Why England's richest club doesn't have any money...

I wrote this article for the latest edition of the famous fanzine United We Stand and it is reproduced here with the very kind permission of the editor, Andy Mitten.

If you don't buy it at the match I'd heartily recommend United fans subscribe to UWS here (ten editions for only £28).

Whenever things go wrong on the pitch or when injury ravages the team, I get asked whether United “have got any money” to buy new players. The last few weeks have definitely been one of those times and regardless of the footballing wisdom of January signings, the question is being asked with great urgency. Can United afford to strengthen?

I believe there are actually two answers and both are important. The first is purely factual, how much cash does United have in the bank, and the second is more subtle, what is the cash earmarked for and what are the real restrictions on transfer spending? 

When it comes to cash in the bank, United has been very, very rich since 2009 (when the club received the £80m for Ronaldo from Real Madrid and Aon paid £35.9m of their four year sponsorship up front). At the end of June 2009, the club had a cash balance of £150m, a year later it was up to £164m and at the end of June 2011 was still £151m. To put that number into context, it is more than twice the club’s £67m net transfer spend in the six seasons from 2005/6 to 2010/11. 

Since last summer the cash balance has fallen very sharply, by September 2011 the figure was down to £65m. A big chunk of this fall (£47m) is down to the signings of Jones, De Gea and Young (less the cash received from the sales to our Wearside retirement home). The club also spent £5m on corporate box upgrades and £8m on more land purchases around Old Trafford. 

The remaining £26m fall in club’s cash pile is where “Glazernomics” kicks in. The club generated around £22m in profits during those three months, but the interest bill was £21m (interest is paid twice a year in August and February). On top of the interest paid, the Glazers decided to spend £23m buying back bonds in the market. This is not the first time the club’s money has been used in this way; since the bonds were issued in 2010 £88m has been spent repurchasing them from investors (see graph below).

These bond purchases go to the heart of how the Glazers run Manchester United and how horribly different it is from other “normal” clubs. At almost every other football club, any profits are reinvested. Real Madrid made a handsome pre-tax profit of €50m in 2010/11 and spent every penny of it on transfers. That is not the way United is managed. Over the last two years the club chose to spend that £88m on buying back bonds rather than on strengthening the squad. Just to be clear, there was no obligation to buy these bonds, it was a judgement made by the Glazers and their management team. 

The financial return on these bond buybacks is pretty good, with cash in the bank earning 1.5% being used to buy bonds that cost the club 8.7% in interest. But good financial sense is not always good sporting sense if money is diverted from the football club. Which brings us to the subject of wages. 

When Sneijder turned down United’s offer last summer (and again when Nasri chose City over us), the sticking point was wages. Now no football club should be held hostage by greedy players, but there is something distinctly odd about a club like Manchester United being unable to “compete” for the best talent. So what is the reason we can’t compete? As with transfer spending (or the lack of it), it is a conscious choice by the owners. 

United is run not only to make a profit, that is just commonsense, but is run to maximise value for its owners. That means maximising profits and thus operating on a far lower budget than a club of United’s scale can actually afford. In 2010/11, United made so much money that the club could have paid three new players the same wages as Rooney (around £140k a week) and still make EBITDA (cash profits) of £89m. But making £89m instead of the £111m reported by club would inevitably reduce the price that could be achieved in a listing on the Singapore Stock Exchange, or the value of any future sale to a Sheikh or Oligarch. So the Glazers chose to restrict the wage bill to a level they were happy with and thus chose to make Sneijder unaffordable. 

Older reds will no doubt point out that this dance with financial devil began when Edwards floated the club back in 1991, and there is much truth in that. The difference however is in the scale of impact on Manchester United. Across all the plc years, the total dividends paid were only £59m. The total cost in interest, fees and debt repayment in the six and a half years of the Glazers is £480m. 

So it doesn’t really matter if we have about £60m in the bank (we do). It’s that unfortunately for us the club is run to make money for a distant family from Florida and they’ll do what they want....

LUHG

Explaining the confusing world of Everton's cash transfer spend

Warning

This is slightly dweeby analysis of Everton's transfer spending that attempts to explain why the figures quoted by EFC Chief Executive Robert Elstone and published in the club accounts do tie in with reality. Hopefully it casts some light on the complex cash flows involved in many transfers, but it may be a bit dull!

Andy

The problem
After Everton announced the purchase of Darron Gibson last week I tweeted:

"Little known fact. Everton have been net spenders on transfers every year since Rooney left (cash figs from accounts)."

Along with this graph:

This was met by some understandable scepticism from Evertonians pointing out that in 2010/11 "we didn't sign anyone". Then by happy coincidence, Everton Chief Executive Robert Elstone published an extraordinary blog on the club's official website entitled "Where The Money Goes", which said exactly the same thing I had said.

The dichotomy between the honest opinion of Everton fans that the club has been more about selling than buying and the numbers in the club's cash flow statements in the accounts showing net spend over each of the last six years needs explaining.

The problem arises with the phasing of payments for players and receipts from their sale and from the fact that the only information we have are headline figures for deals, what you might call "the Sky Sports News number", and two numbers in a club's cash flow statement, one for purchases and one for sales.

The details Elstone gave on transfers

This is what Robert Elstone has to say about Everton's transfer activity since 2006/07 (emphasis as in original):

"[2006/07] We spent £4m net on new players (money we paid out on signing including Kroldrup, Davies, Johnson and Lescott less money banked on the likes of Rooney, Bent, Kilbane and Davies).

[2007/08] A net spend of £15m (further money we paid out for Kroldrup, Johnson and Lescott and new spending on the likes of Howard, Jagielka, Yakubu, Baines and Pienaar, less the money banked for Davies, Kroldrup, Beattie, McFadden and Naysmith).

[2008/09] We spent £6m net on players(payments for Yakubu, Baines, Howard, Kroldrup, Lescott and Fellaini, less monies in for McFadden, Kroldrup, Beattie and Johnson).

[2009/10] We spent £3m net on players (payments out on Yakubu, Fellaini, Bilyaletdinov, Distin and Heitinga, less monies in for Johnson, Rooney and Lescott).

[2010/11] We spent a further £7m net on players (money spent on Fellaini, Heitinga and Gueye, less cash in for Lescott and Pienaar)."

Modelling Everton's cash transfer spend

We can look at Elstone's long list of purchases and sales in more detail in the table below, along with the actual cash flows from the Everton report and accounts.

We can then apply some estimates of transfer prices, I have used figures from transfermarkt.co.uk except for Tim Howard for whom no figure was available on the site and I have estimated £3m, the sale of Simon Davies (est £2m) and for Rooney where the relevant stage payments for 2007 and 2010 are estimated from note 11 of MUFC's 2005 accounts.

Except in the case of the Rooney stage payments and the payments for Lescott, I have assumed that where cash is received or paid over multiple seasons all payments are equal (a modelling simplification I concede), so we can get to an estimated payment/receipt per season:

We can then apply the payment/receipt per annum estimated to the sequence of payments given by Elstone and compare the calculated figures to the actual cash flows in the report and accounts:

As can be seen from the table above, this model matches the actual numbers from the accounts pretty well, with an error of only £1-2m per annum.

Conclusion

I am not claiming the above model is perfect, but hopefully it shows why Everton's published numbers are correct. The issue of phased payments creates significant confusion when people examine football club accounts, something we will no doubt see with Chelsea and Liverpool's next few results in which the £50m paid for Torres will be spread over 5 years....

It's worth noting that for two years in 2003/4 and 2004/5, Manchester United, under pressure from the club's major Irish shareholders Magnier and McManus published detailed player by player analysis of all transfers. The example below from 2004/05 (apologies for the low quality) shows the complexity of the cash flows and conditional payments:

Only £1.4m of the £23m cash United received that year was from player sales in that season and only 58% of cash spent related to deals signed in that year.

I can see no logical reason why UEFA, FIFA or national associations shouldn't insist on this level of disclosure, prices paid are hardly commercially confidential, and then everyone could see how much their club does or does not spend and on whom.

LUHG

An open reply to steve_mcfc's questions to me on 13th January 2012

This is an open reply to steve_mcfc, the Manchester City supporting Twitter sensation. I blocked Steve on Twitter months ago but in a rush of blood to the head I unblocked him yesterday.... Steve proceeded to tweet me around 30 times starting at 7.48pm yesterday. The Tweets were a combination of insults and questions and are reproduced in full below (in bold). You can check they are exactly as Steve tweeted on his timeline. I was out at the time.

Given that it is hard to reply to 30 tweets I thought I would give more detailed answer to each of Steve’s points on this blog. I apologise for not replying on Twitter but as Steve doesn't restrict his questions to 140 characters, I don't see why I should restrict my answers...

Before you blocked me, you said you were opposed to a cap on squad spending where the cap is the same for all clubs. How can you claim to be impartial when you refuse to support a cap that's fair and you will only support a cap that provides United with a huge long-term advantage? You're not impartial at all, are you?

I’m not impartial about which team (United) I want to win things and which teams (others, especially Liverpool, City) I don’t. That’s called “being a supporter”. I am impartial about wanting football organised in a fair and sensible way maintaining decent competition, preventing the exploitation of supporters and the endangering of clubs through excess debt and financial mismanagement.

I support FFP because I think excessive owner subsidy unbalances competition and injects unsustainable inflation into the system. The labour market in football has an almost vertical supply curve, that is to say the supply of footballers is almost completely price inelastic. Additional cash above a certain level just increases the price (wages) of footballers. The vast majority of clubs lose money because of the wages they are forced to pay. Controlling owner support through FFP should calm this systemic inflationary problem, helping the whole pyramid.

Why did you refuse to support a cap on spending where the cap is the same for all clubs, & you would only support either FFP as it currently stands, or a cap on spending where the cap is set to be a percentage of revenue?

Because a fixed cap would eliminate any incentive to grow and develop a club, surely a daft and unwelcome consequence? What is wrong with the “normal” equation of “play good, attractive football, attract higher gates and more sponsors, reinvest this money back in squad and create virtuous circle....”?

FFP doesn’t preclude massive investment in stadia, youth development, training facilities etc in any way. It just limits inflationary bursts of wage and transfer spending.

I would have preferred FFP to have specific debt restrictions in addition to its spending limits, debt is a cancer on the game. I would like to see any English licensing rules to include debt restrictions. See my submission to the CMS Select Committee, available here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcumeds/792/792vw13.htm

Do you still think that FFP will land City "back in the ditch", as you once charmingly said?

I hope City go back to the regular relegation/promotion comedy cycle of failure they have been on for most of my life yes! In other shocking news I hope Liverpool implode with King Kenny going mad, that Leeds never come back up and I have to tell you Steve, THE POPE IS CATHOLIC.

Before you blocked me, you said you were opposed to a cap on squad spending where the cap is the same for all clubs. How can you claim to be "impartial" when the reason you oppose that is because you want FFP to provide United with an unfair advantage?

I don’t support FFP because it helps United (under the current ownership all it would actually do is help the Glazers boost EBITDA and get a bigger price for any future IPO in any case).

I actually think there needs to be a financial rebalancing between the richest clubs like United and the less well off. I would advocate the reintroduction of league gate sharing and a redistribution of Champions League income across the PL to help this. I think the FFP exclusions on stadium development are great for aiding a rebalancing but bottom line, clubs like United should be “taxed” through gate sharing etc. If you don’t believe me, ask Dave Boyle, David Conn and Ian King (of TwoHundredPercent) with whom I’ve been discussing this for a while now.

Why did you assume that Etihad Airways would not grow at all over the 10-year period that the Etihad sponsorship deal of City covers? Etihad is a young airline that is looking to massively expand over the next decade, yet the figures you assumed for Etihad's growth over the next 10 years was 0%. Your assumption of 0% growth was dishonest wasn't it, Andy? Why would a young airline seeking to massively expand sign a £400m sponsorship contract and expect to grow by 0%?

If you are talking about my benchmarking of the Etihad deal to the company’s current financial in my blog post of 13^th July you have got the wrong end of the stick. I pointed out that the company’s current turnover was £2bn and that even at a 10% EBIT margin the deal would represent an unusually substantial proportion of profits. When did I say the company would never grow?

I think the deal is extraordinarily large compared to the size of the company and can find no equivalently large deal vs. company size out there (Bayern’s sponsor Deutsche Telekom for example have EBITDA of €3.9bn and pays Bayern €25m pa). Let me know if you can find another mismatch between deal size and company size...

No response to anything I've just said then? Does that mean you accept everything I've just said?

No, hence these replies!

As for verbal diarrhoea, I would say you being interviewed by the BBC talking about City's finances is the best example of verbal diarrhoea I've seen. Why on earth a supposedly unbiased broadcaster has a highly biased Utd fan on to slag off our finances I'm not entirely sure.

Why don’t you ask the BBC Steve.

You don’t like me or my views, but lots of other people take me seriously unfortunately.

One other thing. Do you not consider it extremely hypocritical to campaign against the Glazers because they limit United's spending while you also act as cheerleader for FFP, cos it will limit City's spending? Is that impartial?

The Glazers exploit United and its fans (like Hicks and Gillett exploited Liverpool and their supporters)  through an LBO. My main gripe is not spending restrictions, it is enforced ticket price hikes to make the LBO numbers stack up. The House of Commons Select Committee for Culture Media and Sport was scathing of LBOs in football, it is not an unusual view that they add no value.

I am not a cheerleader for FFP, I support it but think that the financial structure of UEFA’s CL is a major problem and would like specific debt limits in the rules too. Again, see my DCMS submission for details (and note that the committee quoted my submission on several occasions).

No response to any of that then? Guilty as charged then.....

Sorry, it took me a while...

You actually blocked me because I accused you of being a liar, Andy. I see you're lying about that too now.

Did I Steve? I knew there had to be a good reason.

Sorry, my mistake, you blocked me because I accused you of being a biased liar. That's the one.

OK, if you say so Steve.

Come on Andy. I think I explained the issues I have with your claim of being impartial. You used to stick up for yourself, so why not now? For example, this is a yes/no answer: Do you still think FFP will land City "back in the ditch"? Yes/no - wouldn't take you very long to clear that up, would it?

I actually think City may get around FFP sufficiently to remain quite competitive. As a United fan I would of course like to see you back down in the ditch!

Stop pretending to be impartial. We all know you've only started covering clubs other than Utd so that you can help to convince people of the supposed need for FFP so that Utd get their massive unfair long-term advantage. Unless you can convince people why it's "fair" for United to spend around 65% more than their PL rivals year in year out when on-field success has been shown to be highly correlated with total spending on wages & transfer fees

Are you saying nobody who supports any club can comment on the finances of any other club or on football wide regulation? That would rather restrict debate!

As I said above, I think the big clubs like United need reining in financially through new rules. The fact that clubs without rich owners like Everton can’t possibly compete and that clubs with quite rich owners like Sunderland can spend £100m of their owner’s money and not get anywhere suggests fundamental flaws with the system. The answer to that is surely not a billionaire owner for every club?

I started covering other clubs because the whole subject interests me and I believe fans are exploited all too often (see my work on QPR’s ticket price hikes for example). The Football Supporters Federation were kind enough to nominate me in their blogger of the year award. I’ve helped out various supporters trusts behind the scenes too, not that you appear to care about ownership issues Steve.

In fact Steve, you are like a stuck record, fixated by FFP and its relative impact on City and United.

You've provided a great defence of your impartiality, Andy. Well done son.

Thanks Steve.

The financial cost of United's CL exit

So it’s London 2 – Manchester nil (enjoy it while you can London, you aren’t going to win the thing).

The way modern football works, not only is being knocked out of the Champions League miserable enough, but the financial consequences aren’t great either, especially when you’re up to your eyes in debt.

Lots of people have asked me about the cost of United’s CL exit, so here’s a quick run through of the figures. The bottom line is that due to the way UEFA makes its payments, with a big element relating to the last season’s domestic rankings, United will not lose a huge amount of cash compared to last year.

What two wins, three draws and a defeat in one of the easiest of groups says about the club is another matter.....

Last season

I’ll make financial comparisons with last season when of course United were (well) beaten finalists. UEFA publish the TV cash distribution and its shows MUFC received €53,197,000 (c. £46m) in Champions League income.

This season

There are several elements to the CL TV payments:

1. Participation and “match bonus”

All clubs in the group stages receive a €3.9m “participation” payment and a €550,000 per game played “match bonus” (nonsensical since everyone is guaranteed six matches!). So every club gets €3.9m + (6 x €0.55m)  = €7.2m.

Difference versus 2010/11: ZERO

2. Group performance bonus

For every win in the group stages, a club gets €800,000 and for every draw €400,000. The table below shows the number of each for the four English clubs this season:

Difference versus 2010/11: DOWN €1.2m

Bringing these elements together we can calculate how much the basic group stage payments are:

3. Last season's knockout round payments

Participation in each round means another payment of the following amounts:

Last season United earned €16.1m as losing finalists.

Difference versus 2010/11: DOWN €16.1m

4. The “market pool”

The market pool represents around 45% of the CL money UEFA distributes to clubs. Each country has its own pool amount (reflecting the relative size of the advertising markets). The English pool is c. €84m, around 25% of the total.

Each market pool is distributed based on two formulae, 50% by the relative domestic league position of the clubs from the relevant country  and 50% by how far in the CL each club progress.

4a. Market Pool - PL finish element

As Champions, United receive 40% of the Premier League finish element of the English market pool, Chelsea (2^nd in the league) receive 30%, City (3^rd) 20% and Arsenal (4^th) 10%.

This means that United receive c. €16.8m this season vs. the €12.5m they received last season (when Chelsea were the reigning champions).

Difference versus 2010/11: UP €4.3m

4b. Market Pool - progress in the CL element

The 50% of the market pool determined by the relative progress of the clubs cannot be calculated for certain until we know how far through the competition Chelsea and Arsenal progress. The split is determined on the number of games played (maximum of thirteen for finalists). The minimum the London clubs could play is eight (if they go out in the next round).

The difference for United and City between the best and worse case is not huge (around €2m).

Difference versus 2010/11: DOWN €4.4-6.8m

5. Total UEFA CL payments

Adding up the group stage payments, and the market pool, the most United can earn from the CL this year is around €36.5m, the least is €33.4m.

Total difference versus 2010/11: DOWN €17.4-19.8m (£15-17m)

Europa League cash

United and City will both get the dubious honour of being parachuted into the Europa League in the new year.

The UEFA distribution for this beaten up tournament is less than 20% of what is paid out for the Champions League. There is a market pool and payments for progressing through each of the five(!) rounds up to and including the final. Winning the competition could add around €10m (there is a market pool here too).

Gate receipts

There are potentially four home games in the Europa league vs. three in the Champions League, so the impact on gate receipts depends on a few factors, primarily how far through the EL United progress. The club’s website does not have ticket prices for the Europa League yet, and we do not yet know whether the club will enforce the ludicrous “automatic cup scheme” that compels Old Trafford season ticket holders to buy tickets for all cup games (with an opt out only for the League Cup). If United enforce the ACS, if prices are set close to those for the Champions League and if United get to the quarter finals or beyond, there will be no impact on revenue.

A nice club would waive the ACS obligation to buy Europa Cup tickets and would cut prices too (as Spurs have this season). Don’t hold your breath.....

Conclusion

Because of the big market pool boost from being champions last season, United will only lose a maximum of £17m in TV cash from the early exit. Some of this can even be recovered from the Europa league. The club don’t budget to progress beyond the last sixteen in any season, so recent success has been a financial bonus. To put this loss into context, it represents a maximum of 15% of last year's EBITDA.

The fact that a club who have reached three finals in four years can get eliminated from one of the easiest groups points to wider problems....

LUHG

Manchester United Q1 2011/12 results: The big red money machine slowed down by debt

The first quarter of United's 2011/12 financial year saw a familiar story of a very profitable football club servicing some pretty expensive debt. Because the club is so profitable at the operating level (and full credit to the players, coaching staff and commercial team for making it so), the debt can be comfortably serviced. The threat of substantial dividends seems to have disappeared at the moment, but the sheer sums of money wasted by the Glazers' financial structure remains eye watering.

Revenue

Matchday

There were four home matches at Old Trafford during the quarter as there were in the prior year, with attendances virtually identical. Seasonal hospitality sold out for the first time in several years, adding £400,000 to income. The other c. £1.4m growth came from a bigger US tour (tour income is included in "matchday").

Media

The substantial growth here (up £3.2m) reflects a final payment from UEFA for last season's Champions League campaign which has been accounted for this financial year. United also receive a greater share of the Champions League English "market pool" this season. This is because we were Premier League champions last season rather than runners-up the year before.

Commercial

The £5.4m year-on-year growth in Commercial revenue comes from a variety of sources including the DHL training kit deal (worth around £2-2.5m per quarter), step-ups in existing deals (such as Aon) and the inclusion of partnerships signed post Q1 2010/11. On the bond holder conference call the club talked of "many" additional opportunities on the commercial side. United has by far the most successful commercial operation in English football, but still lags behind some major European clubs (especially Bayern Munich). The Stratton Street office in London now has over forty staff.

Costs

Staff costs

Despite the retirement of several senior players over the summer and the sale of Brown, O'Shea and Obertan, staff costs again increased sharply, by 12.2% vs. the previous year. The club said they "continue to face pressure" on wage costs. The club confirmed they had signed new deals with Valencia, Smalling, Park, Cleverley and Hernandez. Some of the cost pressure came from a further expansion of the London commercial team.

Despite the 12.2% rise in staff costs, the ratio of staff costs to income actually fell slightly vs. last year from 53.2% to 51.2%. By way of comparison, the figure at Arsenal in 2010/11 was 55.2% (football revenue only), at Barcelona was 58.3% and at Real Madrid was 45.0%.

Other operating costs

Other costs (ex-depreciation and amortisation) rose sharply up 13.3% year-on-year. Some of this is due to the expansion of the commercial operations and associated costs (the club revealed they pay for some elements of partner companies' advertising, such as the Turkish Airlines TV advert). The other main factor relates to the larger and more costly US pre-season tour.

EBITDA to EBIT

With revenues up 16.6% and costs up 12.6%, EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) rose 29.6% to £19.3m for the quarter. This represents a 26.1% margin, which is good for Q1 (a seasonally weak quarter).

Depreciation grew slightly to £1.8m. The club achieved an accounting profit on selling Brown, O'Shea and Obertan of £5.6m. The amortisation charge (how transfer spending is recognised in the profit and loss account) was virtually unchanged at £10m. This all meant that EBIT rose substantially from £4.9m to £13.0m.

There was no goodwill amortisation charge now Red Football has moved  from UK GAAP to International Accounting Standards.

Below EBIT

The P&L interest charge was £10.0m, lower than the prior year reflecting the interest saved by the club buying back bonds over the previous twelve months.

In addition to this interest charge there were £9.3m of non-cash accounting charges. These relate to changes in the value of United's debt caused by the pound depreciating vs. the US dollar (£6.3m), the premium paid on repurchased bonds (£1.9m), the ongoing bond issue discount and issue cost amortisation (£803,000) and a small mark to market movement in interest rate swap (£321,000). In the previous year these items were a positive £11.4m and are of no real importance to the club's financial position.

Cash flow, interest and debt

EBITDA of £19.3m and a £3.2m inflow from working capital (largely prepayments on commercial deals) meant the club saw a £22.5m operating cash inflow during the quarter, virtually identical to the prior year despite the strong profit growth.

There was an August coupon payment on the bonds (the other payment is in February each year) of £21m and the club actually paid £3.2m in corporation tax, a rarity caused by group losses in 2010/11 being insufficient to offset the entire tax charge.

The club spent a substantial £13.8m on capital expenditure, including £8.2m on property near Old Trafford with the balance being spent on box refurbishment in the ground.

Unlike Q1 2010/11, there was substantial transfer spending in Q1 2011/12. The club spent a net £47.1m buying De Gea, Young and Jones (netting off receipts for the players sold).

The combination of heavy capex and transfer spending meant there was £62.6m outflow before financing. The club bought back a further £23.1m of bonds, meaning the total cash outflow for the quarter of £85.7m.

The club's cash balance fell sharply from £150.6m at the end of June to £65m at the end of September. Gross debt (excluding bonds held in treasury) is down to £433.2m, meaning net debt is £368m, up slightly on the same date last year.

Thoughts

Another £21m of interest and £23m of bond buybacks takes the total cost of the Glazers' financial model to an eye watering £578m. There have been some savings along the way (corporation tax savings of around £100m), but the net cost is clear.

There are very few football clubs that could support a burden like that, after all Hicks and Gillett's Kop Holdings Limited collapsed after a couple of years with a lower interest bill than United's. Thankfully, Manchester United can cope with its current level of interest. The club's resilience is down to good management, good luck and good fortune. It is largely of course a product of Sir Alex Ferguson's extraordinary record.

Despite the fact that the club's £100m+ of annual EBITDA can support the £40m+ of interest paid each year and still leave funds for investment, the mooted IPO in Singapore (currently on hold of course) tells its own story.

United's debt is expensive at an effective rate of c. 8.5% at a time of very low interest rates. The club's wage structure cannot apparently be stretched to afford a Wesley Sneijder type purchase, and net cash transfer spending since the Glazers took over is only £114.6m or £21.8m per year.

The House of Commons Select Committee report on Football Governance was highly critical of leveraged buyouts in football and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport response acknowledged this. The crushing cost of the Glazers' LBO are clear every time Red Football reports results. Just because United can "afford" to waste millions, it doesn't mean it's right or sensible.

If the club does do an IPO to reduce debt it appears that message has even made it to Florida.....

LUHG

The real problem with Liverpool's media income

There are few things as unedifying in any aspect of life as hearing the rich demand more at the expense of the less well off, and football is no different.

Ian Ayre, Liverpool FC's Managing Director has suggested that the current (equitable) distribution of the Premier League's overseas rights income should be looked at. Ayre believes that "big" clubs (which apparently includes clubs that finish 7th and 6th respectively in the last two seasons) should get a bigger share.

Ayre is particularly worried about "competing" with Barcelona and Real Madrid and told the Guardian:

"If Real Madrid or Barcelona or other big European clubs have the opportunity to truly realise their international media value potential, where does that leave Liverpool and Manchester United? We'll just share ours because we'll all be nice to each other? The whole phenomenon of the Premier League could be threatened. If they just get bigger and bigger and they generate more and more, then all the players will start drifting that way and will the Premier League bubble burst because we are sticking to this equal-sharing model? It's a real debate that has to happen."

So how bad is the competitive gap between Liverpool and the Spanish giants?

Well at face value, the gap is big and growing. The chart below shows Liverpool and Barcelona's media income for the last five seasons (numbers for 2010/11 are derived from the PL, UEFA, FCB's account and an estimate of LFC's domestic cup income). I have converted Barcelona's income from Euros into Sterling at the average exchange rate for each season.

Having been £20m in 2006/07, the gap has expanded enormously to £75m last season. So what's going on?

Much is made of La Liga's highly inequitable TV rights deal which allows Barcelona and Real Madrid to negotiate to sell their rights individually, creaming off the majority of the total paid between the two clubs. This has indeed been a factor as the chart below showing income from the domestic league rights demonstrates:

The chart appears to show Barcelona's league income running far ahead of Liverpool's in recent years, but it masks the key impact not of the way rights are sold, but of currency. In 2006/07, one € was worth on average 67.6p, by 2010/11 the pound had devalued substantially and one € was worth 85.7p. Once this currency impact is accounted for, a different picture emerges:

The chart above, rebases domestic league media income to 100 in 2006/7 and shows Barcelona's figures in both £ and €. From this chart it is clear that in local currency, the value Liverpool receive for domestic competitions (PL, FA Cup and Carling Cup) has actually grown faster than the equivalent in Spain.

So currency plays one factor in explaining the divergence between the clubs, but there is another huge factor at play; performance on the pitch.

To get a sense of how the relative fortunes of the two clubs have diverged and how crucial this is to media income, consider the following chart showing UEFA TV distributions (all in €).

In 2006/07, Liverpool earned €9.5m (£6.4m) more from the Champions League than Barca. By 2010/11, the positions were radically reversed with Barcelona earning €44.9m (£39m) more from their winning CL campaign than Liverpool did from the Europa league. This season, Liverpool will earn precisely zero from Europe.

Rather than bleating on about how unfair the allocation to Bolton Wanderers is, Ayre needs to look at the performance of his own club. The gap in media income with Bolton over the last five years is already £159m, how much more does he want?

If Liverpool football club had made better use of the £340m in media income they have received since 2007, perhaps they would have been closer to Manchester United on the pitch. The gap last year between United and Barcelona? Not £75m but £20m.....

LUHG

A look at Real Madrid's headline financial figures

Real Madrid is one of several major clubs (hello Chelsea) who publish a gushing press release summarising their financial results several weeks ahead of the full figures. This year's summary came out on 16th September, ahead of RM's AGM on 25th September. This post takes a look at what the figures say and makes a comparison with Manchester United (the only other major club to report 2010/11 figures so far).

Revenues - performance on the pitch drives growth

Despite finishing second in La Liga to Barcelona for the third successive season, 2010/11 was a better season for RM than 2009/10. The club won silverware in the Copa del Rey and perhaps more importantly  made it beyond the first knock-out round of the Champions League for the first time since 2003/04 (even if it was FCB that knocked them out in the semi-final).

The better on-pitch performance was the major factor behind the 8.6% (€37.9m) increase in revenue to €480.2m (£411m). The new three year Champions League TV deal and the club's progress to the semis increased RM's CL income from €26.8m in 2009/10 to €39.3m in 2010/11. The two cup runs meant Real Madrid played 29 home games in total, compared to 24 the previous season and this will largely account for the rest of the revenue increase. No split between Matchday, Media and Commercial revenues is given in the press statement.

Costs - wages up, other costs sharply lower

The 2010/11 season saw the start of the Mourinho era at the Bernebeu and with him came significant transfer spending and a large hike in the wage bill. 

Despite the increase in income, the ratio of wages to turnover increased to 45% from 43.5%, although this is still a very healthy performance compared to other clubs (FCB reported a ratio of 67% in 2009/10, Chelsea 84% and City 107%).

We can use the reported ratio to separately identify staff and non staff costs. Despite the departure of club legend Raul as well as Guti, Diarra, van der Vaart and others, the arrival of Carvalho, Di Maria, Ozil, Khedira etc  as well as Mourinho himself meant the wage bill rose a very punchy 12.4% year on year. It is reasonable to assume there was an increase in bonuses during the season to match the better playing performance.

With staff costs rising sharply, the club did very well to maintain virtually flat operating expenses (before depreciation and amortisation). With total costs only rising 0.5%, non-staff expenses must have fallen 15.9% year on year. This cost line has proved volatile in past years (non-staff expenses fell 12.7% in 2007/08 and then rebounded 24% in 2008/09) but this is still a very commendable performance. It appears Real Madrid have found significant economies at the club which has allowed them to spend more on the playing side.

EBITDA - up sharply but very low profit on player sales

With revenue up 8.6% and total operating expenses only up 0.5%, EBITDA (ex-player sales) rose very sharply in 2010/11, up almost a third to €147.7m. The EBITDA margin was a healthy 30.8%, a huge improvement on 2009/10's 25.2% and almost double the 16.9% the club made in 2004/05.

With only van der Vaart commanding any sort of proper sale fee, the club's "profit on player" sales (transfer proceeds compared to a player's book value) was sharply lower at €3.4m vs. €34.0m, leaving total EBITDA up 3.8% at €151.1m. Profit on player sales is a volatile figure for any club and I would not include it in any measures of fundamental profitability.

After EBITDA - small rise in amortisation

Between the €151.1m of EBITDA including player sales and Real Madrid's reported operating profit of €46.5m are charges for depreciation and player contract amortisation. Unhelpfully the club did not split out the two categories but depreciation is likely to be a very small element (Barcelona's depreciation charge in 2009/10 was only €8.1m for example). Player contract amortisation is how transfer spending is reflected in football club accounts. The value a club pays for the contract of a player is "amortised" or charged over the length of the contract.

The implied depreciation and amortisation charge for 2010/11 is €104.6m, up slightly from €101.7m in the previous year. This movement reflects around €50m of transfer spending (which assuming the new players were on five year contracts would add c. €10m to amortisation) less the sales of Diarra (whose original €26m cost was amortising at c. €5.2m pa) and van der Vaart (his €13m cost was amortising at c. €2.6m pa).

Real Madrid's amortisation charge is the highest in world football, reflecting years of big name signings at record breaking prices.

Debt and interest

The Real Madrid press release trumpets a 30.6% fall in debt to €169.7m from €244.6m the previous year. The club's own definition of debt is very wide, including football creditors and stadium debt. There is no breakdown of bank debt, transfer fees due and other creditors in the release.

The €75m fall in debt looks entirely consistent with EBITDA (ex-profit on player sales) of €148m, net (cash) transfers of c. €40m, interest of around €10m (my estimate based on lower average debt and the interest paid in 2009/10), tax and capex.

The Real Madrid balance sheet is pretty strong and at only 1.1x EBITDA debt is not a major concern for the club.

A quick comparison with MUFC

Manchester United is the only other major European club to have published 2010/11 results so far. I have converted the Real Madrid figures to £ (at the average rate between 1st July 2010 and 30th June 2011 of €1 = 85.65p).

Real Madrid's turnover continues to exceed United's, but the gap closed in the last twelve months as United reached the CL final and saw very strong growth on the commercial side. Both clubs have seen an enormous increase in income over the last five years, but the very significant price increases at United mean it has grown revenue faster (+13.9% CAGR 2006-2011 vs. 10.4% CAGR at Real).

There remain several structural reasons for the gap in turnover between the clubs including;

a) The membership fees Real's Socios pay (c. 60,000 people paying a total of c. £7m pa)

b) A higher proportion of executive facilities at the Bernabeu compared to Old Trafford and

c) The hugely unbalanced La Liga TV deal which brings FCB and Real Madrid around £110m each per annum (vs. the £60m United earned from the Premier League).

In addition to these factors, Real Madrid has for many years been one of the most effective drivers of commercial income in football earning over £116m from this source in 2009/10.

The two clubs have virtually identical wages/income ratios (45% for RM and 46.1% for MUFC). With Real's higher income base this means the Spanish club spend £33m more than United on wages. It should be noted however that the Real figure include around £20m for the club's basketball team and that the United number includes bonuses for winning the league and reaching the Champions League final (which RM did not of course have to pay) of £9.7m. Taking these into account, we can see that Real spend around 15% more than United on "normal" football wages.

United's other operating expenses are significantly lower than Real's, but the two numbers are converging rapidly. United has long had higher margins than Real due to lower wage costs, but the gap is now as close as it has been in recent years at only 2.7%.

It is after the EBITDA line that the major differences between the two club's business models is evident. 

United's depreciation and amortisation charges are almost half Real Madrid's reflecting the far lower reliance on expensive transfers at United in the last five years. 

Of the eighteen players who appeared more than 20 times for Real Madrid in 2010/11, only one (Casillas) came through the club's youth system, one was a loanee (Adebayor) and sixteen were players bought in at an average cost of £19m per player.

By contrast at United, there were also 18 players who made more than 20 appearances last season but four were youth products and those who were not cost an average of only £12m each.

The money saved by United on transfers goes on interest. Real Madrid reported an interest charge of £11m in 2009/10 and I estimate it will have fallen (as the debt has fallen) to around £8m in 2010/11. At United of course, interest on the bonds soaks up around £44m per annum, purely for the honour of being owned by the Glazer family. In previous years the Glazer's financial structure has involved other major costs for United. In 2009/10, swap losses, FX losses and other charges cost an additional £40m. In 2010/11 there was a small net gain of £5m on such items.

Putting the two clubs side by side, we can see two very profitable football clubs putting their resources to very different uses. Neither will struggle under the new Financial Fair Play regulations.

Real Madrid would benefit from having United's youth set-up of course, but United would benefit from having Real's balance sheet. Both need to find a way to beat Barcelona....

LUHG