Skip to main content

Football's debt kings

The authoritative Swiss Ramble looks at football club debt, noting that it is a complicated subject becaue of different definitions and standards.  

I would add that it is important to note that many businesses run on debt.  For example, I am familiar with the agricultural sector and most farm businesses have an overdraft and various kinds of loans.   The important consideration with debt is whether it can be serviced.

Tottenham Hotspur had the highest gross debt in England as at end of 2018/19 season with £658m (to fund the new stadium), followed by Manchester United £511m (Glazers’ leveraged buy-out), Arsenal £211m (remaining Emirates stadium mortgage) and Liverpool £129m (Anfield main stand expansion).

Because of cash balances four of the Big Six had net debt below £100m: Liverpool £91m, Chelsea £43m and Arsenal £42m, while Manchester City even had net funds of £57m. That left two clubs with hefty net debt: Tottenham Hotspur £534m and Manchester United £204m. Despite all their refinancings Manchester United gross debt has remained around £500m.

Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United have the highest net debt in Europe, followed by two Italian clubs at just over £400m: Juventus and Inter.

One way of looking at debt is to express it as a multiple of annual revenue. Using the UEFA definition of net debt, most of the Big Six have very low multiples: Chelsea 0.1, Arsenal 0.2 and Liverpool 0.3 (and Manchester City have net funds). The highest multiples are Tottenham Hotspur 1.3 and Manchester United 0.6.

Another interesting ratio is debt to long-term assets, as these assets are often used as security for debt and funded by that debt. Here, a low multiple is good, so advantage Manchester City (net funds), Arsenal 0.1 and Chelsea 0.1. Tottenham Hotspur look a bit better here, due to the value of the new stadium.

While it is important to be able to ultimately pay off debt, the ability to service interest expenses is absolutely crucial, as seen by interest coverage (cash flow/interest paid). The lowest (worst) ratios here are Tottenham Hotspur 6.5 and Arsenal 6.9, but neither are particularly worrying.

If we add dividends to interest, the ratio worsens at Manchester United to 4.4, as they have to make a total of £42m payments every year (£19m interest plus £23m dividends). Regardless of the club’s ability to cover this expense, the club’s fans would prefer this to be spent on the squad.

Of course, the debt situation will have worsened since these figures were published due to COVID, as clubs have had to take out additional loans, e.g. Spurs have borrowed £175m at 0.5% from the government, while Manchester United have drawn down £140m of their revolving credit facility.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wolves get raw deal from FFP

  I used to see a lifelong Wolves fan for lunch once a month.   He was approaching ninety, but still went to games.   Sadly he passed away the other week. As football finance guru Kieran Maguire has noted, Wolves continue to be constrained by financial fair play rules.  Radio 4 this morning described them as this year's 'crisis club' and the pessimists have certainly been piling in. Martin Samuel wrote sympathetically in the Sunday Times yesterday, saying that the Premier League drives talent away with regulatory red tape: 'Why could Al-Hilal sign Neves? Because Wolves needed the money. And why did Wolves need the money? Because the club had to comply with an artificial construct known as financial fair play. So Wolves are going skint, yes? No. There is no suggestion that Wolves are in financial trouble, only that they are failing to meet the rigours of FFP. Wolves’ owners appear to have the money to run the club, and invest in the club, and in fact came up with a pow

Gold standard ground boosts Tottenham's income

The gold standard in European football grounds is the Tottenham Hotspur stadium in north London, a £1bn construction project completed in 2019. Its impact on the club’s finances has become increasingly clear as the effects of the pandemic have faded. Previously, the average fan would spend less than £2 inside the ground on a typical match day, but now that figure is about £16, thanks to new facilities including the longest bar in Europe and an on-site microbrewery. Capacity has gone up from 36,000 at the club’s previous home of White Hart Lane to 62,000.  The new stadium — built on land adjacent to White Hart Lane — has opened the door to a broad range of other events that have helped to push commercial income up from €117mn in 2018 to €215mn in 2022. Last year, Tottenham hosted US singer Beyoncé for five nights on her global Renaissance tour, two NFL matches, as well as rugby games and heavyweight boxing bouts.  Money brought in from football has gone up too. Match day income is

Charlton takeover approved

The long awaited takeover of Charlton Athletic by SE7 Partners from Thomas Sandgaard has been approved:  https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/se7-partners-obtain-efl-approval-for-charlton-athletic-takeover/ Charlton have had unhappy experiences with owners for over a decade, so how this works out will remain to be seen.  There is certainly potential there, but will it be realised? This interview with Charlie Methven gives detail not available elsewhere:  https://thecharltondossier.com/charlie-methven-on-the-record/