs has been servicing since the refinancing. These debts principal were due to be paid from 2013 to 2017. 2. A PiK loan of £202m at a rate of 14.25% (which will be increased to 16.25% by August if the debt/revenue ratio remain above 5x) and is due in 2017. The PiK loan is secured against the equity of the Glazers in ManU i.e. if they dont pay it, they will transfer control of the club to the edge funds. Under the loan structure, the bank loan above was the senior debt and the Glazers were not allowed to use money from the club to tackle the PiK loan and thus they havent paid up on it, but rather have been letting it rollover. After the bonds: 1.£9.5m remaining from the bank loan as the money from the bonds have been used to pay off £500m from it. This is still at 5% above LIBOR rates but are expected to be cleared up in the coming weeks. 2. A £500m bonds at an interest rate of 9% giving a fixed annual interest bill of £45m (higher than that associated with the bank loan it replaced). The bonds are all due in 2017, though United can buy them back before then. The bonds, like the bank loan they replaced, are secured against the clubs assets. 3. The PiK loan of £202m which remains unchanged. What has changed is that with the bank loans now taken care of, the Glazers can now use money from the club to service their PiK loan essentially putting the PiK debt on the club. The PiK loan will attract an interest bill of £29m this year In summary, after the issue of the bonds, the interest bill of the club is now £45m plus whatever the Glazers want to pay on the PiK loans. If they want to pay at least the interest on the PiK to stop it growing, the club will have to pay £74m total. The other detail is that the entire debt is still due by 2017. United's revenue last year was £278.5 (which included about £40m upfront payment on the Aon sponsorship deal). The operating cost was £187.2 resulting in a profit before deductions of £91.3. United had deductions (depreciation and amortization) of £81.9m. This left a profit after deductions of £9.4m, which is all united would have had available for servicing the interest bill if they did not make a profit from player transfers. United made a profit of £80.7 on player transfers with £80 coming from selling CR. United net profit = group profit before deductions - deductions + profit from player transfers - interest bill which means that if the club is not in the red Interest bill <= group profit before deductions - deductions + profit from player transfers i.e. Interest bill <= Revenue + profit from player transfers - Expenses - deductions Last year, with £80m sale of CR, the RHS was £90.1m, and united required at least a profit of £32.5 from player transfers to break even after paying the £41.9m interest bill. Hence to be able to pay the larger interest bill of £45m-74m, United will have to increase their revenue and/or make substantial profit from player transfers again. This is with being optimistic that expenses and deductions will not increase even though they have in the past. United's revenue will likely take a big hit as they will not be getting anymore upfront payment from Aon and unless the fans are silly enough to pony up for exorbitant ticket prices, dont expect much in increased ticket prices too. Stadium expansion will cost ManU over £100 million and I doubt they can afford such a long term investment, when they need more money on the short term. Last year united won the EPL and Carling cup, got to the final of the UCL, and got to the semi-final of the FA cup. This year they are already out of the FA cup, almost out of the Carling cup, and are less favored to win the EPL or the UCL. It will be wishful thinking to expect ManU to be more succesful this season than they were last year. Until you can name that Dubai billionaire, you shouldn't get your hopes high. Billionaires that buy clubs often buy them as toys and not as profitable ventures, which makes United's brand value less important than the cost of acquisition. Liverpool are yet to find that dubai billionaire and united also will soon find out they are more scarce than it would seem. The Glazer are more likely to sell to investors from the far east than the middle east. Raising mney through bonds is not as difficult as you make it seem. How much you can raise is mainly a function of your asset value (to secure it against) and the yield you are offering. Under the current climates, the sale of junk bonds has been booming. Examples Virgin Media Inc. sold $2.4 billion HeidelbergCement AG raised 1.4 billion euros Fresenius Medical Care AG raised 750 million euros Most of these bonds were sold below the 9% united had to offer. The reason other club might not be able to raise £500m is mainly because they dont have the assets to secure it. The Glazers have been increasing ticket prices, but face reduce sales, which means they are not far from zero marginal returns.Even if they get away with another increase, I doubt it would 'soar'. The TV right have been sold up to 2013, and I doubt United can unilaterally pull out from it without huge financial and legal penalties. |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 3:43am On Jan 24, 2010 |
Bond issue cost Man Untd £54 million Manchester United's controversial bond issue has cost the Premier League champions 54 million pounds, reported The Sunday Times. As part of the 500 million pounds in funds raised by United last week, the club had to pay 15 million pounds in fees and expenses to investment bankers and lawyers, the newspaper said. The club had also taken a 39 million pounds hit from the unwinding of interest rate hedging arrangements on the debt that has been refinanced by the bond, The Sunday Times added. Although the Glazer family, the American leisure tycoons who bought the club in 2005, have managed to defer payment of some liability, the club is still paying 11 million pounds of it up front, the newspaper report added. No one was immediately available for comment at Manchester United. News that the bond issue has cost United so much will further upset fan groups after it emerged last week the club is saddled with rising debt partly due to high interest payments. Debts at parent company Red Football Joint Ventures Limited hit 716.5 million pounds in the year to June 2009, its accounts showed. Net interest for the period was 68.5 million pounds. Saturday supporters demonstrated outside Old Trafford before the 4-0 Premier League victory over Hull City that saw United regain top spot in the standings. Fans were chanting "Glazers Out" even after Wayne Rooney opened the scoring. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/24012010/2/bond-issue-cost-man-untd-54-million.html |
| Re: Football Economics by Sauron1: 3:52am On Jan 24, 2010 |
biina: This is what happens when you put your nose in something you know nowt about. RFJV Limited breached a convenant relating to the PIK loan which stipulated that Net Debt must be no more than six times that of EBITDA on June 30 2009. Net Debt was in fact 6.2 times that of EBITDA on that date which triggers an increase in the interest rate from 14.25% to 16.25% starting from August of this year.
Another hogwash. The fixed annual interest bill is £36 million since it's tax deductible. Dust your accounting acumen. . . . .£504million x 9% x 0.8 (factor for tax relief) is approx £36million.
It is now £36 million(lower than the £41 million United were paying before the issue of bonds)
What a load of twaddle. Arsenal charge about £94 per seat while United charge about £45 for ST holders. Surely, there's a room for a 10%-30% increase in gate-takings.
£100 million is pea nuts if the expansion is going to add 20,000 more seats to Old Trafford. There are no fears about the stadium utilisation which even places United higher than Real Madrid and Barcelona. 20,000 seats will generate more than £100 million in half-a-season at OT.
This is no issue at all. Apart from the CL and EPL, domestic cup games in England is as insignificant as the cash prize of the Globacom football league. The money made from domestic cups last season was only £4 million. United will raise that from few transfers this summer. Getting kicked out in the FA cup or Carling Cup means shyte to Man Utd. The big pie is the EPL and the money-spinning UCL.
Liverpool are by no means a global brand. They have a rich history in England but there's nothing to it after the shores of UK. United are a global brand. As a matter of fact, a Billionaire offered the Glazers $1.5 Billion some few years ago but they refused to sell. If you really think Man Utd(the world's most profitable football club) will go down like Leeds then you know nowt about football.
Unadulterated bollocks. United were the most supported football club in Europe last season despite the increasing ticket prices. I am also bold to say United became the richest club in the world during their trophyless period. . .This club is not reliant on trophies like most people tend to believe.
They can pull out. |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 6:01am On Jan 24, 2010 |
~Sauron~:My statement is backed up by http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14bb9734-062d-11df-8c97-00144feabdc0.html Manchester United faces having to pay more in interest to investors in its high-risk debt because it is in danger of exceeding a threshold measuring its leverage. The Premier League champions are at risk of exceeding a threshold set in the payment-in-kind notes - an instrument allowing borrowers to roll over cash interest payments - which were issued as part of its £790m buy-out in 2005. [b]Exceeding that threshold, where net debt to earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation becomes greater than five times, requires the group to pay 2 percentage points in additional interest. In the club's accounts, released last week, that multiple stood at 5.2. The test for whether the threshold has been crossed comes up in August. The Glazer family, owners of Manchester United, are directly responsible for the Pik loans, which since the 2005 takeover have been carrying an annual interest rate of 14.25 per cent and which have risen to £202m. But the accounts issued yesterday for Red Football Joint Venture, the Glazers' ultimate holding company for Manchester United, reveal that the rate will rise in August to 16.25 per cent if the threshold is deemed to have been crossed. The Pik note trigger underlines the need for the Glazers' £500m bond issue last week, which is nearing completion. The threshold test comes on August 16, the fourth anniversary of the issue of the Pik notes, which were originally held by Perry Capital, Och-Ziff and Citadel, the hedge funds.[/b] where is the evidence to backup your claims? tax deductible? This is not personal income tax  The interest bill is always paid with pre-tax earnings. The tax is applied to the net profit The bonds have a yield of 9% which means holders of the bonds are due £45m. There is no tax relieve associated with it or who do you thing will pay the £9m balance? How much room (if any) there is for ticket price increase is less dependent on the true price, and more on the fans willingness to pay for it. That margin will be put to test soon Total matchday revenue last season from the 76K seats was £108.8m, and you are now claiming that 20K seats will generate 2x that amount More importantly is that stadium expansion is not an overnight business, and will take over a year to complete. United do not have that kind of money to tie down. Well then lets see if you will win the EPL and CL, cos that is the only way this season is more successful than the last which billionaire? please provide source to back up your claim. Again, we will soon see how willing the fans are to stick with a further price increase. They cant as the TV rights are owned by The Football Association Premier League Ltd. They will need the support of other clubs to do so, but unfortunately clubs like Chelsea support the collective rights. Also, while the collective right will pay the big clubs in the short term, the resulting widened disparity in finances will weaken the league and thus reduce the value of the individual rights in the future. The issue of individual vs collective media rights has been well researched, with good arguments on both sides. For example, Serie A tried the independent bargaining from 2007 but will be reverting back to collective TV rights this year. |
| Re: Football Economics by RuuDie(m): 1:00pm On Jan 24, 2010 |
@ biina, what happened to the last 2 paragraphs of the article that sounded nothing like the emboldened figures of doom and gloom which you so solemnly potray in your write-up!? |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 5:36pm On Jan 24, 2010 |
RuuDie:If you are referring to the FT article, I posted it to counter sauron's claims, and only made bold parts that supported my earlier statement on the conditions under which the PiK interest would increase. Just to fulfill all righteousness, here is the rest of the article One of the aims of the bond is to enable the Glazers to pay off Pik notes. The club's bond document says some £70m of £117m left on the balance sheet can be used by the family to pay down the Pik debt, though there are provisions for the Glazers to take out other sums including a 50 per cent dividend on net cash profits. The accounts reveal that the club's overall debt has risen from £699m to £717m. The holding group paid £68.5m in interest in the year to June 30, and made an overall profit of £6.4m. A spokesman for the family said: "The club has a £50m surplus to work with once the interest payments have been made." The bond sale is understood to be oversubscribed, with investors guided to expect pricing at 8.75-9 per cent. Official price guidance is expected to be set today, with pricing on Friday. If the section in bold is what you are referring to, I dont see how it changes anything. - Everyone knows that the bonds were successful and were issued at 9% - I also made ref to the £50m surplus as united had earnings of £90m before paying the £42m interest bill. The problem is that that excess came after selling CR for £80m and collecting £40m upfront from Aon. Both of those income will not be repeated this season, so from where does united get £120m more? |
| Re: Football Economics by Sauron1: 5:50pm On Jan 24, 2010 |
biina: The 20,000 seats could add to the number of existing executive seats which charge way higher than normal seats. Of course 20,000 seats can churn out £100 million in six months, it depends on the amount they charge per bum.
United are on top of the league and qualified from the group with 2 games to spare. It has not been a bad campaign contrary to what retards thunk when Ronaldo left in the summer.
DIC!!!!!!
They have been sticking with it since the takeover. . . . . Despite this increase in capacity, average attendance for Premier League matches has remained approximately 99% for each season since the 1997/98 season.
Conveniently omitting La Liga that have been using this scheme to gain massive income for the top clubs in Spain. |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 8:22pm On Jan 24, 2010 |
~Sauron~:There are currently only 8,000 executive seats and you think they can add 20,000 more? You think no matter how much they charge, someone will always buy. They are already having difficulty selling existing ones (with 16% of corporate and executive tickets unsold as at September 30, 2009). You are just saying nonsense. Whatever, the expansion is not happening this season. I have not said it was a bad campaign but that it is unlikely they would be more successful than they were last season, as it requires them to win both the EPL and CL. typical response after a false claim Increase in capacity? I think u meant increase in prices. The question is how high can they increase the prices before hurting revenue. The demand for ManU tickets is not perfectly inelastic. La liga has been independent in the recent decades. while EPL has been collective. Both do not offer a fair comparison for which is better, as they didnt try the other method. The Serie A switched between both and thus offers a better comparison. Still I |
| Re: Football Economics by Sauron1: 8:41pm On Jan 24, 2010 |
biina: A stadium going into 96,000 can effectively manage 20,000 executive seats. The objective is to make money. The Glazers are not morons, they did not become Billionaires overnight by being stupid.
It doesn't have to happen this season, you dork.
Cheese n Rice. They don't have to WIN EPL/UCL to make money. Stop talking like a soccer illiterate. Chelsea did not win the league last season, neither did they win the Champions League but they still made around £80 million. The KEY is reaching the advanced stages of the UCL and coming either 2nd or 3rd in the league. . . .With the new improved TV deal, United can make £90 milla on prize money this season without winning a single title. United matches are shown more on TV than any other club as we speak.
You are a disgrace if you dunno what DIC means. I know you are going to spin around it now and say you know em after you musta googled it. Whatever you might decide to do, it's still a disgrace that you never knew DIC wanted to shell $1.5Billion on United in 2006.
United can increase the capacity and increase the match-day tickets. Fans will always buy. I was saying despite the increase in size of the stadium and the constant increase in the prices since the Glazers took over, the stadium utilisation is still constant at 99%. Something the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona have failed to achieve in the last 3 decades.
Like i have said, the Glazers are not retards. Rather than let debt engulf their investments in Man Utd, they will do everything humanly possible to generate funds. Getting an independent TV deal is imminent. It's only a matter of time. |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 9:01pm On Jan 24, 2010 |
~Sauron~:The question is not about if you can classify all 20K seats as executives, but that it cannot be priced and sold to raise the £200m you claimed so how does it help their short term cash crunch? It was you that brought up the issue of success on the pitch. I asked that you provide a source to backup your claim. Their interest in Liverpool is well documented. The only link I have come across is unconfirmed references that they turned down the Glazer's offer to invest in the bonds. so please provide a credible link to support your claim, else it is false like I stated. Lets wait and see how well they do with matchday revenue this season. Imminent? There is no evidence that it would even materialize at all. |
| Re: Football Economics by Sauron1: 9:27pm On Jan 24, 2010 |
biina: It can be priced that way if they increase what they charge per bum.
Borrow now, pay later(after the expansion musta been completed). The bonds have actually freed up funds to invest in new players and funds to start the stadium expansion project if the need be.
Nah. . . . .It was you that kept bleating about United's success cannot continue forever. I was quick to point out to you that United don't have to win titles to make money. We became the richest club in the world when the title drought was at it's peak. |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 1:13am On Jan 25, 2010 |
~Sauron~:By doubling the price? Well let them expand first before we debate the pricing of the seats. There are questions about your ability to service the current debt and you are talking about borrowing more money? The bonds have not freed up any money. All they have done is postponed the evil day. |
| Re: Football Economics by RuuDie(m): 3:41pm On Feb 05, 2010 |
BOND MARKET GIVES THUMBS DOWN TO UNITED – 3/2/10 Things may be looking up on the pitch for Manchester United, but the market doesn't like their bonds very much. Of course, the club has already trousered the money, but they may find it more challenging if they come back to the market in the future. The bonds have become one of the worst performers this year. Of course, they were mainly bought for the interest 'coupon' rather than capital gain. However, the sterling bonds have fallen to just 93 per cent of the value. If the investor had splashed out around £100,000, they would have already made a paper loss of £5,000. The dollar denominated bonds have done slightly better with the bid price falling to 94.5 per cent of face value. Analysts suggested the bonds had been priced too highly at launch and also referred to the lack of a credit rating. However, the club has no plans to return to the market and it has been suggested that a greater priority is placating fans angered by the bond issue. Their reaction has reached the point where it threatens to cause reputational damage to the club and no global brand wants that. |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 7:06pm On Feb 06, 2010 |
A drop in price might be good for the club as they could buy back the bonds at a cheaper rate. |
| Re: Football Economics by 4Play(m): 10:06pm On Feb 06, 2010 |
biina: I don't think the club has the money to buy back the bonds. The price drop is irrelevant in so far as they have no intention to make a new bond issue any time soon. The most difficult part has been accomplished, the successful bond issue. |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 10:56pm On Feb 06, 2010 |
4 Play:Not immediately. The bonds are due in 2017 i.e. manU will have to pay back the £500m value of the bonds to the holders . The club will not want to pay out £500m in a single year, and so if they are bouyant, they will start buying the bonds back before then. |
| Re: Football Economics by 4Play(m): 1:17am On Feb 09, 2010 |
biina: In 7 years time, the club could issue new debt, on worse or better terms, to pay off the principal. Like I noted, the most important part, the bond issue, has been accomplished at a time of a crap credit market. MU's financial health in 7 years time is another matter. |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 6:32am On Feb 09, 2010 |
4 Play:Again you miss the point and it seems pointless to explain it. |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 3:55am On Mar 02, 2010 |
WORLD'S WEALTHIEST CLUBS BY REVENUE (Source: Deloitte 2008/09) [table] [tr][td]Position (prior)[/td] [td] Club [/td] [td] [/td] [td]Revenue (€m) [/td][/tr] [tr][td]1 (1)[/td] [td]Real Madrid[/td] [td][/td] [td] 401.4[/td][/tr] [tr][td]2 (3)[/td] [td] Barcelona[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 365.9[/td][/tr] [tr][td]3 (2)[/td] [td] Manchester United[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 327.0[/td][/tr] [tr][td]4 (4)[/td] [td] Bayern Munich[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 289.5[/td][/tr] [tr][td]5 (6)[/td] [td] Arsenal[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 263.0[/td][/tr] [tr][td]6 (5)[/td] [td] Chelsea[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 242.3[/td][/tr] [tr][td]7 (8 )[/td] [td] Liverpool [/td] [td][/td] [td] 217.0[/td][/tr] [tr][td]8 (8 )[/td] [td] Juventus[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 203.2[/td][/tr] [tr][td]9 (9)[/td] [td] Internazionale[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 196.5[/td][/tr] [tr][td]10 (7)[/td] [td] AC Milan[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 196.5[/td][/tr] [tr][td]11 (11)[/td] [td] Hamburg SV[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 146.7[/td][/tr] [tr][td]12 (12)[/td] [td] AS Roma[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 146.4[/td][/tr] [tr][td]13 (13)[/td] [td] Olympique Lyonnais[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 139.6[/td][/tr] [tr][td]14 (14)[/td] [td] Marseille[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 133.2[/td][/tr] [tr][td]15 (n/a)[/td] [td] Tottenham Hotspur[/td] [td][/td] [td] 132.7[/td][/tr] [tr][td]16 (16)[/td] [td] Schalke 04[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 124.5[/td][/tr] [tr][td]17 (17)[/td] [td] Werder Bremen[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 114.7[/td][/tr] [tr][td]18 (18)[/td] [td] Borussia Dortmund[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 103.5[/td][/tr] [tr][td]19 (n/a)[/td] [td] Manchester City [/td] [td][/td] [td]102.2[/td][/tr] [tr][td]20 (n/a)[/td] [td] Newcastle United[/td] [td] [/td] [td] 101.0[/td][/tr] [/table] |
| Re: Football Economics by RuuDie(m): 6:59pm On Mar 02, 2010 |
'Red Knights' confirm United plans http://eurosport.yahoo.com/02032010/58/premier-league-red-knights-confirm-united-plans.html |
| Re: Football Economics by Sauron1: 7:44pm On Mar 05, 2010 |
biina: This list is dodgy. . . . -If exchange rates remained at their June 2007 level, United would be top of the money league table -United don't have independent TV deals that Barcelona and Real Madrid are enjoying. -Using revenue to determine who is richer does not make sense. The value of these clubs should have been used. I cannot be richer than Dangote in 2009 because i was lucky to make more wonga than he did in 2009. |
| Re: Football Economics by RuuDie(m): 11:08am On Mar 11, 2010 |
Cost of attending matches falls A survey of nearly 4,000 football fans representing all 92 league clubs by Virgin Money found that the cost of attending games has fallen by 6.8 per cent in the past year. Lower ticket prices and reduced costs for replica kit meant that the average matchday cost has fallen to £89.09 compared with £95.60 in January 2009. That is still 14.29 per cent higher than the matchday cost when the index was launched in January 2006 but is substantially lower than the all-time high of £106.21 in October 2008. Average match tickets across all leagues peaked at £27.38 in July 2009 but have now fallen to an average of £22.59. After the special case of Manchester United, Wolves are most at risk from fans deserting them with 54 per cent saying they were considering cancelling their season tickets. Wolves had tried to pursue a prudent financial policy but this statistic shows that such an approach may have a downside. Liverpool and Stoke fans were the most loyal with 9 per cent saying they were thinking of letting their season tickets go. |
| Re: Football Economics by RuuDie(m): 11:14am On Mar 11, 2010 |
English Premier League TV Broadcast Rights - 2007-2010 Sky paid £1,314 million and Setanta paid £392 million for these broadcast rights. This deal represents approximately £28 million to each Premier League football club per year. * Following the collapse of Setanta, Disney-owned ESPN bought the packages available. Stats Table: A Sky 23 first-choice matches shown at 4.00 pm on Sundays B Sky 23 second-choice matches shown at 1.30pm on Sundays C Setanta 23 third-choice matches shown at 8.00 pm on Mondays D Setanta 8 second-choice matches + 15 fourth-choice matches shown at 5.15pm on Saturdays E Sky 5 first-choice matches shown + 9 third-choice matches + 9 fourth-choice matches shown at 12.45pm on Saturdays F Sky 10 first-choice matches + 7 second-choice matches + 6 third-choice matches in midweek and bank holidays, Saturdays (12.45pm) |
| Re: Football Economics by biina: 7:01pm On Mar 14, 2010 |
Offer made to help cut Liverpool's debt Tom Hicks and George Gillett have been offered a way of relieving the financial pressure at Liverpool after global investment firm the Rhone Group made a £100million-plus offer for a 40% stake in the club. Liverpool's co-owners have been looking for an injection of cash to help reduce the current level of debt leveraged on the club. When they successfully renegotiated the terms of their loan with the Royal Bank of Scotland last summer one requirement was that they had to cut £100million off the £237million debt. Liverpool chief executive Christian Purslow set a deadline of Easter to have secured new finance. After much speculation over the source of potential investors, Press Association Sport understands the submission from the Rhone Group is the first genuine offer to be received. If the offer is accepted by Hicks and Gillett it would considerably strengthen the club's financial position. The people behind the Rhone Group bid have been keen to stress that the offer comes in the form of fresh money - not borrowed - which would immediately be used to slash Liverpool's debt by nearly half. If successful the Rhone Group's bid would give them the controlling interest in the club, with Hicks and Gillett reducing their shareholding to 30% each. Details of the offer were only received by Liverpool on Saturday and the matter has yet to be discussed at board level. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/14032010/63/offer-made-help-cut-liverpool-debt.html |
, met in London yesterday," a statement released on behalf of the Red Knights read.Standard Liege Vs Arsenal (2-3) On Wednesday 16th September / Real Sociedad Vs Barcelona (2 - 2) On Saturday,10th Of September,2011 / Wolves Vs Manchester United (0 - 5) On March 18th 2012
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 183 |