Manchester United Talk banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
English clubs owe an estimated £3bn.

Football Association chairman Lord Triesman believes the global credit crisis could pose a "terrible danger" to clubs dealing with spiralling debts.

Against the backdrop of such a volatile financial climate, Triesman estimates English clubs owe an estimated £3bn.

He told BBC Sport: "They're beginning to see the edge of the hurricane - the art is to get out of the path of it."


A worldwide banking crisis has led to a collapse in shares, fears of a recession and increasing costs for clubs having to repay or maintain huge debts - with Liverpool, Chelsea and Manchester United believed to account for a third of that £3bn debt.

At the weekend Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry admitted the club's planned £350m new stadium had been put on hold due to the current financial crisis, while West Ham are battling claims Iceland's second-biggest bank Landsbanki going into receivership will have a negative impact on the club.

The FA themselves know about all these things because they are one of the most indebted organisations in the world

Wall Street investment bank Lehman Brothers is another high-profile casualty of the crisis and Triesman fears a major club could suffer a similar fate.

"Did I have a genuine fear that Lehman Brothers would go bust?' I'd say, 'No I didn't'," said Triesman at the Leaders in Football conference at Stamford Bridge.

"What I know is we are in a very much more volatile position in which debt is not only a problem in terms of its volume, it's a problem because those who own the debt are themselves now often in serious problems. Your fate isn't in your own hands.

"I don't think anybody who is rational can look around this environment we are in and think they are immune.

"Football is obviously carrying a pretty large volume of debt. People will be making business judgements about whether it is sustainable or not, but it is carrying quite a large volume of debt.

"Those debts will either have to be paid or there will have to be a re-financing deal, and re-financing deals inevitably mean that you package up debt in smaller blocks as people try to minimise the risk.

"What we do know about loads of events in the credit crunch is that it becomes harder and harder to track who owns the debt or these packages of debt and how secure they are.

"We now have a position where it is very hard to track things. It is not transparent enough and we don't know, if we are able to track it, if the debt is held by people who are financially secure or not.

"And if all of these things go wrong I suppose it is not inconceivable that a great club, or a very small club, will come under pressures it has not seen before."

source BBC Sports.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,547 Posts
Its financial doping....teams should be punished to be honest...

And yes, I know we're one of them...but its not the club who got us into debts..its the ..!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,207 Posts
It's definitely a worrying situation.

I wonder how the Glazers will manage the debt this year, because I think they expected to make more money than they are.

Last year we had to 80m pounds in debt and interest. That's a big sum of money and money we would have, if it weren't for the bloody take-over.

I'm hoping and praying.

Meanwhile.....


Hammers play down financial fears

http://www.teamtalk.com/football/story/0,16368,2483_4260416,00.html

West Ham have moved to play down concerns the club will be adversely affected by Icelandic bank Landsbanki going into administration.



The Iceland government took control of Landsbanki, the country's second biggest bank, in order to stop it collapsing.

Hammers chairman Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson is a major shareholder in the bank and chaired the company until he was sacked on Tuesday.

Now chief executive Scott Duxbury and vice chairman Asgeir Fridgeirsson have both moved to ease fears there may be repercussions for the Upton Park club.

Duxbury said last night: "The position of Landsbanki has absolutely no effect on West Ham United and Mr Gudmundsson's ownership of the club.

"Mr Gudmundsson is an investor with a large portfolio, of which Landsbanki was just part. He remains as committed as ever to West Ham United and is not looking to sell the club."

Duxbury told the club's official website: "As has previously been stated, Mr Gudmundsson has invested £40million net in the playing squad to create a squad capable of challenging in the top half of the Premier League.

"Since his appointment, Gianfranco Zola has made it quite clear that his first-team squad is too large and needs to be reduced so he can effectively coach the team.

"Once this has happened and if the manager requires further players, then the club will acquire them.

"Mr Gudmundsson remains fully committed to the success of this football club and building on the excellent start made by Gianfranco Zola."

Fridgeirsson backed up Duxbury, saying: "The government has claimed shares in the company which means that the government has claimed control. That means basically that we have lost it," he told Sky Sports News.

"I don't think there's any reason to be too pessimistic. West Ham United is a wonderful club and a well-run company.

"This investment was very important for him, but not his only one.

"It is, of course, a blow for him and his financial strength, but he himself has a number of other investments that are doing quite well at the moment so there is no reason to fear that he will not honour his commitment to West Ham football club.

"He (Gudmundsson) is not absolutely sure how this will directly affect him, but one thing he is sure of is that this will have no implications on the other investments of him and his family."

Last month the Hammers were left with a potential £5million shortfall after the club's shirt sponsor, XL, went bust.

Then, two weeks ago, an independent tribunal ruled against West Ham in the Carlos Tevez transfer affair, leaving them liable to a £30million compensation claim.

The club have since revealed they intend to appeal against that decision.

Newspaper reports last weekend suggested that Indian billionaire Anil Ambani is poised to make a bid for the club.

Fridgeirsson admitted several parties were interested in buying the club, but said Gudmundsson had no plans to sell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,505 Posts
actually agree with fifa and uefa for once about something...there needs to be some kind of regulation especially if clubs are going to be run with massive debts or as playthings for billionaires. it creates a false economy which in the future should they decide to put their cash elsewhere, or if clubs got into difficulty and couldn't be bailed out would devastate the entire game.
Thanks to the cash that is floating around the game and because of the way football is perceived as a money rich, flash sport there wouldn't be anybody bailing football clubs out. such laws or regulations are as much aimed towards safeguarding the futute of the game and the existence of the the club( and other clubs) we love.
at present we are only genrally seeing the good things massive amounts of cash can do...at some point we are going to see the negative effects hit home big time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,547 Posts
Paying players 120k a week or more when you got a huge dept. Is that fair? Clubs with depts should have a limit of what they can spend. Maybe they shouldnt be allowed to spend more then they pay off the dept during the same year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
Also there have been quite a few empty seats at recent matches - witness the Chelsea and Liverpoool games last week. With the economy tanking I think there'll be lot more of this this season.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,207 Posts
I think this will be a much-needed wake up call for club owers.

If we get through this economic downturn well, I guess the Glazers will be worth their salt and if not.....

Well if not, it could be very bad news. very bad. So bad, I don't even want to think about it.

I guess it will be a battle of philosophies.

Prudent management versus gung-ho chivalry 'must win at all cost" mentality.

Anybody remember Leeds? Or in Germany clubs like Eintracht frankfurt and Borrusia Dortmund.

The problem is that clubs like Chelsea and Madrid upped the game, but if there is any sort of pro-longed recession, the clubs with prudent money management will prevail.

Even without recession, UEFA (PLatini) are thinking about penalizing clubs with huge debts. From my point of view, it was getting out of hand.
 

·
Smeghead Moderator
Joined
·
13,664 Posts
SALFORD RED said:
with Liverpool, Chelsea and Manchester United believed to account for a third of that £3bn debt.
I wonder where they get their figures from. I was watching NW Tonight last night and they were saying that, according to Deloitte, the approximate debt figures are...

United - £750m
Chelsea - £730m
Liverpool - £300m
Arsenal - £200m

(They did give more precise figures but I can not remember them)

...so that's close to £2billion for just those 4 clubs.

However, Chelsea's is a 'soft debt' because it is owed to the owner, Roman Abramovich, and not a bank or other loan company.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,329 Posts
reddwarf said:
I wonder where they get their figures from. I was watching NW Tonight last night and they were saying that, according to Deloitte, the approximate debt figures are...

United - £750m
Chelsea - £730m
Liverpool - £300m
Arsenal - £200m

(They did give more precise figures but I can not remember them)

...so that's close to £2billion for just those 4 clubs.

However, Chelsea's is a 'soft debt' because it is owed to the owner, Roman Abramovich, and not a bank or other loan company.
the arses debt due to the emirates?
**looks for thread that wenger says clubs in debt should be banned from CL***
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,207 Posts
Let's hope they're telling the truth. Then again what else are they supposed to say?

United swerve credit crunch

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_4264966,00.html

Red Devils remain financially secure



Manchester United's American owners insist the club will not be affected by the credit crunch.

The financial meltdown currently affecting the global economy has already begun to infiltrate the football world, with clubs feeling the pinch after years of over-spending.

Billionaire chiefs such as Chelsea's Roman Abramovich and Manchester City's Abu Dhabi United Group can handle the cash catastrophe, but there were fears that United may struggle.

The club remains £660million in debt following the Glazers' 2005 takeover, but continue to generate enormous revenue around the world.

A refinancing package in 2006 has helped the club to manage their debt and a spokesman for the Glazer family has played down concerns regarding the club's financial health.
Growth

"The credit crunch is not having a negative bearing on United," they said.

"We continue to benefit from the sell-out of Old Trafford and the growth in commercial operations.

"We refinanced back in 2006 and that structure provides long-term stability. The debt continues to be comfortably serviced by the club's strong growth in cash flow."

United's shirt sponsors, AIG, have been hit by the credit crunch in the States, with their future remaining unclear.

However, United insist the £14million-a-year deal with the American Insurance Group represents only a small percentage of their revenue stream.

The club remain confident that they could strike a lucrative deal elsewhere should the AIG contract fall through, while they have recently struck a commercial deal with Saudi Telecom and extended their link with Budweiser.
 

·
Smeghead Moderator
Joined
·
13,664 Posts
burnzy1987 said:
the arses debt due to the emirates?
**looks for thread that wenger says clubs in debt should be banned from CL***
Yeah, it is.

If Liverpool already owe £300m and they have had to put their stadium plans on hold because of the credit crunch you have to wonder how much debt they will be in once the stadium has been built.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Levels of Debt for Premiersp Clubs.


Arsenal -268.2 million
Aston Villa - 63.2
Blackburn - 20.1
Bolton - 43
Chelsea - 619.6 (owed directly to Abramovich)
Everton - 26.4
Fulham - 181.7
Hull City 1.1
Liverpool - 350
Man City - 103.2
Man Utd - 604
Middlesbrough - 84.6
Newcastle - 69.7
Portsmouth - 30.8
Stoke - 2
Sunderland - 52.6
Tottenham - 17.2
West Brom - 4.1
West Ham - 141
Wigan 53.7

The F.A - 400 :eek: ( never knew that ).

All in millions.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,207 Posts
There are a couple of figures that strike me.

Compared to the value of Manchester United, the debt figure of 600million does not seem as staggering to me as for example Liverpool's 350m debt and Fulham's 181m debt.

Fulham's debt seems like a HUGE figure to me and I would be more worried being a Fulham fan with a 180m debt than right now as a Man Utd fan with the club having a 600m debt.

Hull looks to be in good financial health. You have to admire them .

The FA should go into receivership and administered by ppl with brains :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,336 Posts
RedForceRising said:
There are a couple of figures that strike me.

Compared to the value of Manchester United, the debt figure of 600million does not seem as staggering to me as for example Liverpool's 350m debt and Fulham's 181m debt.

Fulham's debt seems like a HUGE figure to me and I would be more worried being a Fulham fan with a 180m debt than right now as a Man Utd fan with the club having a 600m debt.

Hull looks to be in good financial health. You have to admire them .

The FA should go into receivership and administered by ppl with brains :D
I agree. A club like Fulham having a 180m debt is a bit worrying in all honesty.

It makes sense though that the promoted clubs have the least amount of debt, but if they stay in the Premiership, that debt will probably increase slightly as they may end up splashing the cash to try to get into the mid-table/challenging for European position.

But hopefully your last point happens! :D
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top