Topic: Deloitte Money League

[Goalposts for Jumpers]

You're right. The current amount being paid by Adidas is recognised cumulatively as a receivable. The reduction of this figure may be amortised as an expense to the P+L. So whilst there would a reduction in assets, net impact upon revenue (expense in the P/L) would be the annual amortised figure, which is pretty immaterial.

Bingo!

Ok, so who had bornandbRED down on "Amortisation" Bingo. Can't believe we made it to page 2! 

[Goalposts for Jumpers]

We're in the first year of our renewed SC deal which is reportedly worth £40m per year. Utd's Chevrolet deal earns them £64m per year. That deal was insane, highlighted by the fact that nobody unless I've missed something has matched or bettered it since it was signed in 2012 (although didn't start until 2014) and the guy responsible for the deal was sacked by Chevrolet too.

Does it run out at the end of this season or next? Reported as a 7-year deal.

[BaZ87]

Does it run out at the end of this season or next? Reported as a 7-year deal.

The end of next season I believe. It'll be interesting to see what happens because it couldn't be a worse possible moment for them to attempt to renew or find a new deal.

[MNAA]

City and PSG numbers are lies. Damn lies ...

[rocco]

From their accounts...

“Failure to participate in the CL for two or more consecutive seasons would also reduce annual payments under the agreement with adidas by 30% of the applicable payment for the year in which the second or other consecutive season of non-participation falls.”

Thought it was also the same if not bigger with their shirt sponsor Chevrolet

[cipher]

While this confirmation of our continued financial ascendency is great news, the real underlying story is the number of angry #FSG_Out members who have now migrated to the #Mbappe2020 side of the table. 

[TepidT2O]

Any guess what our losses will be in this years accounts?

Will include Fabinho, Keita, Shaqiri and Alisson transfers. As well as new contracts for half the team.

Fabinho signed in May so would have been in the previous years accounts I believe.

[Stevie2810]

What makes up Barcelona’s £750 million revenue?

[Gray Hamster]

Just to add to this. Although the bulk of City's commercial revenue has historically come from the UAE, their most recent deals with Puma and Marathonbet show that they are now able to attract big commercial deals from completely independent companies.

Aye? All seems so simple doesn't it? Let's take the Puma deal, nothing to do with....

Puma's deal meant to be covering all 5 of city football group clubs but gearing across their clubs hasn't been applied (hence arsenal and chelsea pointing out that their puma and Nike deals are bigger then city's because their deals are club specific)

City had involvement in their big players having private puma deals, leading up to their deal. Augero, silva, kompany and now sane, de Bruyne.

The countless other commercial opportunities that Abu Dhabi are offering Puma.

Puma's attempts to 'soften' what many believe as violations of international law and human rights as the main sponsor of Isreal football association.

There are probably a number of other reasons that i don't even know about

[Asam]

As long as the club is able to keep our best players and continue to invest I'm happy, the main challenge for us is to stat at the top whilst we go through transition in a few years and rebuild, this is the most difficult thing to get right but for now let's enjoy

FSG have done an incredible job I never thought we would be anywhere near United's revenues but could see us in touching distance, unbelievable considering how much of a head start they had over us

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

City and PSG numbers are lies. Damn lies ...

City based their numbers in part on large sponsorship deals, some of which have ties to Abu Dhabi. PSG at least can be considered the largest football brand in France by some margin, which helps them generate revenue immensely.

[BaZ87]

Aye? All seems so simple doesn't it? Let's take the Puma deal, nothing to do with....

Puma's deal meant to be covering all 5 of city football group clubs but gearing across their clubs hasn't been applied (hence arsenal and chelsea pointing out that their puma and Nike deals are bigger then city's because their deals are club specific)

City had involvement in their big players having private puma deals, leading up to their deal. Augero, silva, kompany and now sane, de Bruyne.

The countless other commercial opportunities that Abu Dhabi are offering Puma.

Puma's attempts to 'soften' what many believe as violations of international law and human rights as the main sponsor of Isreal football association.

There are probably a number of other reasons that i don't even know about

Yes, the Puma deal is for the entire City group but the value of the other sides won't be even 10% of the overall value. As for City having an involvement in several players signing up to Puma, do you have anything to back that up? It's not uncommon for players to align themselves with the same brand as the club they play for. We've already seen reports that Mane and Klopp will move to Nike in the summer.

As for other these other commercial opportunities that are being offered to Puma in the UAE. Do you have anything to support this? Puma are just one of a number of completely independent partners City now have. Their training kit deal with Marathonbet is said to be worth over £10m per season - I'm pretty sure theres no added commercial opportunities for them in the UAE seeing as gambling is illegal there.

Yes City artificially boosted their revenue with commercial deals from the UAE to counter FFP but they're no longer as reliant on that as they were. Would they be able to replace all their UAE sponsors and for the same amount? No but they wouldn't drop from £230m to £130m either. Just look at Chelsea's commercial revenue, approx the same as ours - they've shown that a historically small club can close the gap on the big boys relatively quickly with a period of success.

[BaZ87]

Fabinho signed in May so would have been in the previous years accounts I believe.

This isn't the case. The day an agreement is reached and or the payment terms of a transfer aren't relevant to the profit and loss account. The only things that matter are the guaranteed fee, the length of the players contract and his wages.

Fabinho may have signed in May and we could have even paid 100% of the fee on that day too but not a penny would have counted towards the 17/18 accounts.

A players transfer fee is spread over the life of his contract from an accounting point of view. So very roughly, those transfers cost us approx £160m and if we assume they all signed 5 year contracts then the cost on last seasons accounts would be around £32m plus their wages.

[RedForeverTT]

City is creative accounting so I won’t even bother to argue about it here.

But the gap between us and United, although narrowing, it is still a good £100m below them.

Hopefully with our on field success this gap could further narrow to take over United as the most commercially successful club in England.

[Ravishing Rick Dude]

City is creative accounting so I won’t even bother to argue about it here.

But the gap between us and United, although narrowing, it is still a good £100m below them.

Hopefully with our on field success this gap could further narrow to take over United as the most commercially successful club in England.

We're going up, they are going down. In a year or two, we'll meet in the middle.

[vblfc]

VAR is finally helping Liverpool.

What nonsense

VAR benefits wont show up until next year's figures 

City's books will also show their VAR losses at that point. 

[smutchin]

City based their numbers in part on large sponsorship deals, some of which have ties to Abu Dhabi. PSG at least can be considered the largest football brand in France by some margin, which helps them generate revenue immensely.

Yeah, but they weren’t the biggest football brand in France until the Qataris came in. They had only won the league twice before then. When I lived in France in the 90s, OM were by far the biggest, richest team - this was before the scandals that saw them demoted. PSG were a bit of an oddity - very inconsistent. They’re still a very young club too - 50th anniversary this year.

[Fromola]

We were absolutely dog shit in terms of commercialising in the 90's and were left behind. I doubt we ever catch up in our lifetime.

Redeveloping three sides of Anfield on the cheap with low capacity increases also a big factor.

United left us behind on and off the pitch at the same time through the 90s when we started the decade on our perch.

We've caught up to United and overtaken them on the pitch but they still have a higher wage bill and spend more every year and over 20,000 more seats every home game. We're having to do more with less which you can't do long term. Sadly we won't have Klopp for 20 years like they got out of Ferguson.

We're closing the gap on United in revenues but that's while they're in the Europa League, having a bad spell on the pitch and we're winning the Champions League.

[MD1990]

City is creative accounting so I won’t even bother to argue about it here.

But the gap between us and United, although narrowing, it is still a good £100m below them.

Hopefully with our on field success this gap could further narrow to take over United as the most commercially successful club in England.

they will lose 50m this year & probably next with no CL football.

We will continue to grow.

[nico 8]

Redeveloping three sides of Anfield on the cheap with low capacity increases also a big factor.

United left us behind on and off the pitch at the same time through the 90s when we started the decade on our perch.

We've caught up to United and overtaken them on the pitch but they still have a higher wage bill and spend more every year and over 20,000 more seats every home game. We're having to do more with less which you can't do long term. Sadly we won't have Klopp for 20 years like they got out of Ferguson.

We're closing the gap on United in revenues but that's while they're in the Europa League, having a bad spell on the pitch and we're winning the Champions League.

Until they sort themselves on the pitch they will continue to slide/spiral downwards. In time, their extra seating capacity will count for nothing and before you know it, the gaps in the stadium will accelerate and exacerbate their demise. I also remember reading that their stadium needs a refurbishment. With a decrease in revenue and the Glazer debt still on their books, at what point will they be forced to sell? Things will have to align before they will be able to be a force again- starting off by getting the right manager. I cannot think of anyone available at present save for Pochettino and even then he would have his work cut out to get them to an elite level.

[Jookie]

We're closing the gap on United in revenues but that's while they're in the Europa League, having a bad spell on the pitch and we're winning the Champions League.

I agree with this.

For the gap to close or us overtake them it needs them not to qualify for the CL and us to continue to reach the latter stages of the CL. That seems a real possibility over the next couple of seasons. However, if United qualified for the CL then their revenues would overtake ours again.

To be honest I'm amazed we've closed the gap on them this much. That it can even be a possibility or a discussion. Hopefully it can stay this way going forward since it'd mean we are doing well and they are struggling.

[nico 8]

I agree with this.

For the gap to close or us overtake them it needs them not to qualify for the CL and us to continue to reach the latter stages of the CL. That seems a real possibility over the next couple of seasons. However, if United qualified for the CL then their revenues would overtake ours again.

To be honest I'm amazed we've closed the gap on them this much. That it can even be a possibility or a discussion. Hopefully it can stay this way going forward since it'd mean we are doing well and they are struggling.

As long as Ole is at the wheel, I cannot see how they are going to make Champs league this year. I think that Chelsea will scrape through if they get knocked out of the Cup competitions before them. Depending on Wolves's run in the Europa Cup, they have an outside chance for top 4.
If this were to materialize and should we win the league, as is expected, an d we go deep into CL, I have no doubt we will surpass them off the field as well.

[rebel23]

Ole is a GIFT.  Hopefully they back him and they buy more Fred's and Sanchez's...

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

I agree with this.

For the gap to close or us overtake them it needs them not to qualify for the CL and us to continue to reach the latter stages of the CL. That seems a real possibility over the next couple of seasons. However, if United qualified for the CL then their revenues would overtake ours again.

To be honest I'm amazed we've closed the gap on them this much. That it can even be a possibility or a discussion. Hopefully it can stay this way going forward since it'd mean we are doing well and they are struggling.

This is true.
Off the top of my head our commercial is about 186m and their is 280m and we are about 23m short on matchday. So 117m difference in non TV revenue. If Nike ends up adding another 40m, the new Standard chartered deal another 10m, the commercial gap is down to 44m assuming their stays the same.
Another 8,000 GA tickets may add 10m at a push means we are 13m down on matchday, so there's still a 57m difference.

We may make that up via CL qualification, but that is the underlying gap in revenue, we are probably capable of making it up, but it will take time.

I agree though, at times it felt like they were on a different planet commercially, we have done well.

[Peabee]

Being £50m down on revenue compared with United won’t necessary make us worse off. It all depends on how we control costs and where we spend/invest the money.  World class academy, coaching, analytics, data science, research, while also having pay structures that incentivise performance rather than awarding gigantic contracts, would put us in a better position. If United were to pay an average of £50k per week extra per player, then that would eat up the revenue difference, but it doesn’t guarantee success.

[Fromola]

Being £50m down on revenue compared with United won’t necessary make us worse off. It all depends on how we control costs and where we spend/invest the money.  World class academy, coaching, analytics, data science, research, while also having pay structures that incentivise performance rather than awarding gigantic contracts, would put us in a better position. If United were to pay an average of £50k per week extra per player, then that would eat up the revenue difference, but it doesn’t guarantee success.

Yeah a 10% revenue difference (or anything under) can be manageable if we're ran better than them as a club. It's when it gets a lot more than that as it will be if we're both in a similar position on the pitch in terms of CL etc.

Spurs is an example. We had much more revenue than Spurs between 2010 and 2017 (and/or higher wage bill, more money spent on players) but they were finishing above us nearly all those years because we were too often awful in the transfer market and they were much better at managing costs. Also the aftermath of H&G.

Now we're miles ahead of Spurs on the pitch because we got it together again. You can have peaks and troughs but your revenues and wage bill tend to dictate where you finish. Man United are the current anomaly at the top table. The Glazers won't be there holding them back forever either.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Being £50m down on revenue compared with United won’t necessary make us worse off. It all depends on how we control costs and where we spend/invest the money.  World class academy, coaching, analytics, data science, research, while also having pay structures that incentivise performance rather than awarding gigantic contracts, would put us in a better position. If United were to pay an average of £50k per week extra per player, then that would eat up the revenue difference, but it doesn’t guarantee success.

Couldn't agree more.
I was focussing on revenue, but with Utd, if the gap does get to £50m in revenue terms all other things being equal, the £22m dividend to the Glazers and higher interest payments wipe out any spending advantage the higher revenue would have given them.

[thaddeus]

It's a huge credit to FSG that we're seventh (fifth really, assuming we can all agree that the revenues of PSG and Man City are largely the result of shunting money from themselves to themselves).  The shambles that FSG took over seems a long, long time ago now.

I expect we still have lots of deals that were agreed when we were occasional CL participants and sporadically threatened to win a trophy.  As and when they expire and get replaced by new deals we'll ramp it up again.

A competently run Man U would likely have another 100m on top of what they're currently bringing in.  Let's not forget it took a few decades of them being dominant and us being largely poorly ran for the gap to grow so it's going to take a while for it to come down again.  I'm not sure we'll ever see Anfield at the same capacity as Old Trafford but again it's moving in the right direction.

[Fromola]

Ultimately I don't think we can compete with United's revenues unless we have a sustained spell of success, but it's a viscious circle. They spend more money and have a higher wage bill than us so there's only so long they can mess that up for.

We need to try and keep a distance in revenues between us and the rest of the big 6 (financial dopers City aside). It comes down to the CL though. 1 or 2 of the big 6 will always be out the CL and therefore have low revenues that financial year. THat's what was killing us pre-Klopp, we were only in the CL year 1 year out the previous 8 and got knocked out in the group.

The Main Stand really helped bridge the gap a bit to Arsenal and United for matchday revenue but it's still a lot less than theirs (and now Spurs).

[CraigDS]

They spend more money and have a higher wage bill than us so there's only so long they can mess that up for.

You say it like spending money is guaranteed success at some point, but it really isn't - especially in a league where there are many sides who can spend huge amounts.

[Fromola]

You say it like spending money is guaranteed success at some point, but it really isn't - especially in a league where there are many sides who can spend huge amounts.

It does make it harder that the competitiveness at the top of the Premier League makes it a different beast than other leagues were Bayern Munich or Juventus might have a bad few years at some point but will always dominate the league because they earn - and therefore spend - the most money. Same with Barca and Real in Spain or Rangers and Celtic, Porto and Benfica or whoever else.

The fact you've got a big 6 and a Leicester can emerge makes CL not a foregone conclusion, so it is tougher to be guaranteed a place at the top table like the mega clubs in other leagues. This is ultimately a temporary blip though for United, they're capable of spending huge money every year and having the highest wage bill. You can't fail indefinitely if you can keep doing that. The anomoly of having world record transfers failing.

[CraigDS]

This is ultimately a temporary blip though for United, they're capable of spending huge money every year and having the highest wage bill. You can't fail indefinitely if you can keep doing that.

Again, I see absolutely nothing that backs this up.

In this league simply throwing United levels of money at it won't get them competing with City or ourselves. They've shown that over the last 6 years.

They need to add good decision making to the mix, and throwing money at things doesn't bring this.

[Suareznumber7]

Again, I see absolutely nothing that backs this up.

In this league simply throwing United levels of money at it won't get them competing with City or ourselves. They've shown that over the last 6 years.

They need to add good decision making to the mix, and throwing money at things doesn't bring this.

You are absolutely right about this, especially in regards to the current Utd, no doubt about it.  One thing that being able to throw money at things does help is it can paper over a couple of mistakes if necessary assuming the rest of your player recruitment is good. 

[TomDcs]

Ultimately I don't think we can compete with United's revenues unless we have a sustained spell of success, but it's a viscious circle. They spend more money and have a higher wage bill than us so there's only so long they can mess that up for.

We need to try and keep a distance in revenues between us and the rest of the big 6 (financial dopers City aside). It comes down to the CL though. 1 or 2 of the big 6 will always be out the CL and therefore have low revenues that financial year. THat's what was killing us pre-Klopp, we were only in the CL year 1 year out the previous 8 and got knocked out in the group.

The Main Stand really helped bridge the gap a bit to Arsenal and United for matchday revenue but it's still a lot less than theirs (and now Spurs).

Think about this from the other way around. When did United start being the biggest financial power in English football? We may not continue to be as consistently successful as we are currently on the pitch relative to United in the mid-to-late 90s, and it’s a fair assumption that Klopp won’t be around for as long as Ferguson, but when you look at the way our club is being run from top to bottom, I’d be more confident that over the next 5 years we will be more successful on and off the pitch than them. Our model is sustainable, with a mix of youth, bargain signings, and big money signings in priority areas. That’s why Woodward needs to stay.

[Fromola]

Think about this from the other way around. When did United start being the biggest financial power in English football? We may not continue to be as consistently successful as we are currently on the pitch relative to United in the mid-to-late 90s, and it’s a fair assumption that Klopp won’t be around for as long as Ferguson, but when you look at the way our club is being run from top to bottom, I’d be more confident that over the next 5 years we will be more successful on and off the pitch than them. Our model is sustainable, with a mix of youth, bargain signings, and big money signings in priority areas. That’s why Woodward needs to stay.

5 years ago United would have said the same about Ian Ayre. Eventually they'll put the right staff in place to oversee transfers and get a better manager. Hopefully not for a while.

[Fruity]

We are clearly on the up both on and off the pitch.

However I was at a conference today for Alibaba (biggest company in china) who I wasn't aware recently did a deal with Manchester United. This is a big thing for them and something they are aiming to promote heavily.  1.4 billion people getting hit by the biggest online shopping facility in China promoting the mancs.

If anyone has contacts in the Liverpool hierarchy we need to do a deal with WeChat. Biggest social media company in china bit like Whatsapp.

[Sheer Magnetism]

Some of those figures look dodgy as hell. How do PSG pull in nearly £20 million more matchday revenue than us despite having a smaller stadium?

[Samie]

We are clearly on the up both on and off the pitch.

However I was at a conference today for Alibaba (biggest company in china) who I wasn't aware recently did a deal with Manchester United. This is a big thing for them and something they are aiming to promote heavily.  1.4 billion people getting hit by the biggest online shopping facility in China promoting the mancs.

If anyone has contacts in the Liverpool hierarchy we need to do a deal with WeChat. Biggest social media company in china bit like Whatsapp.

Mate don't worry, China itself will buy us. 

[A-Bomb]

Some of those figures look dodgy as hell. How do PSG pull in nearly £20 million more matchday revenue than us despite having a smaller stadium?

They all drink 4 bottles of champagne at half time?

[Henry Kissinger]

Some of those figures look dodgy as hell. How do PSG pull in nearly £20 million more matchday revenue than us despite having a smaller stadium?

One word - canapes.