Manchester United Q3 2012 results: getting hard to square the circle

Since United had its bond issue in early 2010, the club has reported increased year-on-year revenues every single quarter. This revenue growth has more than offset rampant wage inflation. Meanwhile of course the club has clocked up Champions League finals and Championships. This season the performance on and off the pitch has stalled somewhat. The numbers for the next quarter (which runs from April to June) will be worse again.

For the Glazers, the clever trick of football success on a limited budget with high and seemingly ever increasing profits may well coming to an end. Will they spend at the expense of those profits? If they don't, will the success and hence the profits still be achievable?

It's getting harder to square the circle.

Revenue and EBITDA - both down a little
The poor performances in Europe and the domestic cups can be seen in these quarterly figures. Matchday income fell 13% compared to last year as the club played seven home games compared to last season's nine. Of the seven played, two were in the Europa League in front of smaller gates paying lower prices.

Media income fell 19% compared to 2010/11 despite the higher share of the UEFA CL "market pool" this year. The explanation is simply the exit from the Champions League. The impact will be far more severe in the current quarter of course when there will be no CL media income at all compared to the previous year's run to the final.

Commercial income was again the star, with the new contracts signed since last year; DHL, Epson etc and a step up in Nike income and income recognition boosting revenue by 15% compared to 2010/11.

In total, revenue fell 5.8% year-on-year in the quarter and revenue growth for the nine month period was 6.1% (down from 11.9% in the first half of the year). United may be a commercial powerhouse, but old fashioned football success and failure can still have a major impact.

Staff costs only rose 1% compared to last year, reflecting lower bonuses (presumably linked to qualification for the CL knock-out stages). The wage bill for the year to date is still 10% higher than last season, although the fourth quarter will not see any of last season's bonuses.

The major fall in operating expenses (down 16.3%) is largely due to the lack of domestic home cup games. The club accounts for the gate sharing for such games as an expense and this season there were no such games.

With revenue down 5.8% and costs only down 4.7%, EBITDA fell 8.4% and for the first nine months of the year was only up 3.3%. There will be a larger fall in Q4.

These falls shouldn't be overplayed, with United still making cash profits before transfers of £85m in the first nine months of the season. That is more than any other English club has made over any twelve month period. The worry for the Glazers, is that the profits are stagnating this year at a time when investment is needed to keep up with City and others, and none of that is good if you hope to float your club on a stock exchange.

Below EBITDA - not much of note
The club made a small £2m profit on player sales during the quarter (Gibson and Ravel Morrison). The amortisation charge (how transfers are "charged" in accounts) was basically unchanged at £9.7m for the three months. To put this in context, the c. £40m annual amortisation charge compares to a figure of £83.8m at free spending City in the last reported season (2010/11).

There was a £4.3m "exceptional" charge during the quarter which the club says related to "professional advisory fees" and the need to top up the Football League pension fund. I suspect the "fees" element accounts for the great majority of this £4.3m and relates to advice on the mooted IPO.

The interest charge is spread evenly over each quarter even though bond interest is paid twice a year in February and August. The club recorded a "gain" of £6.5m as the pound rose against the US dollar, reducing the sterling value of the club's dollar denominated bonds.

Taking all these charges and credits into account, pre-tax profit for the quarter was £2.8m, down from £7.4m last year.

Cash - a lot less money than there used to be
As I always say in these pieces, I do not consider the profit and loss account described above to be particularly informative when looking at football clubs below the EBITDA figure. The cash flow statement is often more informative. Cash flow includes real spending on transfers which are after all cash transactions (the amortisation charge is a significant simplification by contrast). For United, lumpy bond interest payments and bond buybacks are also a fact of life that constrain what the club can spend.

Despite their advantages, cash figures come with a warning however. Football is a seasonal business with season ticket revenue collected in the summer, boosting cash balances. The end of the season also see large TV payments from the Premier League and UEFA. Furthermore, prepayments on sponsorship contracts can lead to large positive and negative swings in cash and at United there are large interest payments in the first and third quarters of each financial year. It should be remembered that United are the only football club to publish quarterly figures (a requirement of the bond issue), all other club accounts are struck at the seasonal high point for cash in the summer.

You can see the volatility in United's quarterly cash flow in the chart below which shows how cash builds up in the fourth quarter and runs down through the rest of the year:

Manchester United is not like other football clubs of course, because it has £420m of outstanding bonds. Since the bonds were issued in February 2010, the club has periodically gone into the market and repurchased them (usually paying more than the issue price). These buybacks make financial sense (the bonds cost c. 8.5% whilst cash at the bank barely yields 1.5%) but risk depriving the club of cash needed for investment. It is a choice made by the Glazers and their management team. 

There were no buybacks in the third quarter of the 2011/12 financial year, but since 2010, the club has spent over £92m on them. You can see their impact on the "gross" debt which has fallen by the amount bought back (plus currency fluctuations) and on the cash balance below:

Since June 2011, the club has spent £71m on buybacks and interest payments which together with the other seasonal cash outflows described above has pushed the club's cash reserves down to a low of £25.6m at the 31st March.

As described above, there will be the usual rebound in the club's cash position in the current quarter, although the precise amount is very hard to estimate. Judging from previous years and taking into account the lower profits caused by the CL exit, I estimate the cash position will improve to c. £75m by the end of June.

Will they spend?
The big question supporters want answering is not about buybacks or EBITDA, it's about spending to keep the club competitive after a season when the squad was found wanting at home, but especially in Europe. I can't give an answer to whether the club will spend, only the Glazers can, but the very issue raises big questions over their strategy for running the club.

Since the takeover, Fergie's genius has allowed United to consistently win trophies (with a couple of rebuilding dips on the way) whilst keeping the club's wage spending to turnover ratio very low (45.7% so far in 2011/12 for example) and whilst spending very little on transfers (average net spend of  £16m per season). This combination of controlled wages and low transfer spending is vital for two reasons. Firstly it theoretically boosts the value of the club (if you look at valuation based on EBITDA). Secondly, it frees up profits to service the enormous debts taken on to buy the club. Since the takeover, 18% of revenue has gone on interest. This has been "affordable" because the club hasn't ever really had to "pay up" in either wages or transfers.

Since 2005 the challenge of achieving this financial balancing act has been aided by a number of factors. In the years immediately after the takeover, the 40%+ ticket price rises were crucial. The Ronaldo windfall in 2009 and, to be fair, the rapid growth in Commercial income in the last two years have also been significant pluses. Now however, the trick is becoming more difficult to pull off.

Bond buybacks and interest have eroded the club's previously huge cash balance. There has been spending (£47m last summer) but not on crucial areas of the pitch (United haven't bought a central midfielder since Ronaldo departed). Major transfers cost money twice over, both driving up wages and demanding immediate cash. Wage inflation and transfer inflation across football remain endemic and the advent of FFP appears not to be having any impact on this.

If United are to strengthen, money will be needed and that means no more bond buybacks. It probably means lower profitability, in at least the short-term, with negative implications for the valuation achievable at any IPO. The alternative may well be under investment and the club going further backwards relative to its main competitors.

The Glazers know their structure hampers the club. There was heavy briefing of journalists in the run up to the aborted IPO process last year, suggesting debt would be paid down from the IPO proceeds to make United more "competitive". If the IPO can't be delivered however, the club is stuck with its debt and the owners will have to accept lower profits or further relative decline. Can they square this circle?

LUHG

The scale of Fenway's challenge at Liverpool becomes clear

Normal health warning: if you don't think a United supporter can impartially analyse Liverpool Football Club's finances don't read on.

Liverpool are a club in transition on and off the pitch. The financial results published overnight show just how great is the challenge facing Fenway Sports Group ("FSG"). We can now see that the American owners spent £261m acquiring and refinancing Liverpool. Of this figure only £30m has actually flowed into the club, the rest was spent on the purchase itself.

I think Liverpool will turn the corner financially, the commercial opportunity is still there and there is clearly the scope to occupy a far larger/more profitable ground. The challenge is getting far more sporting success out of a very expensive squad of players, and that isn't really down to money at all....

FSG's ownership structure

The primary operating company of Liverpool Football Club is "The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited" which the the main entity I will focus on. Since 15th October 2010, 100% of this operating company has been owned by a new vehicle "UKSV Holdings Company Limited". UKSV is in turn owned by NESV I LLC, a US company also (and commonly) known as "Fenway Sports Group". The accounts of UKSV only run from 1st October when it was established to 31st July 2011. The accounts of the operating business, which I'll refer to as "Liverpool" or "the club" for ease, run for the year to 31st July 2011 (i.e. last season).

Ian Ayre's spin

Before the club's accounts were available at Companies House, Managing Director Ian Ayre gave a lengthy interview to the club's website and to the Liverpool Echo. Without making the accounts available, Ayre threw around various numbers and in particular blamed the £50m pre-tax loss on a write-off of work on the abandoned stadium plans. Whilst the write-off had a big impact, he was being pretty disingenuous by not mentioning a pretty exceptional profit (£43.3m) on the sales of Fernando Torres and Javier Mascherano. This profit largely offset the stadium write-off (£49.2m) and that meant that the underlying results were very poor.

Ayre is not alone in spinning his club's financial figures before they come out (hello Chelsea) or not being straight with his supporters (hello United and many, many others), but it is still pretty poor. The club is in transition and there is surely no need for such spin.

Revenues and costs

Football clubs are simple businesses. There are three revenue streams (matchday receipts, media income and commercial deals) and two main operating costs (wages and the costs of operating the club day to day). The difference between these numbers is "EBITDA" (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation), effectively cash profits before any investment or the servicing of debts. After EBITDA come depreciation of the stadium, training ground etc, "amortisation" which is how transfers are accounted for, then interest and (rarely in football) corporation tax.

Liverpool's results for 2010/11 show what happens when costs run ahead of revenues; profits collapse. This is of course the curse of football finance. Success brings income so clubs invest in player wages in the pursuit of this success. Fail to do well on the pitch and the costs are still there but not the income.

Liverpool's revenue was effectively flat last season (down 0.5%). Matchday income fell 4.6% despite the same number of home games, reflecting a small fall in average attendances (40,224 vs. 41,940) more than offsetting ticket prices rises and must imply a fall of in corporate hospitality too. Media income was down 18% as the club failed to qualify for the Champions League (losing £25m of income). This was partly offset by £5m of Europa League income and the £7m increase in PL TV money from overseas rights. Commercial revenue was the star area with the Standard Chartered deal driving it up £15m or 25%. The Warrior kit deal will not impact the accounts until 2012/13.

Although revenues were down a fraction, there was significant cost growth as the club spent heavily in an attempt to break back into the top 4. Pre-exceptional staff costs rose a very punchy 12.7% year-on-year. This wage growth is more down to contract increases than transfers in my opinion. Although the club signed Cole, Poulsen, Konchesky, Meireles etc, Mascherano, Riera and Benayoun all departed and the January flurry of transfers will not have impacted the full year numbers significantly.

Total operating costs (pre-exceptionals) rose 9.3%, driving EBITDA before players sales down by 63% to only £9.8m, a margin of 5.3%. The graph below shows how the club's EBITDA has fallen very sharply since 2009 revenue despite growing slightly. Liverpool are overspending.

The issue of rampant wage inflation is not of course unique to Liverpool. The graph below shows that Arsenal, Everton, United and City all saw wages rise faster than turnover last season. The problem for Liverpool is however more acute than at other clubs, fundamentally because Liverpool are operating a squad with a Champions League cost base without Champions League income.

Liverpool's wage bill is quite competitive in Premier League terms, fourth behind City, Chelsea and United but the dreaded wages/turnover ratio is rising sharply (up to 70% from 62%). That puts Liverpool much closer to Chelsea (76%) than Arsenal or Everton (55% and 56% respectively).

Amortisation and depreciation

Amortisation is the method by which transfer spending is recognised in the profit and loss account. It reflects the level of transfer spending a club does, spread out over the life of player contracts. Importantly it forms part of the UEFA's FFP calculation. At Liverpool the amortisation charge has been quite high, reflecting steady transfer spending under Benitez and Hodgson. The charge fell from £40m to £36m in 2010/11.

Depreciation (on Anfield and Melwood) was up slightly at £2.9m (vs. £2.1m).

Exceptionals, player sales and interest 

Exceptional costs totaled £58.99m in 2010/11. Of this, £49.2m was a write-off of capitalised costs relating to the abandoned stadium project. It is important to stress that this is not a cash cost in 2010/11, the money had already been spent in previous years. Most of the balance of the exceptional charges relate to getting rid of Roy Hodgson. The club spent £8.4m changing managers last season compared to £7.8m getting rid of Benitez the year before.

The interest charge fell very sharply from £17.6m to £2.9m as the burden of Hicks and Gillett's debts was lifted. It is worth noting that cash interest paid actually rose slightly.

Although not treated as an "exceptional", the club recorded a huge profit on player sales in 2010/11. Such profits are calculated as the difference between the price at which a player is sold and his "book value". Torres was acquired for around £20m and probably had a book value of around £10m when he was sold to Chelsea. That means the club recorded a profit on his sale of around £40m. Add in Mascherano and the "profit on player sales" was £43.3m.

Pre-tax loss

Bringing all these numbers together, Liverpool reported a pre-tax loss of £49.3m compared to £20m the previous year. The exceptional charges are unlikely to re-occur, but neither is the enormous profit on Torres. Estimating a "normal" profit on player sales is very difficult (the figure was £23m in 2010, £4m in 2009), but £10m looks a reasonable estimate for a club with Liverpool's strong youth set-up. Stripping out the exceptional costs and using £10m for a "normal" profit on player sales implies an "underlying" pre-tax loss of c. £23m. The collapse in EBITDA means Liverpool are structurally loss making at these level of income and wages. To change that of course, the club need cheaper players or more revenue.

Cash(flow) is king

Accounting items like non-cash exceptionals, amortisation and player sale profits can often make the profit and loss account of football clubs misleading. It is always important to focus on cash flow as shown in this table:

The collapse in EBITDA (here including cash exceptionals), led to a very sharp fall in operating cash flow at Liverpool. Unlike in the P&L, the transfer spending here reflects actual cash spent and received and with the Carroll spending paid up front but the Torres receipts staggered, there was punchy £40m of cash spending in 2010/11. Deduct interest and the club saw a £42.5m outflow before financing.

It goes without saying that Liverpool need to generate more EBITDA and hence cash flow to be able to compete in the transfer market in the future or will need subsidising by FSG.

Debt and financing

Of the £42.5m cash outflow shown above, £26m came from an injection from new parent company UKSV and the balance from running down the club's cash balance (which fell from £19m to £2.5m).

The £30m "debt" on the Liverpool balance sheet owed to UKSV/FSG is really equity by another name (it attracts no interest). At 31st July there was a real bank loan of £37.7m (the "stadium finance" part of a larger £92m facility with RBS and Wachovia/Wells Fargo) secured on the club's assets.

On 30th September 2011, the club entered into a new £120m facility with RBS, Bank of America and Barclays for £120m. The facility runs for three years. £45m is the stadium project facility and £75m for "general corporate purposes". Whilst with year end debt of only £37.7m there might appear to be plenty of spare capacity, football clubs' cash positions are highly seasonal and the club will definitely need this facility during the course of the season. We do not know the interest rate on this debt (the old facility was LIBOR +450bps).

Prospects and thoughts

Fenway have a very big challenge keeping Liverpool competitive in the next few years. The Warrior kit deal next season will add c. £13m (7%) to revenue, but there was no Champions League football in the current season and there won't be any next season. Wage inflation across football remains endemic despite the imminent arrival of FFP. The playing squad needs investment and a new ground is desperately needed.

If all that wasn't bad enough, the competition for CL places is far fiercer than it was in the good old days of "the big 4". A £100m+ wage bill used to guarantee qualification for the CL, now it barely guarantees qualification for the Europa.

The great unknown in all this is the willingness of FSG to invest their own money in Liverpool FC. So far £30m has flowed in on top of the cost of acquiring the club. The expansion of the banking facility very much suggests that the business will be debt not equity financed in the next year or two and that is a worry.

Despite all this gloom, I think Liverpool will negotiate these financial risks, for two reasons. Firstly as shown by the Standard Chartered and Warrior deals, the club is a big brand still on the global stage. It is commercial success that has allowed United to compete despite its debt burden and remains a key advantage for Liverpool too. Secondly, there is significant scope to expand matchday income if a new stadium can be developed. Liverpool L4 is not London N5, but Arsenal's move to the Emirates gives a flavour of what can be done. Liverpool's matchday income is only 37% of United's. FSG need to close some of that gap.

The other thing Liverpool need is for Financial Fair Play to be rigorously enforced. This is the great unknown of course, but FSG have clearly made a bet that it will stick. 

Taken together, the Liverpool "project" is a steep, steep challenge.

LUHG

The issues the football authorities won't address

So finally, we now get to see "football's response" to the government's call for the game to reform itself.

What a damp squib.

You can see the "response" here, page after page of moving blazers around committees and no action. It's a depressing document more concerned with preserving the status quo than looking at the real issues; debt and financial mismanagement, ownership, ticket prices etc.

Debt, the cancer that kills clubs and costs fans gets one mention. Actually it doesn't, the word "debt" appears as in "debt of thanks". Thanks for nothing.

Crucially, the authorities have chosen to ignore government suggestions on supporter involvement and leveraged buyouts.

Why is there no response to this (from the Government response to the select committee)?

30. The Government notes the evidence before the Committee on the use of leveraged buyouts to purchase football clubs and the strong view of the Committee on the appropriateness of this vehicle. The Government expects that the issue of financial sustainability should be addressed as part of the recommendations on the new licensing model. 

and why is there nothing at all in the document on supporter involvement in clubs as suggested by the government here (my emphasis)?

38. The Government supports the Committee’s recommendation about effective consultation with fans. The Government believes that every club should have a dedicated and mandatory supporter liaison officer. Furthermore, that every club should officially recognise the relevant supporters groups or trusts and keep an open dialogue with them. They should hold official and regular annual general meetings at which these groups are invited to take part and at which appropriate financial and other information can be shared and consulted upon. 

39. The Government believes that these conditions should be an explicit condition of the football licensing model recommended by the Committee and so compliance should be a requirement of the club competing within the English game.

40. Furthermore, the Government urges the football authorities to consider ways to actively encourage and incentivise methods of including supporter representatives on the Boards of clubs. We see the value in the views of many supporters that such representatives should have a full role within the club Board. At the same time, we acknowledge that this may not be the right solution for all clubs or all supporters. Where there are ways of achieving this role in an advisory capacity that do not attract fiduciary responsibilities that could create conflicts of interest, then we urge the football authorities to also consider this route. Whatever the way that representation is achieved, we believe that there is every reason to think that clubs are stronger because they have supporters at the heart of the club, not weaker. 

41. One option that we have considered is to specify within the new club licensing system a trigger point that would require clubs to make a seat available to one or more supporters’ representatives on the Board. Such a trigger point could be the next time the club changes hands; the point at which the officially recognised supporters organisations reach a certain size; or by a majority vote of eligible supporters. There will be other options as well.

The whole document smacks of complacency and an unwillingness to change.

Hugh Robertson should scrawl "not good enough, try again" on it in big red letters and send it back to Wembley and Gloucester Place.

LUHG

Manchester United Q2 2011/12 results - the amazing, expanding wage bill

The second quarter of Red Football's financial year (September to December) is the least exciting. The transfer window is firmly shut, the season ticket selling season is over, it's the dull group stage of the Champions League. Nothing is won before Christmas and from a financial point of view, not much happens...

That is largely the case with these figures for the three months to 31st December 2011 (and therefore the first half of 2011/12 too). Having said that, there are some surprises.

Revenue

The trends seen in the first quarter figures were present again in Q2. Matchday income was up 3.8% compared to last year despite exactly the same number of home games. The club put through an average price increase of 2.5% this season and the additional revenue has come from better corporate hospitality sales, a real credit to the Old Trafford corporate sales team at what is obviously a very difficult time economically.

Media income rose an impressive 9.8%, but this increase is somewhat deceptive. United benefit this season from a higher share of the English "market pool" than in 2010/11 because of winning the league last season. Furthermore, the club recognises some of the Champions League media income evenly over the number of games played in the competition. With United being knocked out at the group stages, there is a paradoxically higher amount of revenue recognised in the first six months than last season (when income was spread over ten games across the whole season, not six in the first six months).

In the second half of the season, there will be no Champions League income of course and the meagre pickings from the Europa League (a maximum of about €5m if the final is reached) will depend of course on progress in that competition.

Commercial income continues to grow very fast (up 13.4% during the quarter vs last year and up 17.7% over the six months). Much of this growth comes from the c. £10m per annum DHL training kit deal. The club has also recently signed new deals with Bulgarian and Bangladeshi telecom operators. This strategy of finding a local telecom partner in a myriad of markets will eventually reach a natural end of course, but I must confess to having been too cautious on United's commercial growth. The "brand" has stretched far further than most observers (including this one) felt was possible.

In total, revenue growth of 12% in the first six months of the year is very impressive, even if the impact of the early Champions League exit is yet to be felt.

Costs - terrifying

It's a good thing that United's top-line is growing so well, because so is the cost base, and particularly the wage bill. After the 12.2% year-on-year growth in staff costs in Q1, they rose 17.2% in Q2. This increase is before any end of season bonuses obviously, so can only be put down to significantly more expensive deals for key players. When you consider that Garry Neville, VDS, O'Shea, Brown, Obertan and Scholes (his return is not included in these figures) all left the club in the summer with younger (and you would imagine cheaper) players coming in, the wage inflation is even more extraordinary.

Historically, there has been a very, very strong correlation (r squared of 0.98) between media income and wages at United. What has happened this season is effectively a breakdown in that relationship.There is no big new TV deal to drive player salaries up. Endemic wage inflation is THE financial problem in football, it is what Financial Fair Play is designed to deal with. These figures show it remains a huge issue in 2011/12.

Non-staff cash costs rose an equally punchy 14% in Q2 vs. last year. Some of this must be the club's swanky new corporate offices in Stratton Street in central London. Unlike at the old Pall Mall office, the club has the confidence in Stratton Street to have their name listed in reception.

EBITDA and below

With revenue up 8.7% and costs up 16.3% during Q2 vs 2010/11, EBITDA was virtually static (up 0.4%) and the margin was down from 48% to 44.4%. For the first half as a whole, EBITDA was up 7.7%. United remain very profitable, but the negative "jaws" between cost and revenue growth (costs are rising faster than income) is a worry in any business.

Below EBITDA, depreciation and player amortisation were virtually static. The club made its usual small profit on player sales and there was a totally unexplained £2m exceptional charge.

Interest and various marks to market

The interest charge in the profit and loss account was down 11% compared to Q2 last year. This reflects the increasing number of bonds the company has bought in during the last two years. It should be noted that actual bond cash interest payments are made twice a year in February and August.

Under International Accounting Standards, Red Football must recognise the initial discount on bonds over their life, any premium paid when buying bonds, any "mark to market" increase or fall in the sterling value of the US$ bonds and must also mark any swaps to market too. I don't consider any of these (largely non-cash) charges to be material to the health of the business.

Cash and debt

The second quarter is not a big one for seasonal cash flow (pre-payments of season tickets and sponsorships unwind over the quarter). Operating cash flow was slightly negative (-£2.7m) as these working capital positions unwound. As stated above the main bond interest payments fall outside this quarter and there was little transfer cash flow outside the window.The club bought another £5.2m of bonds during the quarter to take the total to £92.8m (almost 20% of the bonds issued in 2010).

The press have focused on the c. £100m fall in the club's cash balance, but £86m of this fall took place in Q1. In Q2 the cash outflow was only £14m.

The cash outflow and bond buybacks left gross debt at £439m and cash at £50.9m. Net debt has therefore risen slightly from £368m at the end of September to £388m at the end of December.

Thoughts

Credit has to go to the club for once again boosting revenues in a tough economic climate. United (along with Real, Barcelona and Bayern) is one of the commercial giants of modern football. Much though it pains me to say it, the Glazers have overseen extraordinary commercial growth (this year Commercial income will be more than 2.5x the level the plc achieved in their best year). The second half will see weaker media income as the CL exit bites, a timely reminder that on-pitch success is never guaranteed.

Despite United's excellent revenue growth, the dynamics of football finance remain awful (hello Rangers, hello Pompey). Any business which sees core cost growth of 16% year-on-year is going to struggle to meaningfully grow profits. Profit growth is not crucial for a football club, but it is for the owners who are no doubt still eyeing an IPO and want to tell a story of rising profits, not just revenue growth. I remain confident that FFP will eventually calm player wage inflation but such restraint is not visible in these figures.

Finally, for all the booming income and soaring wages, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the £116m Ronaldo/Aon windfall received on 30th June 2009 has gone to deal with the debts laden on the club. In the thirty months from that date 31st December 2011, the club spent the following on debt service and investment.

In almost all football clubs, surplus cash is reinvested. At Manchester United it is still far more likely to be spent dealing with debts that the club should never have had.

LUHG

Income up, costs down - Chelsea getting in shape for FFP

Chelsea have a rather irritating habit of issuing an anodyne press release trumpeting their financial results (this year on 31st January), several days before the real accounts become available at Companies House (today). Normally, the detailed figures hide a whole host of nasties not in the release. This year however, the accounts show real progress in the club's aim to meet UEFA's new Financial Fair Play rules.

Rising income and falling costs - the holy grail of football finance

Football clubs find it incredibly hard not to pass increases in revenue straight on to players, managers and agents in the form of higher staff costs. It is the achilles heal of the financial side of the sport. These results from Chelsea show revenue rising by 8% and pre-exceptional costs falling by 5%, including a 2.6% fall in wages. That is a remarkable achievement. To put it into context, in the last five years there has only been one other occasion when the wage bill at any of the old "big 4", City or Spurs has fallen year-on-year.

Readers who think "oh cutting the wage bill is easy, CFC let loads of old, expensive players go", should remember that United did the same last summer when VDS, Neville, O'Shea, Brown, Hargreaves and Scholes (temporarily) all left, yet we can see from MUFC's Q1 results that wage costs are still up on last year (by 12.2%). The trick is not just offloading players, it is preventing endemic wage inflation amongst the remaining squad, especially when TV money is increasing as it was in 2010/11.

The only cautionary point to make about Chelsea's wage control in these figures is that Fernando Torres and David Luiz will only be in these numbers for six months. On an annualised basis they would add c. £4m to these salary figures (although there have been offsetting cost reductions from the sales of Alex, Anelka etc).

Revenue

Chelsea's revenue (excluding the digital JV) rose £16.5m or 8% in 2010/11. Chelsea unhelpfully do not give the usual "matchday/media/commercial" split other clubs provide. We know from UEFA figures that CFC received £10.3m in CL TV income in 2010/11 vs. 2009/10. We also know from Premier League figures that CFC's receipts from the league rose £4.9m. 

Using these PL and UEFA figures, Deloitte's estimated segmental split for last season and adjusting for one fewer home game in 2010/11 vs. 2009/10 and we can get quite a good estimate for the club's segmental revenue performance for 2010/11:

The table above shows quite an encouraging growth in commercial income, especially in difficult economic conditions, although at c. £60m pa, CFC's commercial revenue is far behind that of MUFC (£103m) or Real Madrid (£127m).

Decent revenue growth and tight cost control meant that Chelsea made positive EBITDA (before profit on player sales and exceptionals) for only the second time since Abramovich bought the club (the other occasion was a £1m profit in 2007/08). The c. £4m EBITDA in 2010/11 is not huge (Arsenal made £47m from non-property activities) but being able to cover cash costs (pre-transfers) from earned income is a key first step in achieving financial sustainability, . The contrast with City's £71m EBITDA loss is stark.

Below EBITDA - messy

Unfortunately neither the profit and loss account nor UEFA's FFP "breakeven" calculation finishes at the EBITDA line.

On the plus side, Chelsea made a profit on player sales of £18.4m, boosting EBITDA to £22.4m. After that, things get worse quite fast.

Chelsea are still hampered by a very significant amortisation charge (the way transfers spending is recognised across the life of a player's contract). This charge has fallen in recent years, something that is key for meeting FFP, reflecting a reining back of the very aggressive transfer spending of the early Abramovich years. The charge rose in 2010/11 however, and this rise only includes six months of amortisation from the c. £75m spent on Torres and Luiz in the January 2011 transfer window (see chart below):

At around £40-45m, the amortisation charge nowhere close to being covered by EBITDA. Once depreciation is added too, the club made on operating (EBIT) loss of £26m (inc player sales), a loss but a great improvement on last year's £71m.

Exceptionals (again)

In the last four years, CFC have reported "exceptional" costs relating to firing their manager on no less than three occasions. Nothing very exceptional there.... In 2010/11 there were £41.9m of exceptional charges. These split as follows:

Termination of Ancellotti + back room staff contracts/compensation to Porto for AVB: £28m

Impairment of player registrations: £7.4m

Payments to HMRC for unpaid NI on "image rights": £6.4m

Now these costs are individually "one-off" in nature, but Chelsea's managerial merry go round has cost the club no less than £64m in compensation to various parties over the last four years. That is equivalent to 25% of the club's matchday revenue over that period, a staggering waste.

Adding the exceptional charge, a small interest bill and the share of profit from the media JV takes the £26m EBIT loss to a pre-tax loss of £67.4m. Ignore the exceptionals and the loss would be £25.6m. This compares to £70.4m in 2009/10. There is definite progress being made.

Cash flow and Roman's support

With £34.3m of the £41.9m of exceptional charges being real cash payments (the impairment is a non-cash charge), Chelsea's operating cash flow was weak in 2010/11, with an cash outflow before investment of £5.5m, but this is still an improvement on 2009/10, reflecting the far better underlying EBITDA performance and strong working capital inflows.

In 2009/10, Chelsea had negative net cash transfer spend. That all changed of course in January 2011 with the (panic?) purchases of Torres and Luiz. These accounts show £112m of "intangible asset" additions on the balance sheet and a  gross cash spend of £85m. As I have explained before on this blog, cash flows from transfers are very volatile but the pattern is clear. Chelsea are spending again (at least for now).

Even adding in £24m from player sales, the accounts show net cash spending on transfers of £60.6m. Add in capex and there is a £72m cash outflow before financing. This hole is filled as it is every year by loans from Abramovich's parent company Fordstam Limited. In the past, such loans are converted to equity after a while and no doubt the same will happen again.

Some FFP maths

So how close are Chelsea to meeting the FFP rules? On the assumption that UEFA ignores exceptional items (and I believe it is reasonable to make that assumption, especially in the early years of the new rules), the club has made good progress.

I have assumed that within Chelsea's cost base is c. £8m of spending on youth development and c. £1m of spending on community development. These items are effectively "deductible" under FFP. 

The table above shows that based on these assumptions about spending on youth and community activities, Chelsea have closed their "break-even" deficit quite substantially over the last three seasons. Revenue is up and costs are down. This calculation is before any player wages based on pre-June 2010 contracts are excluded under the Annex XI exemption, which will reduce the loss further.

Most big clubs should be able to generate profits on player sales (academy products have zero "book cost"). Assuming Chelsea can match the £18.4m profit achieved in 2010/11, the core deficit is only around £8m. That is well within the the €45m (c. £38m) allowable loss over the first two years of the new rules.

As discussed above, the main risk to this happy position is a big rise in the amortisation charge (i.e. a further splurge of transfer spending). Five years ago the amortisation charge was £70m. A return to that level would blow a big hole in the FFP calculation.

The other, ever present, risk if of course that the club will abandon it's cost control in an attempt to stay competitive on the pitch. I have written before how "six into four doesn't go" when it comes to Champions League places. Chelsea can only meet FFP with the sort of squad cost they have now by being in the Champions League. The stakes are high.

Concluding thoughts

Ignoring the exceptional charges (and Chelsea will pray UEFA do just that), these are impressive figures. To continue to meet FFP and to ween the club off Abramovich's cash, Chelsea will need to repeat the trick of holding down wages whilst achieving top four finishes. That is no easy task when every other club's wage bill is rising and when the squad needs a significant overhaul.

The other long-term option of course is boosting matchday income from the current c. £65m pa to an Emirates Stadium like £90-100m. Maybe Nine Elms/Olympia/Earls Court etc is the answer.

LUHG

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