United richest club for 2016-17 (Deloitte Money League)

[rampo]

Manchester United are the richest club for 2016-17 beating Real Madrid by 1.5 Mn pounds

That is pretty damn impressive considering we didn't even have Champions League and Real actually won the Champions League.

http://www.espn.in/football/uefa-ch...l-madrid-in-deloitte-money-league-by-just-15m

Manchester United have retained their position as world football's top earners just ahead of Real Madrid, according to the latest annual "Money League" report by accountancy firm Deloitte.

United made £581m during the 2016-17 season, pipping Real Madrid to the top spot by just £1.5m, the closest margin in the rich list's 21 years.

In a statement, Deloitte Sports Business Group partner Dan Jones said: "United's ability to retain first position is all the more impressive against the backdrop of the weakened pound against the euro.

"With both Real Madrid and Barcelona forecasting further revenue growth in 2017-18, the battle at the top will likely come down to on-pitch performance again next year.

"With all three clubs through to the round of 16 of the Champions League, it may be as simple as the club that goes furthest in the competition will have the best chance of topping the Money League next year."

 

[JinnerJamie]

All them monies without a sleeve sponsor too.

 

[slyadams]

Manchester United are the richest club for 2016-17 beating Real Madrid by 1.5 Mn pounds

That is pretty damn impressive considering we didn't even have Champions League and Real actually won the Champions League.

http://www.espn.in/football/uefa-ch...l-madrid-in-deloitte-money-league-by-just-15m

And the weak pound. Edit: which I now notice the second quote says!

 

[worcesterred]

What happens with the bond repayments?

 

[SirAF]

All them monies without a sleeve sponsor too.

You can bet your life Ed is working on something big with regards to the sleeves (Unless there is a clause in the Chevrolet deal which would prevent an extra sponsor - now THIS would actually be an interesting question for the journos to research, do some real work).

 

[lsd]

And we now have our own tractors as well we will be further clear next year

 

[Jacko21]

Imagine if we were any good on the pitch.

We'd clean up.

 

[RC89]

Imagine if we were any good on the pitch.

We'd clean up.

Soon my friend. Soon.

 

[Giggsy92]

So soon after winning the Twitter Cup, what a great week so far. It is impressive given our relative lack of success, I guess the new TV deals are making a difference.

 

[Botim]

The EL apparently brought in 39M, which is more than I would have guessed. Arsenal would be crazy to dismiss it this year.

As impressive as our top spot is, let's not forget that the EPL is by far the richest league in the world, occupying 10 of top 20 spots in this list.

In that regard, we could be doing much better if our on-field form finally gets back top level.

 

[NotBrendanRodgers honest]

If we factor in CL + Sleeve sponsorship then Liverpool should be the 6th richest club in the world, which is amazing considering we have won nothing in 6 years

 

[Catt]

Don't forget the dog food sponsors.

 

[davidmichael]

If we finish second in the league and go at least into the next round (quarters) of the Champions League then with things like Rooney off the wage bill, Zlatan on half the wages he was originally on and spending less in the summer than the year before I’d expect a much bigger gap between us and Real.

For his faults you really can’t help but admire Ed Woodward for his money making ability and if we can begin to turn this into re-establishing us as seasonal trophy winners I can see us possibly on the path to our most successful era ever, in a year or two we could realistically be in a position to sign anyone in the world each year.

 

[VanGaalyTime]

If we finish second in the league and go at least into the next round (quarters) of the Champions League then with things like Rooney off the wage bill, Zlatan on half the wages he was originally on and spending less in the summer than the year before I’d expect a much bigger gap between us and Real.

For his faults you really can’t help but admire Ed Woodward for his money making ability and if we can begin to turn this into re-establishing us as seasonal trophy winners I can see us possibly on the path to our most successful era ever, in a year or two we could realistically be in a position to sign anyone in the world each year.

I'd imagine getting Rooney and Zlatan (and Mkhi) off the wages will allow us to continue our spending in the summer. Plus, I can see players like Darmien and Mata being moved in the summer as well.

 

[Adisa]

Hi thought we are not getting any money from the TV pool. If that's the case, we're not getting much from the champions league this year.

 

[Nanook]

Hi thought we are not getting any money from the TV pool. If that's the case, we're not getting much from the champions league this year.

Half the TV pool money is shared in the group stages and the other half is for the knock out rounds. We’ll get nothing for the group stages but we’ll get some of the around €70m that the five English teams will share for the knock out stages. The further we go the more we’ll get but it also depends on how far the other English teams go.

€12.7m guaranteed payment
€7.5m performance payment
€6m last 16
€6.5m last 8
€7.5m semi
€11m runner up
€15.5m winner

If we get past Seville but lose the next round that would be €32.7m plus maybe €10-€15m in market pool payments.

 

[Spirit of Solskjaer]

Enjoy it while it lasts. Once Tottenham complete their new stadium, they're going top of that list. £400m naming rights, plus several hundred million NFL money, probably a few hundred mil from other, unspecified "commercial opportunities." Not to forget the money generated by the stadium itself, the biggest and the best stadium in the league.

According to the Spurs fans on Caf anyway

 

[cyril C]

Enjoy it while it lasts. Once Tottenham complete their new stadium, they're going top of that list. £400m naming rights, plus several hundred million NFL money, probably a few hundred mil from other, unspecified "commercial opportunities." Not to forget the money generated by the stadium itself, the biggest and the best stadium in the league.

According to the Spurs fans on Caf anyway

Excuse me, a stadium is not a cinema. Revenue is coming from game attendance, not movie go-ers. When Spurs new stadium, you are assuming it will be 100% full all the time, all hospitality suite filled, their season tickets most expensive in UK. Well, this is exactly what Arsenal is enjoying. Total revenue includes commercial revenue, domestic performance hence TV money, Europe performance hence more TV money, all of which have nothing to do with a bland new stadium; gate receipt is only a small portion of the overall revenue. And we haven't talked about the 1 billion debt that Spurs has incurred.

 

[Nick7]

 

[McLovin]

White text. Fishing out newbies since 1999.

 

[andycolegangstainnit]

If we finish second in the league and go at least into the next round (quarters) of the Champions League then with things like Rooney off the wage bill, Zlatan on half the wages he was originally on and spending less in the summer than the year before I’d expect a much bigger gap between us and Real.

For his faults you really can’t help but admire Ed Woodward for his money making ability and if we can begin to turn this into re-establishing us as seasonal trophy winners I can see us possibly on the path to our most successful era ever, in a year or two we could realistically be in a position to sign anyone in the world each year.

This is about revenue only so forget about costs. I agree a progression deep into the UCL will obviously help. A key factor here is the exchange rate. United's £ income has gone up form £515m to £581m but in euros has declined due to the fall in the rate used from 1.33 to 1.16. That's why Real has closed the gap. The euro values for United's 2017 at last year's rate would've been a whopping £773m as United's revenue has actually grown by 13%. Impressive.

 

[andycolegangstainnit]

Enjoy it while it lasts. Once Tottenham complete their new stadium, they're going top of that list. £400m naming rights, plus several hundred million NFL money, probably a few hundred mil from other, unspecified "commercial opportunities." Not to forget the money generated by the stadium itself, the biggest and the best stadium in the league.

According to the Spurs fans on Caf anyway

You are having a giraffe. United and Spurs broadcast income similar (£194m and £188m) due to similar success on pitch. At best for Spurs that won't change - more likely they'll fad if Kane goes. Matchday theyare at £45m United £108m. It's possible they could catch United if they fill their ground (Arsenal only £100m though) so let's say both elements equal. However, United have £279m corporate revenue whereas spurs is a pitiful £72m. Spurs are just not well-known enough outside of London, they won't overtake United in the next 20 years.

 

[Sir Roi de Muppeterre]

As good as this is, I don't think total revenue should be used to determine the "Richest" club. Its a misleading method.

 

[RedCurry]

Enjoy it while it lasts. Once Tottenham complete their new stadium, they're going top of that list. £400m naming rights, plus several hundred million NFL money, probably a few hundred mil from other, unspecified "commercial opportunities." Not to forget the money generated by the stadium itself, the biggest and the best stadium in the league.

According to the Spurs fans on Caf anyway

and £200m every few years from selling their star player.

 

[coolredwine]

What happens with the bond repayments?

This list doesn't take into account the debts. So they still need to be paid.

 

[coolredwine]

White text. Fishing out newbies since 1999.

 

[Nanook]

As good as this is, I don't think total revenue should be used to determine the "Richest" club. Its a misleading method.

Total revenue is a pretty good way to determine the richest club, especially now with FFP where owners can’t spend their own money and those who do use it to artificially increase revenue.

 

[Florida Man]

Enjoy it while it lasts. Once Tottenham complete their new stadium, they're going top of that list. £400m naming rights, plus several hundred million NFL money, probably a few hundred mil from other, unspecified "commercial opportunities." Not to forget the money generated by the stadium itself, the biggest and the best stadium in the league.

According to the Spurs fans on Caf anyway

Got em!

 

[andycolegangstainnit]

As good as this is, I don't think total revenue should be used to determine the "Richest" club. Its a misleading method.

It's totally mis-leading. However, it's a term that the average guy can get his head around. Richest club probably should be about Market capitalisation - in other words net asset value or how much it would cost to buy it. See Forbes list for that - same names in the frame.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

And we now have our own tractors as well we will be further clear next year

We will be fields ahead

 

[GlastonSpur]

Excuse me, a stadium is not a cinema. Revenue is coming from game attendance, not movie go-ers. When Spurs new stadium, you are assuming it will be 100% full all the time, all hospitality suite filled, their season tickets most expensive in UK. Well, this is exactly what Arsenal is enjoying. Total revenue includes commercial revenue, domestic performance hence TV money, Europe performance hence more TV money, all of which have nothing to do with a bland new stadium; gate receipt is only a small portion of the overall revenue. And we haven't talked about the 1 billion debt that Spurs has incurred.

Lol Spurs don't have a £1 billion debt.

 

[Sir Roi de Muppeterre]

Total revenue is a pretty good way to determine the richest club, especially now with FFP where owners can’t spend their own money and those who do use it to artificially increase revenue.

Not really. First of all, rich such a vague term to begin with. If you take total revenue approach, you are ignoring net cash flows. Cash flow based valuation is perhaps the most commonly used and widely accepted technique of valuing a business.

Furthermore, you are completely ignoring the assets. All else equal, I'd rather call a club that owns a 50,000 capacity stadium in a densely populated "richer" than a club that doesn't own a stadium but makes £10mn more in total revenue.

It's totally mis-leading. However, it's a term that the average guy can get his head around. Richest club probably should be about Market capitalisation - in other words net asset value or how much it would cost to buy it. See Forbes list for that - same names in the frame.

Agreed. Its good for average guy to understand but overall its misleading. A blend of free cash flows to firm and asset base valuation would perhaps be ideal to determine which clubs are truly the "richest".

 

[Nanook]

Not really. First of all, rich such a vague term to begin with. If you take total revenue approach, you are ignoring net cash flows. Cash flow based valuation is perhaps the most commonly used and widely accepted technique of valuing a business.

Furthermore, you are completely ignoring the assets. All else equal, I'd rather call a club that owns a 50,000 capacity stadium in a densely populated "richer" than a club that doesn't own a stadium but makes £10mn more in total revenue.

The teams with the highest revenues are the ones who spend the most on wages and transfer fees so to call those the richest isn’t misleading. It’s not perfect but nothing is, Ajax are probably valued more than Bournemouth yet there’s a huge difference in the spending capabilities of both clubs.

 

[Ajaxsuarez]

The teams with the highest revenues are the ones who spend the most on wages and transfer fees so to call those the richest isn’t misleading. It’s not perfect but nothing is, Ajax are probably valued more than Bournemouth yet there’s a huge difference in the spending capabilities of both clubs.

dunno about "huge difference". Ajax is still one of the richest teams in Europe outside of the premier league and the top teams of the Spanish, German, Italian, (French) teams.

Ajax has the problem that they can't attract big money players (relative to Ajax/Eredivisie) because those players don't want to play in Holland, not necessarily because they can't afford them. Frank de Boer said a couple years ago in an interview "We can spend 30m on a player, but a 30m player doesn't want to come here" (back when 30m was still worth a lot more in the transfer market). As a result, Ajax has just been making profit after profit these past years (€49.5m post-tax profit over a €118.2m revenue for the 2016-2017 year), and has built up a rather equity level (I think that's the term) of which nearly 100m were liquid assets. Another problem is that our source of income is very result dependent (CL money, etc.) and transfer-dependent (sold players for €80m last season), but our wage-structure is based around the more stable aspects of our finances so that we don't get in trouble in poor performing seasons (which happened around 2008). So we could afford one-off high transfer fees but won't pay the wages that would make us appealing to those kinds of players. I'd still estimate us as being twice as rich as the next richest club in Holland or Belgium (PSV or Anderlecht). A club like bournemouth on the other hand is able to "risk" far more in their wages as they are guaranteed the ridiculous TV-money or parachute payments if they go down. Another issue Ajax has is that the Dutch FA has since the 90s already had a strict "no debt" rule, where the second a club has debt (regardless of income levels, etc.), the FA gets involved and will revoke the club's license. Clubs in Spain and England are allowed to run at far, far higher debt levels relative to their income than would be allowed in Holland, which has obviously hampered Ajax' ability to spend anyway.

 

[cyril C]

Lol Spurs don't have a £1 billion debt.

OK correction. Their stadium will cost 1b.

 

[DanClancy]

Lol Spurs don't have a £1 billion debt.

What level of debt will Spurs be left with after the stadium is built? I remember seeing some figures a while ago but can't remember now but how much if the NFL deal worth?

 

[GlastonSpur]

What level of debt will Spurs be left with after the stadium is built? I remember seeing some figures a while ago but can't remember now but how much if the NFL deal worth?

In May 2017 Spurs announced the signing of a five-year bank financing arrangement which included a £400m bank facility to support the financing of the new stadium complex. This replaced a £200m interim financing that was put in place in December 2015, of which only £100m had been drawn down.

Up to May 2017 the club had spent over £340m on the new stadium complex (including land buying, the planning and design process). This was financed with resources of the club plus the £100m mentioned above. The remaining costs have been/are being funded from the £400m bank facility + club resources.

From all this it would seem (?) that the total debt related to the new stadium complex will end up being somewhere around £400m + £100m = £500m. This should be a maximum since I assume that the club won't necessarily drawn down all of this £400m - the club's rising income levels could perhaps be substituted for some of it - and there are no early repayment penalties on what is drawn down.

There may be more information out there, but that's all I'm aware of

 

[deafepl]

Scary to think if Brexit never happened, we'd be ahead of Barca/Real by at least 100-150m in euro.

 

[DanClancy]

In May 2017 Spurs announced the signing of a five-year bank financing arrangement which included a £400m bank facility to support the financing of the new stadium complex. This replaced a £200m interim financing that was put in place in December 2015, of which only £100m had been drawn down.

Up to May 2017 the club had spent over £340m on the new stadium complex (including land buying, the planning and design process). This was financed with resources of the club plus the £100m mentioned above. The remaining costs have been/are being funded from the £400m bank facility + club resources.

From all this it would seem (?) that the total debt related to the new stadium complex will end up being somewhere around £400m + £100m = £500m. This should be a maximum since I assume that the club won't necessarily drawn down all of this £400m - the club's rising income levels could perhaps be substituted for some of it - and there are no early repayment penalties on what is drawn down.

There may be more information out there, but that's all I'm aware of

Thanks, plenty of reports that the stadium costs are spiraling. If so this is going to lead to a far bigger debt than £400m.

In fairness I'd have thought the stadium would generate somewhere between £40m-50m extra in match receipts and somewhere between £20m-40m a season in naming rights plus extra income from NFL and concerts. I'd say worst case it will add £60m a season to Spurs' revenue.