Thursday 23 April 2009

What have Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd done to our game?


Everyone remembers those newsreels of 1930's football crowds with 80,000 happy souls shoe horned into a ground to watch Blackpool and Preston North End play a cup game. Some things stand out in those images, firstly that never in modern day life will there be so much Brillcream in one place, there is no way the guys in the middle had their feet in contact with the ground, just how long was the line for the bogs at half time, and what happened to all those football rattles?

These days the average fan needs to trade in those old clackers for calculators. This week during the anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster Tom Hicks, the co-owner of Liverpool FC, defaulted on a $10M payment on a $525M loan for his American sports interests, the Dallas Stars ice hockey team and the Texas Rangers baseball team. Bloomberg states that this default came about because the teams in question could not meet their operating cost and pay down the debt at the same time. Hick maintains that this is in fact a negotiating tactic with the banks to get them to refinace the loan in reasonable terms.

Now feel free to try and negotiate with your mortgage lender by not paying them and see how long before you’re dossing in a doorway in Charring Cross. The loan was already tenuous, spread as it is between a consortium of some 40 banks. Now this form of borrowing, which was first seen in a major way when Rupert Murdoch scrambled to save his media empire in the late 80s early 90s, does work but only if there is a considerable and realisable amount of assets to secure it against. In Murdoch’s case, there were parts of his empire that could be sold off if any trouble meeting a payment was seen coming. The problem with a sports team is you can’t really sell off a part of it. You can’t sell one stand, the back four and the dressing rooms to fund the rest of the club.

Hicks has stated that he will fund the teams himself should they have any difficulty in meeting their operating costs until such time as new finance can be put in place. It may be half a world away from Stanley Park but what happens in Texas will provide a big insight into the future fate of Liverpool FC. At the start of last year Hicks and Gillette quietly removed the personal assets that they had secured the loan to buy the club with. This does not mean that they felt the club would fail or the assets would be called in by the club’s lenders, its more likely they were needed to shore up other businesses in their respective empires. They may well have felt they could weather the storm elsewhere and put the assets back before the deadline to refinance LFC fell due in January 09. They couldn’t and they didn’t.

Instead the banks RBS and Wachovia (which is also one of the lenders that Hicks defaulted on in the US this week) were asked to refinance the club (at this stage the plans for a new stadium were well and truly off the table) with only the club’s cashflow and assets as any means of both securing and repaying the loan.. They refused. The only thing that could be agreed was a 6 month extension to provide the necessary security, find another lender, bring in new investors or sell the club. To date, and for various reasons, none of those things has happened.

In August 2010 Malcom Glazier will have to refinance Manchester United’s almost 3 quarters of a billion pounds of debt. Man U are financed by what is called a PIK loan where the principal is not repayed, the interest is merely serviced. Glazier has recently reached an agreement with 3 New York hedge funds (Perry Capital, Och-Ziff and Citadel) whereby, should he fail to be able to refinance, they will assume majority control of the club. No plan has been offered by Glazier at any point as to how the principle, which was £660M last time around, will ever be repaid.

Arsenal have always been held up as a very astute club who had resisted the urge to either go down the route of massive borrowings or throwing open the baordroom doors to the nouveau riche. Their plan involved borrowing to build a new stadium which would generate the cash from ticket sales due to increased capacity to allow them to compete with the biggest clubs in Europe. They would pay off this loan by redeveloping the Highbury site into a mixed used retail, commercial and residential development which, when sold, could pay off the cost of the new stadium (this is a simplified version but I fear I am already risking boring people). The idea was good, the idea would have served as a model for other clubs, if the launch of the new development hadn’t arrived in the middle of the biggest world recession since before the war. Now they have the debt from the new stadium, the debt from the Highbury development and no sign of the profit they had hoped to generate. As of last November, the clubs debts were listed at £320M but these accounts still listed Highbury Square as an asset. Now they face a carve up of the club between Russia (well technically it’s Uzbekistan) and America.

Chelski seemed immune to this, their own pet Russian had bottomless pockets and was happy to throw money at the club like it was going out of fashion. In fact he has thrown about £600M (excluding the purchase price) at the club since he bought it. At the height of his powers he was worth a reputed £12Billion. What he is worth now is really anyone’s guess. According to RIA Novosti, the Russian press agency, his companies have lost $9billion of their value in the collapse of the Russian stock market. It has also been reported that he had to sign over his holdings in North America to he VTB in order to secure $2Billion in financing to shore up his empire. What is known is that he has cut 15 of the clubs scouting staff, forced the players to pay for their meals at the clubs training complex, reduced the number of free tickets given to players to two each and insisted that plans be drawn up to repay the money he has lent the club.

Ultimately who is it that will pay for this? For the greed or vanity of rich men? Easy, I will, so will you, so will every football fan. All of us who have stood in the rain and sang ourselves hoarse, who have gone without to buy our tickets when times were tough and who spent freely in the club shops and hospitality areas when times were good. Man U fans have seen a 42% increase in ticket prices since the Glaziers took over the club. Liverpool fans must look at July and think, what will happen their club. Arsenal must wonder if their squad will be cherry picked by the likes of Real Madrid, Barcalona, or the Milan clubs. Chelsea fans must think what happens if Roman loses interest in the club, there is no way they can possible support themselves without his money.

If Michel Platini gets his way, then clubs will be limited to the amount of their turnover they can spend on transfers and wages, and those who fail to adhere to this would be blocked from entering European competitions. This is not meant to be an attack on the clubs mentioned, nor is it intended to make out that they are the only ones guilty of this, all clubs in their own way mortgage their future for present success. Football is a risk, that’s part of the thrill, that’s what makes you dig deep every summer and buy your season ticket. All fans dream of watching their club win cup finals, or getting into Europe, our hopes and dreams are what tie us to our clubs. But while we dream of success they dream of more money. While we think of cup runs, they think of Asian media rights and global image sales.

To paraphrase the 70's one hit wonder "What have they done to my club ma?"

Submitted By Celtic Hammer

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Poor old Celtic Hammer. In all his years of watching football, every single penny he's ever spent on tickets and on pre-match meals and travel and programmes and drinks and everything else... all combined and in total... does not pay even ONE WEEK'S salary of even one Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea first-team regular.
That's a fact. In a lifetime of football watching, Celtic Hammer's entire and total financial contribution to the game does not pay even one week of Phil Neville's wages.
Yet Celtic Hammer thinks he is qualified to talk about clubs' money matters. He should stick to debating the cost of steak and kidney pies at the local transport cafe down the road from the stadium, rather than writing articles like the one above, full of inaccuracies and regurgitated false information.

A Gooner said...

Your points about Hicks and Gillette and their negotiating with the banks is moot. The first I was taught in economics A-Level (baring in mind I didn't finish the course) was:

If you owe someone £1000 it's your problem. Owe someone £1,000,000? It's THEIR problem.

It's all about insurance and the amount banks would have to write off - in this case very significant amounts to the tune of tens of millions, as opposed to your mortgage default which (minus the insurance payout the bank would receive) would be tens of thousands at the very worst.

CelticHammer said...

Anon before you collapse under the weight of your own smugness go back and read the article again because you couldnt have missed the point more if you tried. I tired to keep the words small but I will check with Hammersfan if I can get my nephew to draw a picture to make it easier for you to understand.
Gooner its obvious you didnt finish economics in fact mate it sounds like you didnt hang around for the star either. If people operated "its the banks problem if I owe them money" we wouldnt have any banks and they would post such massive profits (excluding this year).

Jeremy Sand said...

Celtichammer - I agree that the harsh criticism that comes from the two comment posters so far are ill-thought and unwarranted; yet don't necessarily agree with the retaliatory comments you post - your belittling seems to undermine your own intelligence and undermines what I thought was an eloquently posted article. You fail to mention any other club that is poorly money-managed in the EPL, much less the rest of the British footballing system. Cases could be made that these clubs are also ruining the game. On the flip side, what club would you suggest is saving the game? What is your barometer of good/bad? Obviously domestic success isn't the measuring stick. Or foreign. Obviously it isn't world-wide recognition or notoriety. I certainly agree that the game has changed, but how do we know if it is for the better or worse? What hasn't changed from the times of yore that you remember so fondly? It is not the strongest that survive, and not the most intelligent, but the one that is most responsive to change. Quote to leave you with:
-If you don't like something change it; if you can't change it, change the way you think about it. ~Mary Engelbreit

Football Academy Life said...

Guys, I'm not great at all this economics thing, but I know enough that Hicks and Gillette should sell liverpool to that dubai group of whatever, because their personal problems with banks, will just reflect back onto liverpool and we don't want to see one of the worlds most successful clubs go bankrupt!

Great new football site
www.football-academy-life.com

tc said...

Good article. The point abov these clubs is they are held up as the examples to follow. In fact they are very much like the banks - greedy, unproductive and heading for a fall.

CelticHammer said...

Jeremy I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, the point of any article is to invite debate but people who log on just to slag someone off wihtout adding anythig to the argument just annoy me.

Hotshot C said...

Celtic hammer - that comment was faaaarrrr toooo looonng...:-) and tbh sounds like you live in a fairytale world... I'll give you this, the comment about duxbury stuck in '1980's' made me chuckle... But, curbs laid the foundation along with BG, much like hoddle did at Chelsea.. And I do have slot of time for BG bringing in nani, but 1080's style duxburry also takes some credit... Overall let's not be idealistic about it all, eberyones looking out for their backside (like any other job/ business), the club may yet be owned by banks - not ideal... Who's gonna take he credit for this in your nevernever land? Dux or Curbs?

Anonymous said...

Oh god not again!!!!!......celtic "i want alot of people to think i understand football finance" hammer, is at it again!....have you not learned you jack ass?...i invite everyone to look at a previous thread on here titled "do to arsenal, man u, chelsea, tottenham, liverpool..." this moron celtichammer tries to portray himself as a wealth of knowledge regarding football finance, and attacks spurs in his comments, what follows is hilarious...it ends in debacle with celtichammer laughed and whipped off the thread! check it out.

Hammersfan said...

Anon, stop bleating and send in an article for submission!

CelticHammer said...

anon 17.31 I seem to remember that thread ending with spurs fans being forced to admit they are not a big club and that their record in the premier league is decidely below average.

Anonymous said...

and the only person bringing up the "big club" debate was you!!! how stupid can you get! your ramblings about finance was shown up for what they really where -ramblings-.....so you change the subject.....but anyway, im glad you are continuing your 1 man comedy show. you have a great future!

CelticHammer said...

anon 19.53 feel free to point out any errors in the above post so i can tell you what a muppet you are. You know in all my time as a WestHam I have never once felt compelled to check out a spurs forum or site yet you and your spuds mates cant get enough of this blog and only seem to be able to make pointless smug comments. I feel sorry for the small minority of spurs fans who are decent blokes as they get tarred with the same brush as smug muppets like you. You wonder why so many other fans hate you? I was at Villa last weekend and every single Villa fan was telling us how much they want WestHam to finish above the spuds as the hate spurs fans. I am sure you will blame it on jealousy or anti-semitism but one of the fans I met in the Cap N Gown was jewish and hated how his religion is associated with a club like yours and what would Villa fans have to be jealous of you lot for?

Hammersfan said...

Now be fair Celtic, Villa have not won the League or FA Cup since Tottenham last won them. Mind you, Villa won the League title and Champions League more recently!

CelticHammer said...

Hammersfan I am giving serious thought to writing an article about why I dislike spurs fans! Right now though we have all had some steaks and a few warm up beers and are off to hit the bars in Puerto Banus so hangover permitting I might post something on it tomorrow

Hammersfan said...

Look forward to it mate!

Anonymous said...

I think this is an excellent article Celtic Hammer. There is so much that is true as it could well blow up in the faces of the top 4 clubs. However, isn't the same true of West Ham? The only difference seems to be that BG put West Ham's loans to buy the club, into Hansa - his now bankrupt holding company. As the consortium of bankers have let their intentions to claw back the club in June be known, couldn't West Ham ultimately be saddled with the massive debts of Hansa? It seems West Ham have already increased their borrowings to £50m under BG despite being known as a skint club. Add in the £100m the banks are owed and West Ham is in a similar position as the top 4 surely? Owing as much or more than the club is worth. So why do you profess your undying love for BG?