Football finances, 'big 4' style

[blurred]

Our accounts for 2007 were published yesterday, and our resident financial guru on RAWK has gone through them with his fine-toothed comb. I'm sure most of you couldn't care less, but he also made some comparisons with the accounts of the other 'big 4' clubs, finding some interesting snippets.

Firstly, Chelsea didn't break down their turnover, but there were some interesting figures nonetheless (figures rounded to nearest million):

---------------------------------

Turnover

Manchester United: £210m
Chelsea: £177m
Arsenal: £177m
Liverpool: £134m

Commercial Income:

Manchester United: £56m
Liverpool: £42m
Arsenal: £42m
Chelsea: ?

Matchday Income:

Manchester United: £93m
Arsenal: £91m
Liverpool: £38m
Chelsea: ?

Net Transfer Expenditure:

Manchester United: £62m
Liverpool: £44m
Chelsea: £5m
Arsenal: -£2m

Staff Wages:

Chelsea: £123m
Manchester United: £92m
Arsenal: £90m
Liverpool: £78m

---------------------------------

Make of that what you will, although I should point out that included in our transfer spend was the £10m (or so) for Dirk Kuyt that took place in August 2006, because he was initially bought with a loan from David Moores (then Chairman) to the club, which was repaid in 2007, hence included in the figures.

[BWFC_Insane]

Our accounts for 2007 were published yesterday, and our resident financial guru on RAWK has gone through them with his fine-toothed comb. I'm sure most of you couldn't care less, but he also made some comparisons with the accounts of the other 'big 4' clubs, finding some interesting snippets.

Firstly, Chelsea didn't break down their turnover, but there were some interesting figures nonetheless (figures rounded to nearest million):

---------------------------------

Turnover

Manchester United: £210m
Chelsea: £177m
Arsenal: £177m
Liverpool: £134m

Commercial Income:

Manchester United: £56m
Liverpool: £42m
Arsenal: £42m
Chelsea: ?

Matchday Income:

Manchester United: £93m
Arsenal: £91m
Liverpool: £38m
Chelsea: ?

Net Transfer Expenditure:

Manchester United: £62m
Liverpool: £44m
Chelsea: £5m
Arsenal: -£2m

Staff Wages:

Chelsea: £123m
Manchester United: £92m
Arsenal: £90m
Liverpool: £78m

---------------------------------

Make of that what you will, although I should point out that included in our transfer spend was the £10m (or so) for Dirk Kuyt that took place in August 2006, because he was initially bought with a loan from David Moores (then Chairman) to the club, which was repaid in 2007, hence included in the figures.

I make it that Rafa has spunked a load of money on Liverpool but won nowt and finished 4th.

I also think its more evidence that Rafa is shite. Something that all football fans know (except for Liverpool fans).

[Lord Kangana]

It shows to me that Football is most definitely business now. Rafa has spent big admittedly, but the underlying trend to those figures shows that income is directly correlated to position.

[thebish]

Our accounts for 2007 were published yesterday, and our resident financial guru on RAWK has gone through them with his fine-toothed comb. I'm sure most of you couldn't care less, but he also made some comparisons with the accounts of the other 'big 4' clubs, finding some interesting snippets.

nowt to do with the figures - but I'd like to congratulate you for writing "fine-toothed comb" rather than the "fine tooth-comb" that seems to have polluted the language recently!!

[BWFC_Insane]

It shows to me that Football is most definitely business now. Rafa has spent big admittedly, but the underlying trend to those figures shows that income is directly correlated to position.

Aye but we've known that for a long long time.

In fact this has always been the case.

[boltonboris]

£10M for Kuyt - Feyenoord saw you lot coming!

[bobo the clown]

It shows to me that Football is most definitely business now. Rafa has spent big admittedly, but the underlying trend to those figures shows that income is directly correlated to position.

Aye but we've known that for a long long time.

In fact this has always been the case.

It's because he's a prick.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The most interesting part seems to me to be the net transfer expenditure.

Are Arsenal spending enough to compete?

Why aren't Chelsea spending more?

Has United's success this season come about because of their commitment to investing heavily in their playing staff?

Liverpool -

[malcd1]

Last season I did a quick calculation of the total transfers in/out of the 'big' 4 clubs. Until Abramovich spent £200m in two seasons United were the biggest spenders, Liverpool not far behind and Tottenham 3rd.

Chelsea smashed that in the Mourinho years but have spent virtually nothing (In comparison of United and Liverpool) on transfers for a couple of seasons. There is a good chance that United and Liverpool have overtaken Chelsea again after the last 2 years.

And they said Chelsea and Blackburn bought the title. That is what all the big clubs have doing since the start of the Premiership.

[blurred]

The most interesting part seems to me to be the net transfer expenditure.

Are Arsenal spending enough to compete?

It would appear not - their squad looked a little thin come the end of the season, and also they 'rotated' much less than the others, who all ended the season fairly strongly. We shall see how much they improve over the summer, and who replaces the likes of Flamini (gone) and Hleb (sounding very much like he's off).

Why aren't Chelsea spending more?

Because they'd spunked hundreds of millions in the preceeding seasons, and have a joke of an idea that they'll become financially self-sufficient within a couple of years.

Has United's success this season come about because of their commitment to investing heavily in their playing staff?

I would say so - they are investing extremely heavily in younger players to replace the ageing likes of Scholes, Giggs, etc who are coming to the end of their shelf-life.

Liverpool -

We're trying to get up to the point where we can compete with the likes of United and Chelsea who've spent heavily over previous years. Even in a year when we made our record signing and one or two other hefty buys, we were still dwarfed by Man United's figure.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in next year's accounts (ie this year's) with the ownership debacle, and how that gets resolved. Will it leave us any funds to improve the squad? Or will we have to be more like Arsenal and 'sell to buy'.

[BWFC_Insane]

The most interesting part seems to me to be the net transfer expenditure.

Are Arsenal spending enough to compete?

It would appear not - their squad looked a little thin come the end of the season, and also they 'rotated' much less than the others, who all ended the season fairly strongly. We shall see how much they improve over the summer, and who replaces the likes of Flamini (gone) and Hleb (sounding very much like he's off).

Why aren't Chelsea spending more?

Because they'd spunked hundreds of millions in the preceeding seasons, and have a joke of an idea that they'll become financially self-sufficient within a couple of years.

Has United's success this season come about because of their commitment to investing heavily in their playing staff?

I would say so - they are investing extremely heavily in younger players to replace the ageing likes of Scholes, Giggs, etc who are coming to the end of their shelf-life.

Liverpool -

We're trying to get up to the point where we can compete with the likes of United and Chelsea who've spent heavily over previous years. Even in a year when we made our record signing and one or two other hefty buys, we were still dwarfed by Man United's figure.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in next year's accounts (ie this year's) with the ownership debacle, and how that gets resolved. Will it leave us any funds to improve the squad? Or will we have to be more like Arsenal and 'sell to buy'.

But don't try and pretend that over the years Liverpool haven't spent money. They might not have competed with Man Utd but over the last 10 years I bet they have with Chelsea, and more than likely have spent more than Arsenal.

[boltonboris]

Last season I did a quick calculation of the total transfers in/out of the 'big' 4 clubs. Until Abramovich spent £200m in two seasons United were the biggest spenders, Liverpool not far behind and Tottenham 3rd.

Chelsea smashed that in the Mourinho years but have spent virtually nothing (In comparison of United and Liverpool) on transfers for a couple of seasons. There is a good chance that United and Liverpool have overtaken Chelsea again after the last 2 years.

And they said Chelsea and Blackburn bought the title. That is what all the big clubs have doing since the start of the Premiership.

But in fainess, Man Utd have been buying players off the back of their own previous success. Same with Liverpool and Arsenal.

I don't mind teams being mega rich when they have started out on the same footing as everybody else. It's when a rich guy comes ind changes the face of the club that it graits me... Perhaps I'm jealous

[Athers]

Arsenal's board brag about how much cash they have in the bank and how they always say it's available to Wenger, the old bugger just doesn't like spending it as he's got so much faith in his young players.

[Leyther_Matt]

Arsenal's board brag about how much cash they have in the bank and how they always say it's available to Wenger, the old bugger just doesn't like spending it as he's got so much faith in his young players.

Not a bad philosphy to have - far better for their long term future that they continue to invest in their youth system (albeit mainly containing foreign players) rather than chucking money at a short-term fix.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Arsenal's board brag about how much cash they have in the bank and how they always say it's available to Wenger, the old bugger just doesn't like spending it as he's got so much faith in his young players.

Not a bad philosphy to have - far better for their long term future that they continue to invest in their youth system (albeit mainly containing foreign players) rather than chucking money at a short-term fix.

I think it was JMK who said "In the long run, we're all dead!"

I think if Arsenal really want to emulate United's success then they need to spend in a similar way.

Has anyone been bothered to work out what that Champions League winning matchday squad cost to assemble?

[H. Pedersen]

Arsenal's board brag about how much cash they have in the bank and how they always say it's available to Wenger, the old bugger just doesn't like spending it as he's got so much faith in his young players.

Not a bad philosphy to have - far better for their long term future that they continue to invest in their youth system (albeit mainly containing foreign players) rather than chucking money at a short-term fix.

Arguable. The danger is that the long-term vision will be undermined if the players aren't convinced they will ever see success at Arsenal. How long will Fabregas, Adebayor, etc. wait for silverware? When the likes of Real Madrid and Inter invariably come in from them, will Wenger be able to persuade them to stick it out through a few more barren years?

Back to the original topic. I still think Liverpool's failure in the league is down to Benitez, not money. Consider Kuyt and Crouch: £17 million between the two of them IIRC. That would almost buy you another Torres, but instead Benitez decided to spread the money on two player who wouldn't make the bench at Chelsea. Why? He's either got some kind of irrational obsession with his "rotation policy," or he's going for quantity rather than quality so he can have a better chance in domestic and European cups. You'll never come close to a league title with him in charge.

[blurred]

Back to the original topic. I still think Liverpool's failure in the league is down to Benitez, not money. Consider Kuyt and Crouch: £17 million between the two of them IIRC. That would almost buy you another Torres, but instead Benitez decided to spread the money on two player who wouldn't make the bench at Chelsea. Why? He's either got some kind of irrational obsession with his "rotation policy," or he's going for quantity rather than quality so he can have a better chance in domestic and European cups. You'll never come close to a league title with him in charge.

The above is a reasonably valid point - the distinction between quality and quantity is one that has to be made by all managers - will Bolton spunk the Anelka cash on one player who can make a difference, or will they spread it around 2/3/4 players to try and bring the overall level of the squad up, for instance? Which is the correct course of action?

Benitez has been battling for some time (as just about all managers do) with bringing the level of the squad up from the one he inherited. If you look at some of the players that he had at his disposal as first team squad members when he came in 2004 you will realise the massive overhaul that both the first team and the squad as a whole required at the time. Just a few I can rattle off the top of my head: Neil Mellor, Antony Le Tallec, Igor Biscan, Djimi Traore, Salif Diao, Bruno Cheyrou. These are players who all played a relatively significant role in the first XI (Diao and Cheyrou excepted, they were truly shit), and without Chelsea-esque amounts of money at his disposal it was always going to take time to get the players in that he wanted. Some of these were short-term measures and only lasted a season or two, some have been mainstays over the past few years, but if you look at the players that he has brought in, just about all of them have offered an improvement on what came before them. He (as all managers) gets derided over the 'failures' that he brings to his club, but I think that if you look at the majority of his major transfers you'll find some absolutely cracking players in there (and quite often at value for money when compared to others).

He's spent £10m or more on only 3 occasions in 4 years, so he's not exactly profligate with his money. By comparison, Man United spent £10m or more on at least 3 players last summer alone. Players that he's spent more than £5m on? Torres, Babel, Alonso, Kuyt, Crouch, Lucas, Pennant, Skrtel, Garcia, Reina, Bellamy, Agger, Sissoko, Morientes and Benayoun. Of that group, other than Morientes, I can't see a total flop. A handful have not fulfilled their potential, like Pennant and Sissoko, who are/were far from poor, or a couple are still at a stage where it is too early to judge, like Babel and Lucas. Bellamy filled a gap and we ended up making a profit on him, and others like Garcia, Reina, Agger and even Torres are already looking like absolute bargains. Of those who he has brought in at the 'bargain' end of the scale you see much more of a 'hit and miss' result, but when paying less than £2.5m for players (and for a lot of them paying nothing) there are still some successes - we've turned Alvaro Arbeloa into a Spanish international, bought Scott Carson for £750k, and brought in the likes of Fabio Aurelio and Emiliano Insua (watch this space next season ) for nothing.

[H. Pedersen]

The above is a reasonably valid point - the distinction between quality and quantity is one that has to be made by all managers - will Bolton spunk the Anelka cash on one player who can make a difference, or will they spread it around 2/3/4 players to try and bring the overall level of the squad up, for instance? Which is the correct course of action?

If our experience this season is anything to go by, quality beats quantity. Of the dozen or so players brought in by Sammy Lee, only Andy O'Brien made a big impact. Megson's more focused spending in January reaped superior rewards, with Cahill, Taylor, and Steinsson playing critical roles in our survival. Lee's goal was to compete on four fronts; as a consequence he fell well short in the Premier League. So too with Benitez. It's really up to Liverpool. If your goal is to occasionally win in the cups but always finish 3rd or 4th in the league, Benitez is your man. But I'd guess that the majority of Liverpool fans would not be happy with that.

[villafan]

Hope you don't mind me posting this here but I am SOOOO proud of Villa today.

We announced our shirt sponsorship for next year. Basically rather than taking money in we are having a local charity on our shirts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 433169.stm

Villa unveil charity sponsorship
Acorns logo

Aston Villa have announced a shirt partnership with West Midlands-based charity Acorns Children's Hospice.

The deal will see the charity's logo being carried on the club's shirts for free throughout the 2008/9 season.

"They look after people of Birmingham and the West Midlands and our fanbase covers that area," Villa's head of community Duncan Biddle told BBC WM.

"They have to compete against national charities for funds and hopefully this will elevate them to that level."

Acorns, which was established in 1983, cares for life-limited children and their families in the Midlands.

The charity has three hospices across the region, in Birmingham, Walsall and Worcester.


Credit must go to Villa for using its shirt sponsor to highlight and promote its charity partnership

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore
Villa have supported Acorns since 2006 and offered a sponsorship deal after being told Acorns needed to care for an extra 1,000 children.

David Studley, chief executive of the hospice, told BBC WM the deal was an incredible moment.

"It is just amazing. This is the platform we have all been looking for," he said.

"We have a strategy that envisages reaching out to all the children across the West Midlands and it's a vast fund raising challenge.

"We have to do it quickly and the platform this gives us it amazing."

The deal is the first of its kind in the top flight and Villa's act has drawn praise from the Premier League's chief executive Richard Scudamore.
Gareth Barry and Martin Laursen at Acorns
Villa captain Gareth Barry (r) and Martin Laursen on a visit to Acorns

"Credit must go to Villa for being the first Premier League club to use its shirt sponsor to highlight and promote its charity partnership," he said.

"I am sure Acorns' association with Aston Villa will be of great help in raising awareness and funds for all the excellent work they undertake.

"The power of football and the power of the Premier League has long been something that companies have tapped into to reach audiences throughout the country and increasingly, across the globe."

Thanks from a very proud Villa fan

[Worthy4England]

Hope you don't mind me posting this here but I am SOOOO proud of Villa today.

We announced our shirt sponsorship for next year. Basically rather than taking money in we are having a local charity on our shirts

Aye, nice touch