Deloitte Football Money League: The top eight Prem clubs...

[ebzrascal]

Only if success is sustained. Our commercial revenue was €84m leicesters was €30m.

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...s-business-group/deloitte-uk-sbg-dfml2018.pdf

I think this is a another great article about Spurs possible financial future and gives predictions of potential income in the new stadium

https://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnati...ncially-an-analysis-of-tottenhams-present-and

 

[tiger666]

I highly doubt 10 years ago city would have been above us

Correct

 

[Mullers]

This year's money league published today:

http://www.cityam.com/279270/tottenham-hotspur-named-11th-richest-club-world-after

Interesting that we've made up significant ground on Liverpool in just one year and that's before this season's Wembley excursion.

"They could climb into the top 10 and overtake Juventus in next year’s list, depending on which team wins their looming Champions League last 16 tie."

We're still quite a way behind Arsenal though.

Overtaking Juventus doesn't mean much except for bragging rights. I don't think our financial model will change to much and Im ok with that. The overwhelming amount of our players cost less than 20 million.

 

[southlondonyiddo]

Correct

Amazing what a bit of oil money can do!

 

[DogsOfWar]

Where are you getting these numbers from.

Our match day income with the new stadium will be around what Arsenals is, £100 million. Ours is currently £40 million so a £60 million improvement. The shirt deal numbers are already out there. American football/concerts is based on 5 events x an average match day income of £4 million (£100 million ÷ 25 home games). Stadium naming rights is based on similar deals already out there for football/multi use stadiums.
Not to mention the hotel/conferencing/renting out the training facility or the usual 5% background growth we usually achieve.

Nothing I have estimated is particularly outrageous and is just as likely to be higher than lower.

 

[DogsOfWar]

Overtaking Juventus doesn't mean much except for bragging rights. I don't think our financial model will change to much and Im ok with that. The overwhelming amount of our players cost less than 20 million.

Sadly, Juve are still more attractive as they guarantee a title and CL football every season for the same wages.

 

[shelfboy68]

Correct

 

[shelfboy68]

Amazing what their dirty money has done but when nation state's own clubs such as PSG or city your fucked as don't matter how big your stadium is you can't compete on an even level with that.

 

[Lilbaz]

https://www.mcfcwatch.com/2018/01/2...ith-manchester-city-chelsea-and-psg-targeted/

 

[tiger666]

https://www.mcfcwatch.com/2018/01/2...ith-manchester-city-chelsea-and-psg-targeted/

This is the stuff that needs looking at:

"Finally, something that could make state-backed clubs worry, UEFA may look to define “related parties” much more precisely when it comes to revenue sources. City have a deal with Etihad – one in 2018 that is heavily undervalued – and a number of smaller sponsorship deals with companies from Abu Dhabi. PSG meanwhile, have a host of sponsors from Qatar such as QTA, QNB, Ooredoo and BeIN SPORTS, all of which could fall victim to the new “related parties” definition."

 

[Lilbaz]

This is the stuff that needs looking at:

"Finally, something that could make state-backed clubs worry, UEFA may look to define “related parties” much more precisely when it comes to revenue sources. City have a deal with Etihad – one in 2018 that is heavily undervalued – and a number of smaller sponsorship deals with companies from Abu Dhabi. PSG meanwhile, have a host of sponsors from Qatar such as QTA, QNB, Ooredoo and BeIN SPORTS, all of which could fall victim to the new “related parties” definition."

Hope it goes through.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

This is the stuff that needs looking at:

"Finally, something that could make state-backed clubs worry, UEFA may look to define “related parties” much more precisely when it comes to revenue sources. City have a deal with Etihad – one in 2018 that is heavily undervalued – and a number of smaller sponsorship deals with companies from Abu Dhabi. PSG meanwhile, have a host of sponsors from Qatar such as QTA, QNB, Ooredoo and BeIN SPORTS, all of which could fall victim to the new “related parties” definition."

That was the problem with relating spending to revenue. If they link it more closely to pure footballing income and specifically sales of players, it might make it less effective to dress up these dodgy sponsorship deals as “revenue”.

I fucking hope so anyway. It’s time financial doping was properly regulated.

 

[Lilbaz]

That was the problem with relating spending to revenue. If they link it more closely to pure footballing income and specifically sales of players, it might make it less effective to dress up these dodgy sponsorship deals as “revenue”.

I fucking hope so anyway. It’s time financial doping was properly regulated.

There will be ways around it. Club pays player £5m a year but they do a photo shoot for the qatari tourist board and get paid £10m. But hopefully it will help to an extent.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

There will be ways around it. Club pays player £5m a year but they do a photo shoot for the qatari tourist board and get paid £10m. But hopefully it will help to an extent.

Yes, there's always loopholes and the super-rich usually get what they want.

But since their real objective isn't truly the desire for football success (what did they care about Manchester City or Chelsea 15 years ago?) as much as a safe place to launder their money and their reputations, they may be deterred if UEFA are serious about getting things in order.

That's the big question for me though, how serious are UEFA? This is at least a good sign. It will be interesting to see how the vote goes.

 

[Lilbaz]

Yes, there's always loopholes and the super-rich usually get what they want.

But since their real objective isn't truly the desire for football success (what did they care about Manchester City or Chelsea 15 years ago?) as much as a safe place to launder their money and their reputations, they may be deterred if UEFA are serious about getting things in order.

That's the big question for me though, how serious are UEFA? This is at least a good sign. It will be interesting to see how the vote goes.

It's not really uefa pushing this it's the elite clubs. Barca especially are furious they lost neymar to psg. All the big clubs apart from chelsea, city and psg are pushing for this as is any owner who wants to make a profit from football. It looks likely to go through.

 

[Mullers]

It's taken UEFA 7 years to realise FFP isn't really working, I don't have any confidence thst they will get it working this time around.

 

[Lilbaz]

It's taken UEFA 7 years to realise FFP isn't really working, I don't have any confidence thst they will get it working this time around.

Ffp was brought in to try and stop clubs getting into financial difficulty. From that perspective it has worked fantastically.
It was only a side measure that it tried to tackle financial doping and it was never prepared to tackle state run football clubs. Hopefully this can work.

Ffp was never inteended to create a level playing field in football which i think was the mistake most people make about it.

 

[Westmorland]

UEFA are in the process of changing squad rules to stop stockpiling of players. Meeting earlier this week. Proposal is max 25 players over 21 at the club. No limit to under 21. Will stop loaning out a lot of over 21. Should be a limit on under 21 loans also to put the brake on Chelsea and city. Also juve who have a lot out on loan. Plus when brexit eventually happens it will stop numbers of under 21 just sent out abroad ie Chelsea to Vitesse and city to girona. Presumably these would need work permits which I doubt would be forthcoming

 

[Mullers]

Ffp was brought in to try and stop clubs getting into financial difficulty. From that perspective it has worked fantastically.
It was only a side measure that it tried to tackle financial doping and it was never prepared to tackle state run football clubs. Hopefully this can work.

Ffp was never inteended to create a level playing field in football which i think was the mistake most people make about it.

This list says otherwise.
https://en.as.com/en/2017/01/13/football/1484312280_763896.html

 

[Lilbaz]

This list says otherwise.
https://en.as.com/en/2017/01/13/football/1484312280_763896.html

Controllable debt is different to being in finacial difficulty or facing administration.
Atletico and valencia are both building new stadiums and are far more stable than when ffp was introduced although atleticos debt is rising which is worrying. Man utd is man utd.

If you have a mortgage but can afford the payments you are not in difficulty.

Even so since it was introduced football clubs debt across europe has been reduced by $700m.

Teams are still in debt. But what those figures don't take into account are other liabilities such as season tickets. If spurs sell 40,000 season tickets for the new stadium at £1000 each. They will have a "debt" of £40,000,000 until the season is over, because the games haven't been played yet.