Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Liverpool Finances for 2007 released  (Read 1055 times)
Stephen
Full Member
***

Reputation Power: 2
Stephen has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 141



View Profile
« on: May 23, 2008, 03:37:11 PM »

So 10 months on from the last year end we finally get to see what the state of the clubs finances were at the time of the takeover. It offers us a mixed bag. The headline figures make rather poor reading however there are some positives to show from them. Whether these positives will continue remain to be seen.

Key Figures

                                                                   2007       2006      % Change
Turnover                                                       133,910   119,499  12%
Cost of Sales                                                   16,417   12,803    28.2%
Admin Expenses                                              143,160   117,324  22%
Loss Before Tax                                               21,655    4,931     339%
Net External Debt                                             43,868   25,617    71.2%
Cashflow from Operating Activites                        39,996   22,142   80.6%
Gross Transfer Expenditure                                 69,972   41,753   67.6%

They make strong reading don’t they? There are reasons behind these set of results. As you all know 2007 was a difficult year for LFC off the pitch. It started with the saga over who would buy the club. And it ended with the saga of who would buy the club. While in between there was the ray of sunshine that came into all our lives of one Mr Fernando Torres (stop bouncing at the back)

Turnover

This is broken down as thus

                       2007     2006      % Change
Media               52,161   49,753    4.8%
Matchday          38,442   32,654   17.8%
Commercial        41,794   35,559   17.5%
Museum & OSC   1,513     1,533    (1.3%)

As can be seen from above, apart from the Museum & OSC, healthy rises in revenue were enjoyed. The increased Media comes from the advancement to the Final of the European Cup. The matchday turnover increased as a result of 2 extra home games in the european cup knock-out stages compared to the previous season. Commercial increased both as a result of increased bonuses for the final appearance and increased merchandise sales, this was the first year of Adidas supplying the kits/training gear.

Admin Expenses

                                                        2007    2006        % Change
Staff Costs                                        77,589   68,868     12.7%
Amortisation of Players Registrations       31,121   25,231     23.3%
Impairment on Players Registrations          2,005    5,250     (61.8%)
Other Operating Charges                      16,991    14,617     16.24%

As a result of the takeover, and the subsequent redesign of the planned new stadium, a couple of exceptional items went through the clubs accounts. The first was a complete writeoff of all costs that were capitalised to the balance sheet with regards to the original stadium design and it’s associated planning permission. This came to £10,323,000. There was also the direct cost of the takeover. There were professional fees of £2,037,000 incurred aswell as a rather sickening bonus of £564,000 (pre-tax) for Rick Parry. This meant that the results stated are distorted by £13m. Had this not taken place the club would have been looking at a loss of approx £8.7m. Still higher than 2006, but entirely manageable in the short term.

Staff costs have increased because of two reasons. One is the general increase due to contract renewals during the period. Players signed on higher contracts than those players departing and also because there is an ongoing legal case on employment taxes and a provision has been made for the potential liabilitiy. This is an unknown but may be related to either the VAT issues that Newcastle were having with the HMRC or it maybe related to similar issues Arsenal were having with regards to tax status of players and where they are registered.

The amortisation of players registrations increased as a result of increased investment in playing staff, while the impairment charge relates to a writedown of the value of Gabriel Palleta prior to his transfer out of the club.

There was also an amount of £3.8m capitalised to the balance sheet relating to the revised stadium designs.

Net Debt

This increased markedly over the year. This was a result of the increased levels of capital expenditure in the reporting period. £54.4m of net capital expenditure occurred while there was only £40m of operating cashflows to pay for it. The £54.4m is made up of £46.1m outflow for transfer fees and £8.3m of expenditure to purchase fixed assets (likely to relate to land purchases and expenditure on the 2nd set of stadium designs).

There was also an intercompany loan made from Kop Football (Holdings) Limited to LFC. This was used to repay the loan obtained from David Moores for the purchase of Dirk Kuyt.

After the year end LFC received funds totalling £51.7m to repay existing due borrowings and to provide working capital. This is likely to be in the form of a loan but it has an advantage of clearing the clubs rather sizeable overdraft (£37.7m). Kop Football (Holdings) Limited also paid, on behalf of LFC, £1.3m in relation to the new stadium.

There is also upto £35m outstanding on transfer fees to other clubs. This is predominantly to european clubs and likely relate to the transfers of Torres and Babel.

Contingent Assets/Liabilities

If certain conditions are met the club has potential income of £8.6m and potential expenditure of £7.4m on transfer fees.

Transfer Expenditure

The one area that causes the biggest debate. Every year we have fans complaining about the amount of money spent on players and every year they get it wrong, massively. These are the true figures for the last 3 financial years.

(figures in £000s)
Financial Year Ending       2007      2006       2005
Purchases                     69,972    41,753    46,106
Sales                           25,946     16,838    13,162
Net Transfer Activity      44,026      24,915   32,944

Note, 2007’s Figures include the Dirk Kuyt transfer which took place in August 2006 and came to approx £10m.

Since the end of the financial year Javier Mascherano Martin Skrtel, Sebastian Leto, Charles Itandje, Emiliano Insua and Damien Plessis have been brought into the club on a permanent basis. All of this excluding Javier Mascherano resulted in transfer fees payable of £10.9m. Add in Mascherano at an estimated minimum of £10m gives a gross outlay of £20.9m since the 31 July 2007. Also Momo Sissoko and Palleta have both left the club, Palleta for £0.5m and Sissoko for a reported £9m. Leaving net spending at approx £11.4m since 31 July 2007.

The Immediate Future

The immediate future is now difficult to predict, will we be sold again or won’t we. Will the stadium go ahead or not, can the club afford the debt repayments it may be asked to pay? So many questions so little answers. There is only a limited area of certainty.

1) The latest Premier League tv deal. This will increase league media revenues by approx £15m, as a result the club is looking at breaking the £150m turnover mark this current financial year.

2) The increased sponsorship revenue from Carlsberg which adds around £2m a season to existing revenues.

3) The supporter pet hate, increased ticket prices. These will generate approx £2m to £3m a season to revenues.

4) This financial year there won’t be the large £10.3m exceptional writeoff, nor will there be the takeover costs (unless something happens in the next 10 weeks)

These 4 items alone generate a swing of approx £30m in profit, although interest costs and any increased staff costs will not be known for a year.

From midway this latest financial year LFC also took complete control of LFC.tv Limited. This will double the share of turnover/profit generated from it’s activities.

Benchmarking against our rivals

This time I thought I would do a benchmark against our 3 main rivals at the top, Chelsea, Man Utd and Arsenal. I do this because this is another area of mass debate, and low knowledge, to beat the Moores/Parry regime. With this I aim to show how the top 4 compare in the revenue, core costs (player amortisation and wages) and transfer expenditure stakes.

The figures relate to the season 2006/07 and are taken from the published accounts of all 4 clubs. There is a slight difference in accounting reference dates but I believe these are insignificant. The figures also relate to footballing activity only (arsenal have a property development going on at present, chelsea have the hotel etc)

(in £000s unless stated)
                                               Liverpool  Man Utd  Chelsea   Arsenal
Turnover                                    133,910  210,081   177,109  176,507
Media                                          52,161   61,484    Not Avail 44,312
Matchday                                     38,442   92,562   Not Avail  90,613
Commercial                                   41,794   56,035   Not Avail 41,582
Amortisation of Player Registrations   33,126   24,252    69,968   18,782
Staff Wages                                  77,589   91,588    122,779 89,703
Staff Wages as % of Turnover           57.9%   43.6%     69.3%   50.8%
Gross Transfer Expenditure               69,972   78,998    26,802   17,585
Net Transfer Expenditure                  44,026   61,718    5,202   (1,569)

As you can see matchday revenue is what I consider the most glaring difference between our performance and that of Arsenal and Manchester United (unfortunately Chelsea didn’t do a segmental report on turnover). We are currently in excess of £50m behind in turnover from matchday revenues. That is a hell of a way to be behind and it is because of one factor. Anfield. It is too small and too poorly equiped for corporates to generate the sort of revnues Arsenal and Manchester United make. It is why a new stadium, from a financial point of view, is a must. The other areas are relatively insignificant. The media is down to positions in the league, the higher you are the more money you get. This then feeds through to the tv money received from UEFA.

Our commercial v that of Uniteds stems from an approx £4m difference in kit sponsorhip value and the shirt sponsorship being around £9m below that of Uniteds at the time.

Comparing against Arsenal shows we lack only in matchday revenues, while commercial activity is slightly distorted from Arsenal due to the £3m a year they get for stadium sponsorship that neither us nor Chelsea/Man Utd get.

You will also see that we only trailed Manchester United in both Gross and Net Transfer Expenditure in the financial year.

© Tim Moore
   

Jim B
Just me
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****

Reputation Power: 4
Jim B has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2008, 05:39:32 PM »

Thanks for posting that Stephen, I've read it a couple of times, not as slowly as I'd like, but it shows a hell of a lot.

It's a pity the cut-off is July 31st 2007, because what happened after that is probably just as interesting if not more so.

The original poster (Tim from RAWK) has answered few more questions put to him on the original post, if anyone's interested:
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=220943.0
Stephen
Full Member
***

Reputation Power: 2
Stephen has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 141



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2008, 06:13:07 PM »

The comparisons with the other clubs are interesting.

Major points to note are obviously

1). the shortfall in matchday revenue over £50m to Arsenal and Man Utd.
2) Wages - I was a little surprised that our staff costs are so much less than Arsenal considering their wage structure.
3). Commercial Revenue - we actually fair better than I expected here. Level with Arsenal and only £15m behind Man Utd. Considering their massive deals with Nike and AIG we must be making good enough revenues elsewhere as I understand that our Adidas and Carlsberg are nowhere near that level.

But stadium is obviously the key to success (i.e money)

martin
Hero Member
*****

Reputation Power: 7
martin has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 550



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2008, 06:15:07 PM »

Blimey! Thanks for posting that Stephen. I'll have to admit that after a very hard day at work involving financial figures left right and centre the last thing I want to read is another bunch of similar figures, let alone piecign together the ramifications of it all! But a refreshed Martin will make more sense of them over the weekend.

As Jim says it would be even more interesting to see the figures past the quoted cut off date and understand them too. I guess the figures I personally would be most interested in seeing are the significance of the loans and how much LFC is actually paying towards them at present.

Great post though.

Simplistically speaking I don't see any reason why based on precedent technically we shouldn't have more money to spend on players than we ever have. This is of course completely disregarding the implications of the methods used to purchase the club and the costs associated with designing the stadium etc. A pretty huge thing to disregard I know!
Jim B
Just me
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****

Reputation Power: 4
Jim B has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2008, 06:26:21 PM »

The comparisons with the other clubs are interesting.

Major points to note are obviously

1). the shortfall in matchday revenue over £50m to Arsenal and Man Utd.
2) Wages - I was a little surprised that our staff costs are so much less than Arsenal considering their wage structure.
3). Commercial Revenue - we actually fair better than I expected here. Level with Arsenal and only £15m behind Man Utd. Considering their massive deals with Nike and AIG we must be making good enough revenues elsewhere as I understand that our Adidas and Carlsberg are nowhere near that level.

But stadium is obviously the key to success (i.e money)



The Adidas deal is quite recent but due for renegotiation quite soon (Man U are tied in with Nike for a good few years to come). The Carlsberg deal is awful, way under the level we should be getting.
Stephen
Full Member
***

Reputation Power: 2
Stephen has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 141



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2008, 07:09:23 PM »

Jim, am I right in thinking that the Adidas deal is still in fact the Reebok deal? I understood it that when Adidas bought Reebok they decided that the Adidas breand is more suited to football and Reebok to american sports so they took over the Reebok contract with Liverpool without us actually receiving anymore money?
Julie
Newbie
*

Reputation Power: 1
Julie has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


They look like the two happiest kids in the world


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2008, 07:35:12 PM »

Stephen,
Thanks for posting this. It sure makes for sobering reading. The two things that jump out at me are Rick Perry's sizable bonus for negotiating the sale of the club (maybe he can use that money to keep him company when he's out of a job – it's just so ironic) and, as you point out, the discrepancy in match-day revenues. Anfield generates half what the Emirates does and that's never going to improve until the new stadium is built and fully operational (best case scenario, another three years, but the reality may prove to be even longer).
The other disturbing figure is the cost of scrapping the draft stadium plans, and just how much money was wasted there – that's the cost of a transfer fee of a more-than-decent player that's been tossed into the recycling bin!
Jim B
Just me
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****

Reputation Power: 4
Jim B has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2008, 08:35:44 PM »

Stephen, not sure what happened in the end with Reebok. We were due to face them in court in a dispute over £7m, but there's after a quick search there's no sign of what the outcome was. The case was due to take place in May last year from what I can gather, so the outcome could have been buried to some extent because of other events that month.

The fact we were seeing them in court suggests the deal with Adidas was totally separate.
I am The Egg Man
Sr. Member
****

Reputation Power: 5
I am The Egg Man has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


Oop's I've popped out!!!!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2008, 08:39:34 PM »

@Jim, I think that the case was settled out of court, with LFC getting a fraction of the disputed amount.
I am The Egg Man
Sr. Member
****

Reputation Power: 5
I am The Egg Man has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


Oop's I've popped out!!!!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2008, 08:51:53 PM »

@Jim, I think that the case was settled out of court, with LFC getting a fraction of the disputed amount.  I have looked on the internet for the story but I can only find storys from 2006 when the story first broke.  I am sure I read in the Echo they settled out of court to save alot of time and hasle.
Jim B
Just me
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****

Reputation Power: 4
Jim B has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2008, 09:04:51 PM »

Thanks Egg. I can only assume it was settled out of court in the end.

The Carlsberg deal began summer 2007, runs for 3 years, worth around £8m a year. Ends summer 2010.

Finally found something on the current Adidas situation:

Quote
World brand to match the club
 
The adidas deal has finally gone through which means we will have a new name on our kit from next season.
 
We had a long and successful relationship with adidas in the Eighties and Nineties. We are excited to be back with them because they are a fantastic football brand with a worldwide reputation.
 
It will be exciting for us going forwards although it's not a new deal with different rewards at this point. Adidas have taken over Reebok and our arrangement remains in place until 2009.
 
However, we are aware of the status of adidas in the business. They will be very good for us.
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG151569060224-0847.htm

So we've another year to run, but I've no idea who got the £7m!
Stephen
Full Member
***

Reputation Power: 2
Stephen has no influence.
Offline Offline

Posts: 141



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2008, 12:43:02 AM »

Thanks for that. So it seems that in 2009 we will be in a good position to negotiate a proper deal with a kit manufacturer. I remember at the time of the Reebok deal that it paled in significance to the deal Man Utd made with Nike. Adidas have gotten a very good deal with us over the last three seasons so we need to make more of these opportunities in the future.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print