***Official Mike Ashley Euro express thread***

[Guest alex]

Chez has been a victim of cognitive dissonance imo

Must you persist with this narrative?

[ewerk 31230]

We're lucky Ashley is willing to pay for his mistake.

 

Did he have an alternative?

[Park Life 71]

Chez has been a victim of cognitive dissonance imo

Must you persist with this narrative?

 

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

btw Chez, if you're reading, clear your inbox. I sent you some queries about macroeconomics, didn't get your reply.

[Happy Face 29]

We're lucky Ashley is willing to pay for his mistake.

 

Did he have an alternative?

 

Not really, other than walking away from a 9 figure loss.

 

The likes of Lerner at Villa are more than happy to see the club pay out interest to lenders on it's debt and leave the risk with the club rather than themselves though. Since promotion Ashley could likely have got some finance to recover the cost of relegation....but it wouldn't have left the books looking half as good. He seems less worried about walking away from a loss if it all goes tits up again, and more intent on recovering it from the sale of a club that's performing well. Which is a positive sign.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Happy Face

[Park Life 71]

Spurs have spent more money on players than Liv between 04-10.

[ewerk 31230]

We're lucky Ashley is willing to pay for his mistake.

 

Did he have an alternative?

 

Not really, other than walking away from a 9 figure loss.

 

The likes of Lerner at Villa are more than happy to see the club pay out interest to lenders on it's debt and leave the risk with the club rather than themselves though. Since promotion Ashley could likely have got some finance to recover the cost of relegation....but it wouldn't have left the books looking half as good. He seems less worried about walking away from a loss if it all goes tits up again, and more intent on recovering it from the sale of a club that's performing well. Which is a positive sign.

 

I was under the impression that Villa's debt was to Lerner and that he was charging interest on it. Something that Ashley has also reserved the right to do but to the best of my knowledge he hasn't.

 

Ashley was never going to put us into administration or walk away with a huge loss. He's done what he has had to and has had luck/success with the footballing appointments that he has made. The only sign that he has been prepared to do more that the bare minimum was in allowing Pardew to spend £10m on Cisse in January. Hopefully this is an indication that he's once again excited about the team and perhaps is prepared to put in a few extra quid to see us competing,

[Park Life 71]

Abramovich has reconfigured his investment as loans, but without interest. Without that slight of hand their figures would be a nightmare.

[ewerk 31230]

Eh? He always had his investment as loans, though there was some talk that he was going to turn it into equity but I'm not sure if he ever followed through with it.

Edited February 21, 2012 by ewerk

[Park Life 71]

Across Manchester, United made £286m turnover, more than any other club if Arsenal's property income is discounted – yet the costs and interest on the debts the owners, the Glazer family, have loaded on to the club, pushed United into a losing £79m.

 

Double-winners in 2009-10 Chelsea, whose owner, the Russian oil oligarch Roman Abramovich, is always cited as a supporter of Uefa's break-even "financial fair play" principles, made the next biggest loss, £78m. Tottenham's successful push for Champions

 

League qualification was achieved with a £7m loss and £15m investment from the owners, principally Bahamas-based currency speculator, Joe Lewis.

 

debt in BOLD

 

 

See the full page at Many Eyes

The table below shows turnover plus income from things such as gate/matchday and TV and broadcasting as well as net debt for each club and wages as a percentage of turnover. The spreadsheet to download includes additional accounts details such as losses, profits and which money put in by the owners.

There's a pdf of the accounts too. What can you do with the data?

Data summary

Finances of the Premier League from latest accounts

Click heading to sort - Download this data

Team

 

Turn - over, £m

 

Gate and Matc - hday income, £m

 

TV and Broad - casting, £m

 

Comm - ercial, £m

 

Wages as Prop - ortion of Turn - over (%)

 

Net Debt, £m

 

Interest pay - able, £m

Arsenal 382 94 85 31 29 136 19

Aston Villa 91 24 52 14 88 110 5

 

 

 

Bolton Wanderers 62 9 38 4 74 93 5

Chelsea 213 5 82 734 0.8

Everton 79 19 50 10 69 45 4

Fulham 77 11 43 9 63 190 2

Liverpool 185 43 80 62 65 123 18

Manchester City 125 18 54 53 106 41 4

Manchester United 286 100 104 81 46 590 107

Newcastle United 52 21 16 15 90 150 2

 

Sunderland 65 13 39 5 83 66 2

Tottenham Hotspur 119 27 52 8 56 65 6

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/19/football-club-accounts-debt

Edited February 21, 2012 by Park Life

[ewerk 31230]

Sometimes it's better just to post a link

Edited February 21, 2012 by ewerk

[Happy Face 29]

I was under the impression that Villa's debt was to Lerner and that he was charging interest on it. Something that Ashley has also reserved the right to do but to the best of my knowledge he hasn't.

 

 

Yeah, I got that totally wrong

 

But you got to the nub of it...

 

 

Of course, everyone in the world of football seems to be concerned with debt these days, so most attention is inevitably focused on this part of the balance sheet. Aston Villa’s reported net debt has increased by 18% from £72.3m to £85.2m, though this would be nearly £100m if the post balance sheet loan notes of £12.5m were included. The net debt as at 31 May 2009 comprises £84.5m loan notes and £9.2m of bank loans and overdrafts less £8.5m cash. Although the debt is getting larger, it still looks reasonable compared to Manchester United, as it’s much lower (£100m vs £716m) and, in stark contrast to the Glazers, is financed from Lerner’s own company, rather than banks. However, it is high compared to most other clubs in the Premier League. According to The Times review, only four clubs have more debt than Villa: obviously Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal, but also (worrying drum roll) Portsmouth.

 

 

The interest charged on the debt is at a standard rate of LIBOR plus 2%, which is currently very low at below 3%, but it should be noted that if LIBOR rose to 5%, then the club would have to pay 7%. The accounts report £5.7m interest payable, including £4.5m on the loan notes (which goes to Lerner) and £0.8m on bank loans. This may not seem much, but it does represent about 5% of revenue. If that is added to Reform Acquisition Limited’s £7.7m management fees, then

you could argue that Lerner took out nearly 15% of revenue, which would be excessive if repeated every year

. So Lerner’s approach is rather more hard-nosed than has been reported in the media. This is not necessarily a bad thing, even though some clubs are lucky enough to have owners who do not charge interest on their loans (Stoke City and Fulham, to name but two). All I am saying here is that Lerner is not quite the saint that some Villa fans would seem to believe.

 

 

 

I'd love to see the fuckers go down.

[Toonpack 10002]

 

I was under the impression that Villa's debt was to Lerner and that he was charging interest on it. Something that Ashley has also reserved the right to do but to the best of my knowledge he hasn't.

 

Ashley was never going to put us into administration or walk away with a huge loss. He's done what he has had to and has had luck/success with the footballing appointments that he has made. The only sign that he has been prepared to do more that the bare minimum was in allowing Pardew to spend £10m on Cisse in January. Hopefully this is an indication that he's once again excited about the team and perhaps is prepared to put in a few extra quid to see us competing,

 

I doubt that tbh, IMO The Cisse money fitted into his financial model, no more, no less, i.e. we could afford it. That will be the story ongoing I reckon.

 

Villa's debt is primarily with Lerner (£170 Mill purchase price and loans transferred into equity plus round about another £97Mill in further loans - as at 09/10). He charges about 15% of their turnover in interest. Which given their wages/turnover was sitting at circa 83% doesn't leave much. They will be belt tightening very soon.

[McFaul 35]

Across Manchester, United made £286m turnover, more than any other club if Arsenal's property income is discounted – yet the costs and interest on the debts the owners, the Glazer family, have loaded on to the club, pushed United into a losing £79m.

 

Double-winners in 2009-10 Chelsea, whose owner, the Russian oil oligarch Roman Abramovich, is always cited as a supporter of Uefa's break-even "financial fair play" principles, made the next biggest loss, £78m. Tottenham's successful push for Champions

 

League qualification was achieved with a £7m loss and £15m investment from the owners, principally Bahamas-based currency speculator, Joe Lewis.

 

debt in BOLD

 

 

See the full page at Many Eyes

The table below shows turnover plus income from things such as gate/matchday and TV and broadcasting as well as net debt for each club and wages as a percentage of turnover. The spreadsheet to download includes additional accounts details such as losses, profits and which money put in by the owners.

There's a pdf of the accounts too. What can you do with the data?

Data summary

Finances of the Premier League from latest accounts

Click heading to sort - Download this data

Team

 

Turn - over, £m

 

Gate and Matc - hday income, £m

 

TV and Broad - casting, £m

 

Comm - ercial, £m

 

Wages as Prop - ortion of Turn - over (%)

 

Net Debt, £m

 

Interest pay - able, £m

Arsenal 382 94 85 31 29 136 19

Aston Villa 91 24 52 14 88 110 5

 

 

 

Bolton Wanderers 62 9 38 4 74 93 5

Chelsea 213 5 82 734 0.8

Everton 79 19 50 10 69 45 4

Fulham 77 11 43 9 63 190 2

Liverpool 185 43 80 62 65 123 18

Manchester City 125 18 54 53 106 41 4

Manchester United 286 100 104 81 46 590 107

Newcastle United 52 21 16 15 90 150 2

 

Sunderland 65 13 39 5 83 66 2

Tottenham Hotspur 119 27 52 8 56 65 6

 

 

http://www.guardian....b-accounts-debt

Those figures are from when we were in the CCC.

[Baggio 0]

A monkey would know what I'm saying. I'm responding to your point that turnover in the relegation season is the same as it was last season. The reason for that is TV revenues for 10/11, were vastly superior to 08/09, every other aspect and facet of the club is generating less income by far. It's not a trend across all clubs neither, prove it is. Newcastle have stagnated financially more than any other club in English football in terms of income, it's not even something you can argue over.

 

Part of that is signing a smaller sponsorship deal with Northern Rock while we were in the Championship, not that it affected us in a negative way as we hadn't seen any of the old sponsorship money in years anyway as it was all spent up front, now though we've got a nice new deal with Virgin money which will boost our commercial side significantly next year.

 

We also have to take into account that we've got a smaller gate revenue thanks to having a large family enclosure with cheap tickets, whether that was a good idea or not is up for debate but I wouldn't knock them for offering better deals to get kids in.

[Baggio 0]

I was under the impression that Villa's debt was to Lerner and that he was charging interest on it. Something that Ashley has also reserved the right to do but to the best of my knowledge he hasn't.

 

 

Yeah, I got that totally wrong

 

But you got to the nub of it...

 

 

Of course, everyone in the world of football seems to be concerned with debt these days, so most attention is inevitably focused on this part of the balance sheet. Aston Villa’s reported net debt has increased by 18% from £72.3m to £85.2m, though this would be nearly £100m if the post balance sheet loan notes of £12.5m were included. The net debt as at 31 May 2009 comprises £84.5m loan notes and £9.2m of bank loans and overdrafts less £8.5m cash. Although the debt is getting larger, it still looks reasonable compared to Manchester United, as it’s much lower (£100m vs £716m) and, in stark contrast to the Glazers, is financed from Lerner’s own company, rather than banks. However, it is high compared to most other clubs in the Premier League. According to The Times review, only four clubs have more debt than Villa: obviously Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal, but also (worrying drum roll) Portsmouth.

 

 

The interest charged on the debt is at a standard rate of LIBOR plus 2%, which is currently very low at below 3%, but it should be noted that if LIBOR rose to 5%, then the club would have to pay 7%. The accounts report £5.7m interest payable, including £4.5m on the loan notes (which goes to Lerner) and £0.8m on bank loans. This may not seem much, but it does represent about 5% of revenue. If that is added to Reform Acquisition Limited’s £7.7m management fees, then

you could argue that Lerner took out nearly 15% of revenue, which would be excessive if repeated every year

. So Lerner’s approach is rather more hard-nosed than has been reported in the media. This is not necessarily a bad thing, even though some clubs are lucky enough to have owners who do not charge interest on their loans (Stoke City and Fulham, to name but two). All I am saying here is that Lerner is not quite the saint that some Villa fans would seem to believe.

 

 

 

I'd love to see the fuckers go down.

 

Apparently he hasn't been to Villa park all season, I think he's definitely losing interest in them which is why he's attempting to downscale after an initial spending spree.

[McFaul 35]

A monkey would know what I'm saying. I'm responding to your point that turnover in the relegation season is the same as it was last season. The reason for that is TV revenues for 10/11, were vastly superior to 08/09, every other aspect and facet of the club is generating less income by far. It's not a trend across all clubs neither, prove it is. Newcastle have stagnated financially more than any other club in English football in terms of income, it's not even something you can argue over.

 

Part of that is signing a smaller sponsorship deal with Northern Rock while we were in the Championship, not that it affected us in a negative way as we hadn't seen any of the old sponsorship money in years anyway as it was all spent up front, now though we've got a nice new deal with Virgin money which will boost our commercial side significantly next year.

 

We also have to take into account that we've got a smaller gate revenue thanks to having a large family enclosure with cheap tickets, whether that was a good idea or not is up for debate but I wouldn't knock them for offering better deals to get kids in.

That will cost £2m max if that, and fair enough you can't slag them for that. However our commercial activities are a drop in the ocean compared to Tottenham, drop in the ocean and no one can sit there and say they are a much bigger club than us, they're not. Tottenham are ran properly, they're well marketed, we probably haven't even got a marketing department.

[Park Life 71]

Across Manchester, United made £286m turnover, more than any other club if Arsenal's property income is discounted – yet the costs and interest on the debts the owners, the Glazer family, have loaded on to the club, pushed United into a losing £79m.

 

Double-winners in 2009-10 Chelsea, whose owner, the Russian oil oligarch Roman Abramovich, is always cited as a supporter of Uefa's break-even "financial fair play" principles, made the next biggest loss, £78m. Tottenham's successful push for Champions

 

League qualification was achieved with a £7m loss and £15m investment from the owners, principally Bahamas-based currency speculator, Joe Lewis.

 

debt in BOLD

 

 

See the full page at Many Eyes

The table below shows turnover plus income from things such as gate/matchday and TV and broadcasting as well as net debt for each club and wages as a percentage of turnover. The spreadsheet to download includes additional accounts details such as losses, profits and which money put in by the owners.

There's a pdf of the accounts too. What can you do with the data?

Data summary

Finances of the Premier League from latest accounts

Click heading to sort - Download this data

Team

 

Turn - over, £m

 

Gate and Matc - hday income, £m

 

TV and Broad - casting, £m

 

Comm - ercial, £m

 

Wages as Prop - ortion of Turn - over (%)

 

Net Debt, £m

 

Interest pay - able, £m

Arsenal 382 94 85 31 29 136 19

Aston Villa 91 24 52 14 88 110 5

 

 

 

Bolton Wanderers 62 9 38 4 74 93 5

Chelsea 213 5 82 734 0.8

Everton 79 19 50 10 69 45 4

Fulham 77 11 43 9 63 190 2

Liverpool 185 43 80 62 65 123 18

Manchester City 125 18 54 53 106 41 4

Manchester United 286 100 104 81 46 590 107

Newcastle United 52 21 16 15 90 150 2

 

Sunderland 65 13 39 5 83 66 2

Tottenham Hotspur 119 27 52 8 56 65 6

 

 

http://www.guardian....b-accounts-debt

Those figures are from when we were in the CCC.

 

That's right.

 

I was going to add a correction but forgot.

 

Our wages against turnover is now at 65-69% or thereabouts.

 

Our total income is around the figures bandied about in the thread 88m or thereabouts.

 

**Our target which I agree with you on should be 120m and we will get close to that once we are back on Europe.

 

The interesting thing about that table is that Chelsea, ManU and ManC will fall foul of debt v turnover rules if they are correctly applied when fairplay comes in. I suspect Chelsea are in danger of being banned from Euro football. ManC are trying to get around this with the etiHad deal which is basically fake income (ie they can say it is whatever they want to say it is to cover losses).

 

I also suspect that Fulham and Villa are carrying unsustainable debt and will need severe corrections. Villa and Lerner have already started on this....

Edited February 21, 2012 by Park Life

[LeazesMag 0]

I was under the impression that Villa's debt was to Lerner and that he was charging interest on it. Something that Ashley has also reserved the right to do but to the best of my knowledge he hasn't.

 

Ashley was never going to put us into administration or walk away with a huge loss. He's done what he has had to and has had luck/success with the footballing appointments that he has made. The only sign that he has been prepared to do more that the bare minimum was in allowing Pardew to spend £10m on Cisse in January. Hopefully this is an indication that he's once again excited about the team and perhaps is prepared to put in a few extra quid to see us competing,

 

I doubt that tbh, IMO The Cisse money fitted into his financial model, no more, no less, i.e. we could afford it. That will be the story ongoing I reckon.

 

Villa's debt is primarily with Lerner (£170 Mill purchase price and loans transferred into equity plus round about another £97Mill in further loans - as at 09/10). He charges about 15% of their turnover in interest. Which given their wages/turnover was sitting at circa 83% doesn't leave much. They will be belt tightening very soon.

 

do you ever post anything about football ?

[ewerk 31230]

The interesting thing about that table is that Chelsea, ManU and ManC will fall foul of debt v turnover rules if they are correctly applied when fairplay comes in. I suspect Chelsea are in danger of being banned from Euro football. ManC are trying to get around this with the etiHad deal which is basically fake income (ie they can say it is whatever they want to say it is to cover losses).

#

 

Debt doesn't come into it though? If it's about turnover vs expenditure then Man U are fine. Their problem is the financing of their debt which I don't think is taken into account. Chelsea mightn't be too far away either. Though City could be fucked unless they really increase their revenue in the near future.

[Park Life 71]

United's commercial income has accelerated since the Glazers arrived and sought partners from Singha Beer to Turkish Airlines, Smirnoff to Epson, DHL and numerous telecommunications firms.

Collectively, they paid £40m in 2010-11 (above and beyond 'toprank' cash from Aon and Nike) to be associated with the club, and spent another £80m on marketing campaigns to promote their associations. In another few years, United will likely have an official cola partner (Coke or Pepsi), energy partner, an electronics partner and fridge partner, you name it.

Their marketing experts are also working on ways to 'monetise' their online fanbase, including 14m-plus 'followers' on Twitter, and how to make more on match day, perhaps via packages for the 'uber-rich' involving helicopter to the ground, limo transfer across the car park, private lift to a suite and Michelin dining during the match.

More immediately, Sir Alex will be pondering how to spend money, and the Glazers wondering what to do with what is left over, including clearing some of that debt.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1n1EvgXOt

 

 

Irritatingly I think the trend with ManU is positive and they (The Glazers) are going to get away with buying the club in the farcical manner they have. Their marketing is world class.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Park Life

[McFaul 35]

All Man City will do to get around any problems is receive increased money from their sponsors/owners to get round the problem. It stinks. It stinks that any rich fucka could just think right I've got £20b in the bank, I'm bored, I'll buy some horses see if they're any good but I'll get bored of them too. I know I like the name Doncaster Rovers, why not try and make them Champions of Europe. That's basically what happened with Man City. At the very best they were the 11th or 12th biggest club in England before all of this and look at them now. Fucking stinks.

[ChezGiven 0]

A monkey would know what I'm saying. I'm responding to your point that turnover in the relegation season is the same as it was last season. The reason for that is TV revenues for 10/11, were vastly superior to 08/09, every other aspect and facet of the club is generating less income by far. It's not a trend across all clubs neither, prove it is. Newcastle have stagnated financially more than any other club in English football in terms of income, it's not even something you can argue over.

TV income up 10m, commercial income down 10m, Virgin deal just brought in 10m so we should be back in the mid-20s after this deal, the max seen in our accounts is 27m.

 

The trend is there for any club not in the CL but the ramble has a great article on stagnating commercial income at Arsenal. Despite these massive increases, Liverpool's revenue has not grown overal for the last 3 accounts, its stuck at 185m. So if TV is going up, and revenue stays the same, it means other income is falling.

 

All on the Ramble for the proof. Some clubs like sunderland have done ok, keeping a commercial income of around 10-12m, we dipped to 15m in the relegation season and with better figure this year, plus the virgin deal will be back in the 20s, near our maximum figure. Of coursre the club went backwards but a simple analysis of current activity and figures shows we will approach the highest we've ever earned. Its the direction of these figures over time from the lowest point that counts now. The fact they decreased to 54m 2 seasons ago was a disaster, how the club is positioned financially since then has been ok, not amazing but its moving in the right direction. Club revenues are increasing and will increase again this year, whether we qualify for Europe or not. Simply saying that because the club's finances were impacted because of relegation and are not where they should be does not equal mis-management of the finances. I presume you are trying to criticise the financial management because the current football management is satisfactory? Things change, new trends emerge and if you look at how things are moving, no one with an ounce of experience in finance would say things were peforming badly on that front. Neither on the football front either. Just admit you're wrong and we'll move on.

Edited February 21, 2012 by ChezGiven

[Baggio 0]

A monkey would know what I'm saying. I'm responding to your point that turnover in the relegation season is the same as it was last season. The reason for that is TV revenues for 10/11, were vastly superior to 08/09, every other aspect and facet of the club is generating less income by far. It's not a trend across all clubs neither, prove it is. Newcastle have stagnated financially more than any other club in English football in terms of income, it's not even something you can argue over.

 

Part of that is signing a smaller sponsorship deal with Northern Rock while we were in the Championship, not that it affected us in a negative way as we hadn't seen any of the old sponsorship money in years anyway as it was all spent up front, now though we've got a nice new deal with Virgin money which will boost our commercial side significantly next year.

 

We also have to take into account that we've got a smaller gate revenue thanks to having a large family enclosure with cheap tickets, whether that was a good idea or not is up for debate but I wouldn't knock them for offering better deals to get kids in.

That will cost £2m max if that, and fair enough you can't slag them for that. However our commercial activities are a drop in the ocean compared to Tottenham, drop in the ocean and no one can sit there and say they are a much bigger club than us, they're not. Tottenham are ran properly, they're well marketed, we probably haven't even got a marketing department.

 

You can't argue with with the way Levy has gone about things, he's been excellent in turning them around.

 

The advantage they do have over us is location when it comes to things like corporate hospitality, they also do well with merchandise which is down to them releasing 3 kits most seasons.

 

I think the biggest thing for them compared to us is that their fans have bought into their UEFA cup campaigns, so it's the extra games where they really pull the money in compared to us.

 

It will be interesting to see how much the Virgin deal is worth (telegraph say £10m per season but that sounds high to me) because that along with our increase in tv money for a higher finish than last year should see us pull away from the clubs you mentioned earlier.

[Park Life 71]

The interesting thing about that table is that Chelsea, ManU and ManC will fall foul of debt v turnover rules if they are correctly applied when fairplay comes in. I suspect Chelsea are in danger of being banned from Euro football. ManC are trying to get around this with the etiHad deal which is basically fake income (ie they can say it is whatever they want to say it is to cover losses).

#

 

Debt doesn't come into it though? If it's about turnover vs expenditure then Man U are fine. Their problem is the financing of their debt which I don't think is taken into account. Chelsea mightn't be too far away either. Though City could be fucked unless they really increase their revenue in the near future.

 

Haven't read through the fair play stuff properly, but iirc farming debt out to secondary nominee businesses as a way to mask spend will be looked at.