Skip to main content

Arsenal will stay within FFP rules - just

Arsenal fans will be delighted with the team’s good start to the season, so are probably unconcerned about the financial implications of their player recruitment, but it is maybe worth looking at whether there will be any issues with Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations.  The analysis is provided by the Swiss Ramble.

As it stands, Arsenal have spent a hefty £270m gross on transfers in the last two seasons, only surpassed by Chelsea £288m, but ahead of the other top six clubs.  Even more incredibly, net transfer spend of £218m is the highest of the Big Six in the last two seasons, just ahead of Chelsea £217m. That is a fairly remarkable statistic for a club that has not competed in the lucrative Champions League since 2017.

In fact, after many frugal years, Arsenal have been big spenders for a while. In the 5 years to 2021 (most recent published accounts), they had £626m gross transfer spend, which was almost double the preceding 5-year period and 4th highest in the Premier League (ahead of Liverpool).

Like other clubs, spending is restricted by the Premier League Profitability and Sustainability (P&S) rules, which allow a £5m loss a year, boosted by £30m equity injection, giving allowable losses of £35m a year. That makes £105m over the 3-year monitoring period.

It is worth noting that the Premier League has relaxed the regulations to neutralise the adverse impact of COVID, so the 2022 monitoring period assessed the seasons 2019/20 and 2020/21 as a single (average) period.    This is important, as it allowed the club to include £70m profit from 2017/18. On this basis, the pre-tax loss over the adjusted 3-year monitoring period up to 2020/21 (the last published accounts) was “only” £53m, which was £52m better than the P&S maximum allowable loss of £105m.

In addition, Arsenal can make a £93m adjustment for “healthy” expenditure (depreciation £48m, youth development £30m, women’s football £9m and community £6m), giving a P&S profit of £41m, i.e. £146m better than the £105m allowable loss.

The £53m pre-tax loss over the 3-year monitoring period was improved by £93m allowable deductions and £60m COVID impact (reduced by £6m property income) to give £95m adjusted P&S profit. This was £200m better than the £105m permitted loss, a comfortable buffer.

The net result of transfer activity in the last two years is a small £3m cost increase in accounts, with player purchases growing the cost base by £103m, mitigated by £100m reduction from sales. This will be more than offset by £39m profit on player sales (including loan fees).

That said, the club need to manage their player trading well, as they now regularly post operating losses, as high as £91m in 2020/21. Although it is true that most football clubs lose money at an operating level, Arsenal’s loss was one of the worst in the top flight.

Despite rising by £84m since 2012, #AFC commercial growth in the last 10 years is the lowest of the Big Six, so their £136m in 2021 was far behind the top 3, especially Man City £272m, and is actually below Spurs £152m.

Putting all his estimates together would give a £106m pre-tax loss for in 2021/22, as higher revenue following the return of fans to the stadium is offset by higher expenses. The loss is however lower than 2020/21, due to more profit on player sales and much lower interest.

Even with the forecast losses, the club should just about be OK under the Premier League P&S rules, though the margin of safety would fall to only £10m. Arsenal clearly have to box clever to meet FFP targets, but it looks like they have managed to do so (based on these assumptions).

That said, UEFA’s FFP rules are stricter than the Premier League with the allowable losses (“acceptable deviation”) over 3 years being only €30m (including €25m equity contribution), though this will increase to €90m from 2024 (i.e. including 2022/23 as the 3rd year).

Even if Arsenal are fine for FFP, the question remains how they have funded the player purchases, despite revenue falling due to the impact of COVID and not playing in Europe. The club has managed to do this in a number of ways, basically debt and using cash balance.

Gross debt was unchanged in 2021 at £218m, though bonds were redeemed and replaced by a loan from Stan Kroenke, meaning lower interest payments and freeing up a £27m debt service reserve. Club also took out a cheap £120m COVID Bank of England loan, but this has been repaid.

Arsenal have had to show some fancy footwork off the pitch to remain competitive during their extended Champions League absence, especially after being hit particularly hard by COVID, but they would appear to have just about managed to do so while still complying with FFP rules.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Threat of financial calamity removed from Baggies

West Bromwich Albion had effectively been in decline ever since the club was sold to a Chinese consortium in August 2016, paying a figure north of £200m to buy former owner Jeremy Peace’s stake. Controlling shareholder Guochuan Lai’s ownership was fairly disastrous for the club, but his unloved tenure finally came to an end after Bilkul Football WBA, a company ultimately owned by Florida-based entrepreneur Shilen Patel and his father Dr Kiran Patel, acquired an 87.8% shareholding in West Bromwich Albion Group Limited, the parent company of West Bromwich Albion Football Club. This change in ownership was urgently required, due to the numerous financial problems facing West Brom, including growing high-interest debt and serious cash flow concerns, following years of no investment from the former owner. Indeed, West Brom’s auditors had already rung the alarm bell in the 2021/22 accounts when they cast doubt on the club’s ability to continue as a going concern without making player s

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

Spurs to sell minority stake

Tottenham Hotspur is in talks to sell a minority stake in a deal that could value it at up to £3.75 billion and pave the way for Joe Lewis and his family to sever ties with the Premier League football club. Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy is seeking an investment that values the club at between £3.5 billion and £3.75 billion, including debt. While the terms of any deal have not been finalised, City sources expect Spurs to sell about 10 per cent. The club is being advised by bankers from Rothschild on the sale. Tottenham wants to raise fresh capital for new player signings and to help fund the development of an academy for its women’s team, as well as a 30-storey hotel next to its north London stadium. The financier Amanda Staveley, who brokered the deal for Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund to take over Newcastle United, is understood to be among the parties to have expressed an interest in Tottenham. Staveley’s fund, PCP Capital Partners, has raised about £500 million to depl