the swiss ramble_ arsenal's mystery dance

7/27/2019 The Swiss Ramble_ Arsenal's Mystery Dance

1/48

The Swiss Ramble

The Swiss Ramble

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Arsenal's Mystery Dance

So North London remains red after Arsenal put Spurs to the sword with a scintillating comeback in a memorable

derby. This was a performance to give hope to the clubs long-suffering supporters, who have endured a troubled

season to date, as the Gunners have misfired on all too many occasions.

There is s till much to play for, as the victory over their neighbours took Arsenal back into the top four, so they

still have a chance of maintaining their remarkable record of qualifying for the Champions League for 14

Usually

writes about the busines s of

football.

Occasionally I share my

thoughts on

mus ic, books, films , telev

ision,

podcasts and other stuff.

The Swiss Rambler

The Swiss Rambler

A

Brit who has been l iving in

Switzerland for many y

ears, having

found (and married) a Swiss Miss .

During his globetrotting career in the

world of f

inance, he has also lived in

Italy and Sweden.

Vi

ew my

complete profile

About Me

Click to contact me:


2/48

consecutive seasons. However, barring a miraculous comeback against Milan in the last 16 of that tournament, it

will be the seventh year without a trophy a poor return for a club of Arsenals plentiful resources.

Although there have been signs of promise, it is fair to say that overall this has been one of the worst seasons in

recent memory for Arsenal. Eliminated from the Carling Cup by Manchester City and (less understandably) from

the FA Cup by Sunderland, they are currently a massive 17 points behind the leaders in the Premier League and

(whispers) seven points behind Spurs.

"Ground control to M ajor Tom"

They have already suffered eight defeats in the league, most painfully a humiliating 8-2 drubbing by Manchester

United, but also including losses to lesser lights like Blackburn Rovers, Fulham and Swansea. The inconsistency

has been maddening, because at times they have demonstrated their potential, notably during a thrilling 5-3

away win against Chelsea and a 7-1 demolition of Blackburn in the return match.

Much of the blame for the uneven displays can be laid at the feet of last summers activity in the transfer

market, when they lost two of the clubs best players, Cesc Fbregas and Samir Nasri, and replaced them with

inferior talents. The problem was exacerbated by the protracted discussion around these movements, so that the

numerous arrivals in the latter stages of the transfer window resembled footballs version of a supermarket

sweep, rather than any form of coherent strategy.

Even though the likes of Mikel Arteta, Yossi Benayoun, Per Mertesacker, Gervinho, Andr Santos have all had

their moments, none of the new purchases are really the type of player to take Arsenal to the next level with the

possible exception of the g ifted Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, who is one for the future. Certainly, they do not raise

the pulse rate like Mario Gtze, Eden Hazard or Juan Mata, who were all mentioned in dispatches as possible

buys.

Search

Search This Blog

Subscribe To The Swiss Ramble

Posts

Comments

Subscribe to The Swiss Ram ble by

Email

Recent Posts

AC Milan (2)

Ajax (1)

Arsenal (16)

AS Roma (1)

Aston Villa (2)

Atletico Madrid (1)

Barcelona (5)

Bayern Munich (2)

Birmingham City (1)

Blackburn Rovers (1)

Football Clubs


3/48

"Money in the bank"

Even Arsne Wenger admitted that last summer was one of his worst periods as a manager with his plans badly

affected by players leaving for the first time just as they were reaching maturity, though he argued that some of

the last minute buys were also necessary due to the injuries suffered by Jack Wilshere, Thomas V

ermaelen, Abou

Diaby and Kieron Gibbs (though the latter two could hardly have come as a great surprise).

Despite all the new signings, Arsenal yet again managed to make money on the transfer comings and goings ,

something that is difficult for most fans to understand, given the strength of the balance sheet. As they see it,while the squad weakens, the clubs finances continue to prosper. Worse than that, the executive management

seem to be in a state of denial, as shown when chief executive Ivan Gazidis claimed that Manchester City would

love to be in Arsenals position. This seemed a foolish pronouncement at the time, but Gazidis must have cringed

as the reversals at Milan and Sunderland nailed that bizarre claim in a few short days.

Bolton Wanderers (1)

Borussia Dortmund (2)

Brighton and Hove Albion (1)

Bristol City (1)

Cardiff City (1)

Celtic (1)

Charlton Athletic (1)

Chelsea (7)

Derby County (1)

Everton (3)

Fiorentina (1)

Fulham (1)

Genoa (1)

Hearts (1)

Hull City (1)

Inter(2)

Juventus (2)

Lazio (1)

Leeds United (1)

Leicester City (1)

Lille (1)

Liverpool (7)

Lyon (1)

Manchester City (8)

Manchester United (9)

Napoli (1)

Newcastle United (3)

Norwich City (1)

Nottingham Forest (1)Palermo (1)

Paris Saint-Germain (1)

Porto (1)

Portsmouth (1)

PSV Eindhoven (1)

QPR (1)

Reading (1)

Real Madrid (4)


4/48

Eyebrows were further raised when the club proudly announced a thumping great profit of 49.5m for the interim

accounts (covering the six months up to 30 November 2011), which was 55.6 million better than the 6.1 million

loss reported a year ago, though all of the improvement was effectively due to the significantly higher profit on

player sales, which increased by 59 million from 4 million to 63 million (primarily Fbregas, Nasri and Gal

Clichy).

Although turnover from football was up an impressive 16% (or 16 million) from 98 million to 114 million, this

growth was eaten up by an increase in squad investment with wages up 8 million and player amortisation 7

million higher.

As anticipated, there was a slow-down in the property business, where revenue dropped 19 million to 3 million,

though the reduction in profit was much smaller from 3.3 million to 0.6 million.

It should be noted that much of the revenue growth is down to timing, e.g. the increase in match day revenue is

mainly due to four more home games being played than the same period last year. As suming that M ilan complete

the Italian job in the Champions League, then the difference for the full year will be only one match.

Furthermore, not all of a football clubs business is evenly phased, so half-year results can be a little misleading.

That is why much of the rest of this analysis will rely on the annual trends to glean some insight into what is

Schalke 04 (1)

Sheffield United (1)

Southampton (1)

Stoke City (1)

Sunderland (1)

Swansea City (1)

Tottenham Hotspur(6)

Udinese (1)

Valencia (1)

West Bromwich Albion (1)

West Ham (1)

Wigan Athletic (1)

Wolverhampton Wanderers (1)

England (67)

France (3)

Germany(5)Holland (2)

Italy (14)

Portugal (1)

Scotland (2)

Spain (9)

Leagues

Football Association (1)

Premier League (5)

UEFA(3)

UEFA Financial Fair Play (7)

Organisations

2013 (4)

2012 (25)

October(3)

Blog Archive


5/48

happening at Arsenal.

What we can say is that these excellent half-year results continued a record of financial success that is the envy

of most other club chairman. Even though the annual profit before tax fell from an amazing 56 million in 2010 to

15 million in 2011, that is still a very impressive figure for a football club. Arsenals expertise can be evidenced

by two great statistics: (a) the last time that they reported a loss was way back in 2002; (b) in the last four yearsalone, they have accumulated staggering profits of 153 million.

This s ort of business prowess is very much the exception to the norm in the highly demanding world of football,

e.g. in 2010 only four clubs in the Premier League were profitable. However, Ars enals willingness to swim

against the tide is perhaps best shown by comparing their financials against the leading clubs over the last two

seasons.

September(2)

A

ugust (1)

July (2)

June (3)

May(3)

A

pril (3)

March (2)

February (4)

A

rsenal's Mystery Dance

Bayern Munich - Opportunities(Let's Make Lots Of ...

Chelsea - Look Good In Blue?

Shef

field United - BladesRediscov

ering Their Edge...

January(2)

2011 (36)

2010 (53)

2009 (70)

"Blogger of the Year 2011 - A

n expert

in matters of

finance who also

knows a thing or two about football"

The Football Supporters '

Federation

"Essential reading about the

busines s of football, with a depth of

knowledge that makes it stand well

out from the crowd" - The Guardian

"Best Niche Website - gets our v

ote

for shedding light on a topic that is at

once both essential and alie n to the

modern football fan football

finance" - Soccerlens

"Respected football financial

Praise for The Swiss Ramble


6/48

At one end of the s pectrum, we have Arsenals 71 million of profits, which is in stark contrast to the enormous

losses at Manchester City (319 million) and Chelsea (137 million). Liverpool have not yet reported for 2011, but

made a notable loss of 20 million in 2010, while even the fiscally prudent Tottenham registered losses of 6

million. Only Manchester United joined Arsenal in being profitable, as their ability to generate cash more than

compensated for their hefty interest payments in 2011 (though they still made a loss in 2010).

All well and good so far, but this is by no means the whole story at Arsenal, as their profits have been very reliant

on property development and player sales. In these interims, there was little impact from property development,

but without the 63 million profit on player sales, the football club would actually have made a sizeable loss of 14

million, including an operating loss of 7 million.

blogger" BBC

"2011 Web A

wards - Bronze"

When Saturday Comes

"Editor's Choice: Bes t Blog & Best

Blogger" EPL Talk

Books (11)

Films (11)

Football (130)

Music (19)

Podcasts (4)

Radio (2)

Switzerland (3)

Television (7)

Categories

Arsenal

Arsene Wenger

Books

Chelsea

Labels


7/48

In the annual results for 2011, property played a larger role, providing the vast majority (13 million) of the total

15 million profit with only 2 million coming from the football business. Furthermore, if the 6.3 million made

from player sales is excluded, the club made a 4 million loss in the football segment. Even the enormous 56

million 2010 profit would only have been 7 million without 11 million property gains and 38 million player

sales.

This is concerning, as property gains will come to an end at s ome stage, while Arsenal would not wish to be seen

as a s elling club, even though this has been a major reason for their recent profits, e.g. 94 million (or over 60%)

of the 153 million made in the last four years. Thats good business, but it makes it hard to build a winningteam.

Incidentally, the graph above also supports Wengers mysterious quote about the club having to make 15 million

profit each season, as this covers the annual interest payable. As the great man said, We want to pay the debt

back from building the stadium and thats around 15 million, so its normal that at the s tart we have to make

15 million or we lose money.

England

Films

Football

Italy

Iv

an

Gazidis

Liverpool

Manchester City


8/48

"Private Universe"

Although the property development at Highbury Square has not proved to be as lucrative as originally hoped, due

to the market crash, it has generated money for the football club. This peaked in 2010, when revenue was

boosted to the tune of 157 million, though the profit contributed was only 11 million.

Only a few apartments still remain to be sold, but there are other substantial developments at Queensland Road,

Hornsey Road and Holloway Road, which should deliver additional cash, as noted by Gazidis, Our property

business is debt-free, so any new sales of property do accumulate cash, which is very positive for the future.

This could be worth up to 35 million according to an estimate made by the respected Arsenal Supporters Trust

(AST), though is only likely to be booked in the 2012/13 accounts at the earliest.

So, to cut a long story short (as Spandau Ballet once said), Arsenal's financial performance has undoubtedly been

impressive, especially compared to almost every other football club, but they face more challenges than would

seem apparent on firs t glance.

"Meet the new Kos"

There are numerous questions that could be asked, but lets restrict ourselves (Guardian s tyle) to five that would

Manchester United

Music

Spain

Television

UEFA

Financial Fair Play


9/48

probably concern most fans (at least those with an interest in matters of f the pitch):

1. Where will the revenue growth come from?

2. What happens if Arsenal fail to qualify for the Champions League?

3. How much is Arsenals transfer budget?

4. How can the wage bill be so large?

5. Where has all the money gone?

1. Where will revenue growth come from?

On the face of it, Arsenal do not have a revenue problem, as they enjoy the fifth highest revenue in Europe

according to the Deloitte Money League. In England, it is only surpassed by Manchester Uniteds 331 million and

is way ahead of Liverpool 184 million, Tottenham 164 million and Manchester City 153 mi llion.

However, the problem is that the gap to the top four clubs is widening, though that is partly due to exchange ratemovements. The Spanish giants, Real Madrid and Barcelona, generate around 200 million more than Arsenal at

433 million and 407 million respectively. Similarly, Manchester United earn over 100 million more with 331

million, while Bayern Munichs revenue of 290 million is a handy 60 million higher.

Its difficult to compete with these clubs with such a financial disadvantage, especially if you consider that they

receive the benefit of that s ubstantial additional revenue every single season.

101 Great GoalsBack Page Football

European Football Weekends

Ghost Goal

Holding Midfield

Il Tifosi

In Bed With Maradona

Just Football

Les Rosbifs

North Stand Chat

Soccerlens

Sporting Intelligence

The Ball Is Round

The Bli zzard

The Equaliser

The Football Ram ble

The Footy Blog

The Score

The Seventy Two

Three And In

Touchline Views

Transparency in Sport

Twisted Blood

Two Footed Tackle

Two Hundred Percent

Two Unfortunates

When Saturday Comes

Who Ate All The Pi es

World Soccer

Football Links


10/48

The reality is that Arsenals revenue has been essentially flat over the last three seasons at around 225 million,

while other clubs continue to grow their business. In that period, Manchester United, Tottenham and ManchesterCity have all added more than 50 million income, while Chelsea have also earned an additional 19 million. Of

the top six, the only club to have under-performed like Arsenal is Liverpool and even they have actually

delivered impressive commercial gains to compensate for the loss of Champions League football.

Why does this matter? Let Gazidis explain: It is important to remember our business goal is to increase

revenues for ongoing investment in the team. Thats very true, so it is pleasing to see some revenue growth in

the interims, though as we have seen, much of that is purely down to timing.

Zonal Marking

7am Kick Off

A Cultured Left Foot

ANR

Arse 2 Mouse

Arseblog

Arsenal Column

Arsenal FC

Arsenal Truth

Arsenal World

Arsenal Youth

Arsenalinsider

Desi Gunner

East Lower

Gingers For Limpar

Girl who loves the GunnersGoodPlaya

Goonblog

Gooner Talk

Goonerholic

Gunnerblog

Lady Arse

Le Grove

Online Gooner

Stone Cold Arsenal

The Cannon

Toblerone World

Untold Arsenal

Young Guns

Arsenal Links

20 Minuten

Blick

Swiss Links


11/48

On a full year basis, Arsenals only revenue growth since 2009 has come from broadcasting, which rose 12

million from 73 million to 85 million in 2011, as a result of centrally negotiated deals by the Premier League

and UEFA (for the Champions League), so Arsenals board cannot really take any credit for that.

Both of the other revenue categories have declined, most notably match day income from 100 million to 93

million, though this should rise in 2011/12, partly due to the price increase on tickets, partly due to an extra

game. Commercial income has also fallen since 2009 by 2 million to 48 million, though there are some signs in

the interims of the famous five-year plan beginning to deliver, as this surged 15% (3.4 million) from 23.1

million to 26.6 million. However, this is still a fairly low return on the substantial investment in the commercial

team.

As a technical aside, the 2011 revenue of 225.4 million in my analysis above is slightly lower than the 226.8million used by Deloitte, as they include the joint venture turnover of 2.2 million, but exclude player loans of

0.7 million.

Brit Shop

Cheese Club

English Forum

Expat in CH

My Switzerland

NZZ

SBB

Swissinfo

Tages Anzeiger

Tel Search

The Local

Zrich Tourism

Zrich Web Portal

Copyright 2009-13, Swiss

Ramble. All Rights Res erved.


12/48

So, the TV money was helped by the new three-year Premier League TV deal that commenced in 2010 which

meant that Arsenals s hare of the central distribution rose 4 million to 56 million, even though they dropped a

place to fourth, which was almost entirely due to the substantial increase in overseas rights.

Each club gets an equal share of 50% of the domestic rights (13.8 million) and 100% of the overseas rights

(17.9 million). However, facility fees (25% of domestic rights) depend on how many times each club is broadcast

live with 11.6 million for Arsenal, based on 22 games. Finally, merit payments (25% of domestic rights) are

worth 0.8 million per place in the league table, giving 12.9 million to Arsenal.

In other words, if Arsenal were to fall out of the top four, they would receive a smaller merit payment and

probably lower facility fees, as they might be deemed less attractive and not be televised s o often. However, this

would not damage them too much financially, e.g. Tottenham received only 3 million less than Arsenal when they

finished fifth in 2010/11. Similarly, the additional prize money earned for winning the Premier League would not

be that great though it would be a trophy


13/48

Match day income should increase by around 4 million following the 6.5% increase in ticket prices for the

2011/12 season, but this revenue stream is reaching saturation point, as Ars enal continue to register capacity

crowds of 60,000 (the seventh largest in Europe) and their ticket prices are among the highest in the world,though comparisons are difficult, as they include the first seven cup games from European competition and the

FA Cup.

In 2010/11 this generated 3.3 million a game, lower than the previous season due to a less favourable mix of

matches (2 fewer in the Champions League). Nevertheless, total match day income of 93 million was the fourth

highest in the Money League, only behind Real Madrid, Manchester United and Barcelona. In fact, Arsenal is the

only club in the Money League where match day provides the largest proportion of total revenue.

Therefore, it was perhaps no great shock that the club announced a price freeze on General Admission s eason

ticket renewals for next season, though the 7,000 Club Level members were not so fortunate, as they have been

asked to pay an additional 2%, which is a strange move, as it will only bring in an additional 1 million. Although

the club is at pains to emphasise that they have held season ticket prices flat in four of the last six seasons, that


14/48

is not that powerful a justification, given the high starting point.

One issue that may yet adversely affect revenue is if the club issues credits should the team not qualify for

Europe or even if the fare on offer is the inferior Europa League. Indeed, some might argue that the revenue

risks here are on the downside. A combination of a less successful team, allied with a more functional brand of

football and the effects of the economic crisis mean that some fans may opt out, a fact acknowledged by

Wenger, The stadiums will be less quickly full and we have noticed that already.

Given the limited growth potential of match day income and TV revenue from the Premier League (in the short

term), it i s imperative that Arsenal sig nificantly increase their commercial income, which is extremely low for a

club of Arsenals stature. In 2010/11, their revenue of 46 million in this category was dwarfed by the likes of

Bayern Munich 161 million, Real Madrid 156 million, Barcelona 141 million and Manchester United 103 million.

Arsenals weakness in this area arises from the fact they had to tie themselves into long-term deals to provide

security for the stadium financing, which arguably made sense at the time, but recent deals by other clubs have

highlighted how much money Arsenal leave on the table every season.

The Emirates deal was worth 90 million, covering 15 years of stadium naming rights (42 million) running until

2020/21 and 8 years of shirt sponsorship (48 million) until 2014. Following step-ups the s hirt sponsorship deal is

worth 5.5 million a season, which compares very unfavourably to the 20 million earned by Liverpool from

Standard Chartered, Manchester United from Aon and (reportedly) Manchester City from Etihad. Even Tottenham

(one whole season in the Champions League) now earn 12.5 million a season from shirt sponsorship (Auresma

10 million plus Investec 2.5 million).


15/48

The news is no better with Arsenals kit supplier, where the club signed a 7-year deal with Nike until 2011, which

was then extended by three years until 2014. This now delivers 8 million a season, compared to the 25 million

deal recently announced by Liverpool with Warrior Sports and the 25.4 million paid to Manchester United by

Nike.

Arsenal have restructured their executive team at great expense, recruiting Tom Fox from the NBA in August

2009 as Commercial Director to drive long-term commercial success, though there has been little tangible

revenue growth to date. In fairness, it is probably difficult to re-negotiate the principal agreements (though

Chelsea did jus t that with their kit supplier in 2005), but we might have hoped for more secondary sponsors,

which has been the main engine behind Manchester Uniteds commercial growth.

As we have seen, there were some encouraging si gns in the interims, but there is s till a long way to go, as

annualised revenue is still only 53 million. Some new sponsors have been signed up recently, including Carlsberg

at around 3 million a year and Indesit in a multi-million deal. In addition, Citroen extended their deal for a

higher sum, while there were new agreements with Thomas Cook, replacing Thompson Sport, and on-line

gambling firm Betsson. However, Arsenal still have less than half the number of sponsors that partner with

Manchester United.


16/48

"When will I see you again?"

Arsenal made their first long-distance pre-season tour in 12 years to Malaysia and China, which helped fill their

coffers, but may have adversely impacted the players fitness , contributing to the poorest start of the season in

living memory. Nevertheless, there are plans to take on even more this summer with a tour of three Asian

capitals (S eoul, Beijing and Hong Kong) as well as a trip to Nigeria.

On the bright side, when the main sponsorship deals are up for renewal in 2014, Arsenal will have a fantastic

opportunity to significantly increase their revenue by up to 30 million per annum. However, heres the thing:

there is a danger that if the team continues to be unsuccessful and maybe even drops out of the Champions

League, the clubs bargaining position will be correspondingly weaker. That said, Liverpool have managed to s ign

superb deals, even though they are in the same boat (though some might argue that they have a s tronger brand).

2. What happens if Arsenal fail to qualify for the Champions League?


17/48

There is no doubt that competing in the Champions League can make a big difference, as can be seen by looking

at the TV money received by the leading English clubs last season, where the advantage enjoyed by those teams

participating in Europes flagship tournament is clearly evident.

In the past, Gazidis has claimed that Arsenal have got a really stable model that could not just cope, but do well

and compete if Arsenal do not qualify, while Wenger has said that a season without the Champions League

would be a catastrophe and a disaster, so whos right?

The AST pressed the panic button when they suggested that this would cost the club around 45 million in lost

revenue, which might conceivably make them the first club to fail to meet Financial Fair Play rules. This wouldbe the height of irony for a club often held up as paragons of virtue by UEFA president Michel Platini.

Although the AST said they would provide a detailed assessment of this figure, in fact they only listed 27 million

(30 million) for money paid out by UEFA for participation and prize money (based on the 2010/11 dis tribution)

with the remaining 18 million presumably coming from the impact on premium seat sales and season tickets,which would represent virtually a 20% reduction in match day income. That might be unduly pessimistic, especially

if Arsenal were to compete in the Europa League, though it would be interesting to see what the club would do to

season ticket prices in this eventuality.

Admittedly, the prize money for Europes junior competition is a lot less, e.g. last season the two English

representatives, Manchester City and L iverpool, each earned just 6 million for reaching the last 16, while the

highest pay-out was only 9 million.


18/48

Sharp-eyed observers will have noted that the allocation for the TV pool varies s ignificantly among English clubs(Chelsea 27 million, Manchester United 25.9 million, Arsenal 16.6 million and Tottenham 14.4 million). This

is because of the methodology used to allocate this element, whereby: (a) Half depends on the position that the

club finished in the previous seasons Premier League with the team coming first receiving 40%, second 30%,

third 20% and fourth 10%. As Arsenal finished third in the 2009/10 Premier League, they received half as much as

Chelsea. (b) Half depends on the progress in the current seasons Champions League, which is based on the

number of games played. So Arsenal received the least, as they only reached the last 16.

In other words, success has a direct impact on the amount of money received. If Arsenal were to qualify for the

Champions League by finishing fourth, that would obviously be beneficial, but they would not receive as much as

the teams finishing above them. Of course, fourth place has other unhappy implications. Not only is there

potential for an awkward qualifying match at an inconvenient stage of the clubs preparation (like Udinese this

season), but also there is a s uspicion that this will impinge on transfer activity, as the budget might depend onthe outcome of that tie.

Naturally, the other downside of failure to qualify is that it makes it more difficult to retain players of the calibre

of Robin Van Persie and to attract the big names that would make Arsenal genuine challengers for honours.


19/48

As for Arsenal struggling to meet FFP, that seems very dubious to me. Even if the revenue were to fall by 45

million, this would be accompanied by cost reductions, e.g. hosting games, travel and performance bonuses.There is also plenty of room to manoeuvre in the wage bill, but that may not even be necessary because of the

healthy costs that UEFA exclude in their break-even calculation.

In the 2010/11 annual accounts, this amounted to 38 million, consisting of expenditure on youth development

and community (estimated at 10 million and 1 million respectively), interest on the stadium loan (14 million)

and depreciation of tangible assets (12 million).

Once those expenses are added back to the football profit of 2 million (the 13 million profit from property

development is also excluded), we have an FFP profit of 40 million, which should be ample to cope with a

Champions League shortfall. That said, the annual cost base is likely to increase by around 20 million following

the rise in wages and player amortisation, though much of this will be covered by revenue growth (excluding

Champions League). On the other hand, 2010/11 had relatively low profit on player sales of 6 million.


20/48

If this is insufficient, then it should be noted that clubs will be allowed to absorb aggregate losses (acceptable

deviations) of 45 million (around 38 million), initially over two years for the first monitoring period in

2013/14 and then over three years, as long as they are willing to cover the deficit by making equity

contributions. The maximum permitted loss then falls to 30 million from 2015/16 and will be further reduced

from 2018/19 (to an unspecified amount).

If that is not enough, there is a clause in the small print of the FFP regulations (Annex XI) that allows for the

wages of players s igned before June 2010 to be excluded from the calculation, ass uming their contracts have not

been extended after that date, so long as the club is reporting a pos itive trend in the annual break-even results.

3. How much is Arsenals transfer budget?

This question is partially driven by Arsenals parsimony in the transfer market, where they are the only leading

club that has been a net seller over the last five years to the tune of 33 million. As Gazidis stated recently,

Were about creating star players, not about buying them. Manchester Citys net spend of 431 million is more

than the other five clubs combined, but Chelsea have also splashed out 160 million. In comparison, Manchester

United, Tottenham and Liverpool have been relatively frugal, though their spend is at least 80 million more than

Arsenal.

However, Arsenal did spend a fair bit in the summer: 53 million according to Transfer League, including 12

million on Oxlade-Chamberlain, 11 million on Gervinho, 10 million for Arteta, 10 million for Mertesacker and

6 million for Santos. The interims state that the club actually invested 75 million in the acquisition of new

players, including to a lesser extent improved contracts for some existing players, suggesting either that the

fees were higher than reported and/or additional payments were made to agents or to players as loyalty/re-


21/48

signing fees.

"Like a Song"

In terms of how much money is now available, the noises coming out of the club are a little contradictory. After

last summer, Gazidis said, W e deliberately kept some powder dry There are funds available to inves t in a

significant way in January and next summer. He was backed up by the owner, Stan Kroenke, who defended

Arsenals lack of spending thus, It wasnt because the money wasnt there. We have the money. However,

Wenger said last week that it was not true that he had 50 million available, as estimated by many analysts

including the AST and yours truly.

That is the amount available in cash, though to an extent that is not really meaningful, as most transfers are

funded via stage payments, e.g. Arsenal are currently owed 19 million by other clubs, but in turn owe others 23

million, so all the transfer money is not needed upfront.

Furthermore, Arsenals strong balance sheet would allow them to take on some additional debt, especially as this

could be supported by the cash still to come from property development.


22/48

Some may be concerned that Arsenals cash balances have fallen 45 million from 160 million to 115 million in

the last six months, but that is partly because of the seasonal nature of cash flows during the year, e.g. the

balance is invariably higher in May than November, due to the influx of s eason ticket money. A more pertinent

comparison would be November 2010, when the cash balance was 110 million. In other words, the underlying

trend remains upwards.

The other point that people often raise when discussing the transfer fund is that i t would also have to fund a new

signings wages, so if the club bought a player for 25 million on a f ive-year contract at 100,000 a week, that

would represent a commitment of 50 million. That is undoubtedly true, but it is a little disingenuous, as it

ignores the fact that this would be at least partially offset by the departure of an existing player, not least

because of the limitations imposed by the rules on squad size and non-homegrown players.

4. How can the wage bill be so large?


23/48

When we talk about the transfer policy, that effectively also covers the wages policy, for these are two sides of

the same coin at Arsenal with Wenger controlling an overall budget for transfers and wages. In particular, Wenger

has admitted that Arsenal cannot afford to follow a policy that involves both high transfers and high wages.

This is important, as Arsenals wage bill is one of the highest in the country at 124 million, though it is a fair

way below Manchester City 174 million, Chelsea 168 million and Manchester United 153 million. Note: given

the performance-related bonus payments included in Uniteds figure, the fundamental difference is much smaller.

On this bas is, Arsenals performance in regularly finishing third or fourth in the Premier League could be

considered slightly better than par for the course. Some might point out at this stage that Tottenham are ahead

of Arsenal in the league, even though their wage bill is 30 million smaller, but this is only one season and it

hasnt finished yet.

The pressure to compete is obvious by the deterioration in Arsenals wage to turnover ratio from 46% in 2009 to

55% in 2011. Although this is s till one of the best in the Premier League, it i s the logical result of flat revenue and

20% growth in wages. There is also little sign of this trend ending any time soon with the 8 million increase in

wages reported in the interims. On an annualised basis , that implies a wage bill of around 140 million for

2011/12.


24/48

There are clearly issues with Arsenals equitable wage structure, which means that the best players like Robin V an

Persie are not particularly well remunerated (by modern standards), while fringe players like Abou Diaby,

Marouane Chamakh and Manuel Almunia are handsomely rewarded for their efforts. This was epitomised recently

by Johan Djourous new 50,000 a week contract, which seemed more in recognition of his frequent interviewswith Arsenal.com than his defensive ability.

Not only does this policy reduce the money available to attract world-class players, but it also makes it difficult to

move on under-performers, hence loans for Bendtner and Denilson. While there is some logic in giving youngsters

good contracts, as it prevents other clubs from snapping them up for free, it is questionable whether this has

worked out for Arsenal, given the relatively small number of success stories. My hope would be that one of

Arsenals smart executives is conducting a review of whether this approach is the most appropriate in 2012.

5. Where has all the money gone?


25/48

Given that Arsenal have been so profitable for so long, it begs the question what the club has done with all that

lovely cash - 389 million from operating activities in the last six years. Looking at the cash flow statement, it is

clear that very little has been spent on bringing in new players with net player registrations of just 14 million.

Unsurprisingly, its all about the new stadium, property and other infrastructure (e.g. the new medical centre at

London Colney) with 180 million going on capital expenditure and 111 million on loan interest. Since these loans

peaked in 2008, another 156 million (net) has been used to repay debt. And of course the cash balances continue

to rise

Following the elimination of the property debt, the only outstanding debt is effectively the mortgage on theEmirates Stadium. At the 2011 year-end, this was represented by gross debt of 258 million comprising long-term

bonds and debentures. In the last six months, this has been reduced by another 6 million, while net debt has

risen by 39 million from 98 million to 137 million, almost entirely due to the 45 million reduction in cash

discussed above.

Many ask whether it would be possible for Arsenal to pay off the outstanding debt early in order to reduce theinterest charges, but Gazidis has previously implied that this is unlikely, arguing that not all debt is bad, The

debt that were left with is what I would call healthy debt its long term, low rates and very affordable for the

club.

So whats the conclusion on Arsenals finances?

I guess this partly depends on whether youre a glass half full or g lass half empty type of person. Theres no

doubt that Arsenals sustainable model has much to be admired, though it is not without some challenges,

especially around growing (commercial) revenue and controlling wages growth. In particular, it is vital that more


26/48

Print PDF Posted by The Swiss Ramblerat 9:05 AM

Labels:Arsenal,Arsene Wenger, England, Football, Ivan Gazidis

secondary sponsorships deals are s igned before the main agreements are re-negotiated in 2014, when Arsenals

financials could soar.

"Lightspeed Champion"

In spite of these issues, many fans still wish that the board would push the boat out a little more. After all, there

is a middle ground between spending like its going out of fashion and hoarding cash for a rainy day.

Looked at another way, it is worth asking whether Arsenal can afford not to spend. As Gazidis admitted, the club

is not where we want to be. If they end up failing to qualify for the Champions League, then their prudent

approach might be fairly described as a false economy. This is by no s tretch of imagination a club in crisis, but it

is clear that a club as wealthy as Ars enal should be doing better. Then, to paraphrase Morrissey, every day might

be like Sunday.

+1 Recommend this on Google

78 comments:

A Swiss Arsenal fan February 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Another superb analysis thanks for this !

Reply


27/48

Replies

Reply

Replies

Reply

Rohit February 28, 2012 at 10:23 AM

do AFC wage bill of 124m include all the player wages including those on loan??ifno then the actual wage bill

would be considerably less, isnt so?considering the number ofplayers out on loan...

Reply

The Swiss Rambler February 29, 2012 at 12:57 PM

No, though it is possi ble that Arsenal are subs idising the wages of som e of the players out on loan.

Spitfire February 28, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Brilliantly informative as ever.

I believe, the best investment Arsenal can m ake now and in the next 2 seas ons is to win a title + keep appearing in

the CL. That would maximis e the potential sponsors hip deals they could bring in once the current ones expire.

I might be too naive but is it not possible to call up the current sponsors to renegotiate and improv e the running

contracts to get a fairer deal?

Perhaps its even possible to buy out the current deals in favour of newer, more lucrative deals.

For all the talk of Arsenal being a well managed club, I fear the poor efficiencyof the business development side of

the club is far worse than their performances this s eason. If you put all your money on making a healthyprofit, then

its inexcusable that you fail to deliver on it while crucial gaps in the first team squad go unfilled.

Reply


Yes, it would be possible for the club to renegotiate sponsorship contracts early, though they would

have to pay hefty penalty clauses . There has been some talk about such dis cussi ons taking place, but

nothing concrete http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/282082/Arsenal-set-sights-on-new-20m-shirt-

deal-


28/48

Replies

Reply

Reju Mathew February 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Great Analysis as usual.

I would place the root cause of the problem on the following factors:

1. Paying high value contracts to players like Bendtner, Squillaci, Diaby(!) leaving very little room for high wage

earners.

2. Lack of pay for performance - Very little pay is performance unli ke Manchester United.

3. High risk aversion - Always saving for a rainy day. A great player even outside our budget could make all the

difference in terms of on field performance & hence on the financials. However we prefer to err too much on the

side ofcaution. Juan Mata being a prime example.

Reply

AJ February 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Thank you for this revealing analysis Swis s Ram bler. To answer the question in the mind ofthousands ofgooners

- who is to blame for the lack of investment in the playing squad would you say that Arsenal's financial situation

makes it necessary to sell players before buying? In essence, is Wenger greatly constrained in his abi lity to spend

say even 20-30 million net a season on transfers and would you say its the management which expects him to do

so?

Reply


That's a very difficult question to answer. As I wrote, there are quite a few contradictory statements

coming out of the club.

I think that there's definitely cash there to fund transfer fees, but the club needs to offload some players

in order that the wage bill does not explode.

SuddenlyEnlightened February 28, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I think its being uns tated that the club will not want to spend bi g until at leas t 2014 (when it can renegotiate a l ot of

its deals), or at most till the stadium is paid off. After that we'll start spending very big for sure, after all that was one

of the major reasons for the move.


29/48

Replies

Reply

Replies

But i really doubt we're going to spend crazy this summer, because we've already spent so much on the ox,

mertesacker, santos, arteta. i think the signing of the summer realistically is going to be the re-signing of van

persie, and usi ng all our "transfer kitty" on his contract.

Reply

Anonymous April 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM

I think 2014 is dead wrong. A year or two leading into a new s hirt deal, or any other major commercial

agreements, we want the club to be top of the table, deep into the CL, and winning domes tic trophies.Waiting until after those deals to spend money will weaken the long term com mercial incom e.....a place

we have been for far too long.

We have basically maxed game day revenue, successful runs will bump up broadcasting cash, and

commercial incom e needs to be the final anchor lifted.

As always....great blog !!!!!

Ryan February 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Fantastic blog, thanks for taking the time to write it.

Reply

SS February 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Super informative blog, thanks :)

I also read the Chelsea results publis hed two weeks ago. I compared the two results and it seems to me that we

@ Arsenal consciously make an effort balance our books. Also, regarding the TV rights - are they iss ued in sam e

manner in all leagues i.e. based on the position they finished in the league. I think that's unfair.

What would happen if all the teams get equal % share in TVrights? Would'nt it help Arsenal in making those extra

million pounds and ultimately invest for team building? Should'nt FA intervene and relook at this policy if its going

to help PL in long run?

Reply



30/48

Reply

Replies

Reply

This piece from a few months ago should answer your questions on TV rights

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/10/revolution-will-be-televised.html

Anonymous February 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM

You make 99.99999% of other blogs look like utter shite, and your clearly sound financial analysis makes a

mockery ofthe AST's witch hunt.

Reply

Anonymous June 3, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Yes, I think the AST are a group to be avoided, they don't have the best interests of anyone at heart.

Holloway2Holland February 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Insightable as always.

Thank you very much.

Reply


Because ofthe stadium deals our sponsorship money is too low. Consequently our income is heavily reliant on

spectator income. We need to renegotiate because the pips are already sqeaking and on the terraces there is a

lot of talk of people giving up.

Reply

Henry February 28, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Fascinating and insightful, I actually feel more relaxed about our club now. One of the sources offan frustration

and anger must be the club's cloak of secrecy on financial matters (and attendances!). It seems we are a club s till

prudentlybuilding, if we can continue to finish in the top 4 (third would be nice) for a few more seas ons I think we

should all be happy with this. Who knows when the sugar daddys will get bored of their toys? And if chels ea have


31/48

shown anything this season it's that player and manager investment doesnt always guarantee results, trophies

and titles.

Cheers!

Reply

Niall February 28, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Amazing analysis .

Well done as always.

Reply


I'm curious about the impact of the Financial Fair Play project. Can UEFA truly deliver anything remotely

approaching an even playing field for all clubs? If so you have to think that this is going to be to Arsenal's

advantage in the medium to long term. Man Utd's debt seem s mountainous but theyhave proven it's manageable

(for now). Chels ea and City will s urely have to dramatically change their models. Liverpool appear to have mis sed

their window to build a new stadium before taking on m ass ive debt at the wrong time. Great analysis Swiss and

should be applauded by all intelligent gooners who are interested in how our beloved club is run.

Reply


superb blog...thank u sooo much

Reply


As always, a wonderfully written blog post. I'm not entirely sure ifthe website can be categorised as a 'blog' as

you're articles are quite mainstream and an absolute joy to read. Brilliant work, and thank you for investing so

much of your time in this.

Reply


This is an excellent read -- valuable ins ight and very good 'big pi cture' incorporation. This is my first time on your

blog and will undoubtedly, not be my last.

Reply


32/48


Insightful read as always Swiss.

The changes at board level s hould be subj ect to further scrutiny. Only Friar and the ever clever Hill-Wood remain of

the original members of the board prior to the development and completion of the Emirates. What effect have the

turmoil inside the club had on performances on and off the pitch?

I think it's highly unlikely that Kroenke will make any outrageous sums available to Wenger as his other sporting

brands s eem to indicate that he'll continue to follow the "Arsenal way" blueprint we've seen thus far.

There's a recurring theme in these annual reports and that is that the club's comm ercial income remains stagnant

year-on-year. I hope we are as busy off the pitch as the players were on it on Sunday. Otherwise we'll likely see a

fight for a CL spot as the primary objective as opposed to fighting for major honors until 2014 and even that may

be the best we can hope for ifwe lose Arsene and don't find a capable manager with masochis tic tendencies.

Reply

Jori February 28, 2012 at 3:21 PM

In between ever more gaudy footballers and ostentatious club owners your posts truly adds value to my football

following. Great blog. Thank You.

Reply

Webbie - FootieAndMusic February 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM

"YOUR THE ONE FOR ME...err... SWISSY !...."

Reply

elliott February 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Great point about wages - in a sense, they eerily mirror City's problems with overpaying certain players and then

being unable to offload them. However, unlike City, they aren't about to increase star players' pay from that

baseline, so I'm sad that RVP may go this sum mer

Reply

West Upper February 28, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Excellent analysis of the numbers.

Good news that we can anticipate som e significant additional Comm ercial revenues from 2014 onwards.


33/48

Replies

Reply

In the short term the club leadership should be severely pruning the wages and numbers ofjourneymen squad

players s o that we can reward our top players and buy in some more quality.

Reply

Hopper February 28, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Outstanding as always.

I Think that it's very impressive that arsenal get such poor value for the enormous amount ofmoney they spend on

wages. It is testament to Arsene's desire to make everyone feel like they are part of the family that he gives

everyone a contract of at least between 40 and 50K a week.

And because he wants to show to them that love means forever, only rosicky almunia and fabianski are out of

contract in the sum mer.

Arsenal just have so many players in their squad that are effectively useless to them, and are sucking 2-3 million

out of the club every year. Arshavin, squillachi, bendtner, chamakh, Park, denilson, diaby, vela mannone and

Djourou. Someone should have had a word with wenger about giving djourou a new contract. That was an act of

madness.

Realistically speaking, that is a 13 players that arsenal could get rid of tomm orrow, without it affecting the rest of

their league seas on. (with the exception of m aybe rosicky)

I think that that is a shocking ind ictment of the way that Arsene wenger has operated in the transfer market and

constructed his squad. Even then you have to have serious doubts about the quality of a number of the players he

signed in the summer.

Gervinho seems to be completely brainless on the pitch, andre santos and mertesacker have looked far from

comfortable, and park has s unk without trace.

I suppose that ultimately all good things come to an end, and with van persie probably leaving, I think it will

probably be for the best if Arsene heads off, to allow someone to clean up the enormous , expensive mess that he

has created.

Reply

Anonymous May7, 2012 at 10:06 PM

What a load of tripe!


34/48


Great analysis. However I think there might be more to Wenger's comment regarding needing to make a 15m

profit than you presented.

You report 153m four year profit and 111m in interest payments over that same period. Ifyou take the difference

(42m) and add it to the base year 2009 cas h balance (76.8m), the sum (118.8m) is remarkably similar to the

current reported cash bal ance (115m).

What this means to m e is that the Arsenal "business model" doesn't budget for repayment of the long term bond

debt out of operating income. The club is basically operating exactly at break even and the debt payments are

basically being funded out of profits generated wholly from the clubs rapidly declining inventory of property and

player sales.

This may be cons idered "respons ible" for a football club, but it seems the oppos ite from where I sit. And I believe

that this is the basis for Wenger's comment about needing to generate 15m annual profit.

But that leaves one to wonder what the goal of this plan is ? My best guess is that they hope to survive just until they

can renegotiate the shirt sponsorship, which I assum e they hope to generate the entire bond payment. It is not an

unreasonable expectation considering that Spurs reportedly receive 12.5m annually from their shirt sponsor.

However, once all operating expenses are covered by commercial revenue, what happens then? If present trends

continue, the club will arrive at equilibrium completely shorn of talent and in desperate need of reinforcements,

however the only mechanism for player investment would ess entially be more player sales, further weakening theside.

Reply


Could you do a his toric piece on whySeria A collapsed and whether there are less ons for the EPL to learn.

keep up the good work

Reply

Chinaman February 28, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Arsenal's wage bills might be lower in coming seasons as many senior players who were on high wages are on

their way out. Plus FFP should bring s ome s anityback in the market. If the club can stay in the Champions League

this seas on, a turnaround is on the cards.

Reply

Garret, Irish Gooner February 28, 2012 at 8:40 PM


35/48

Replies

Reply

Excellent read, really wonderful analysis of the facts and figures that even financial philistines like myself can

appreciate! So a question for your expertise- what's the s olution to the wage inflation that is in danger of crippling

Arsenal, even if it is all of their own making? Every potential new signing that comes in must look at the wages the

likes ofDiaby, Almunia, Denilson etc are on and think "Well I must be worth at least that and more!". Simply

shipping those players out, no doubt at a discounted rate to offset the wage drop they're inevitably going to have to

take, won't change the fact that they were being paid way over the top, and that established pla yers who potentially

come in will demand to be compensated similarly. Is the only solution to s hop for cheaper alternatives and kids

which, essentially, is what we're already doing, and not having much success with? Is there a more inventive

solution???

Reply


excellent

Reply

Pete The First February 28, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Great article Swiss Roll.

One item you didn't touch on is the 'Other Costs' of55 million. This seems very high, and the lack of transparencywould indicate Arsenal have som ething to hide. Could it be profit share bonuses? How does this compare to other

clubs accounts, are they as dis guised as my club?

Reply


I've looked at this in previous articles on Arsenal, e.g. about half way down this piece

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/05/arsenals-transfer-budget.html

In short, Arsenal's Other Costs are on the high side, but around the same level as Manchester United

and Chelsea.

Grumpybutcuddly February 28, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Excellent analysis and helps to highlight what an appalling job Wenger has done with contract negotiations - he

had this supposedly laudable philosophy that there should be little difference between what average squad


36/48

Replies

Reply

players get and what the best (Marquee) players get. Look at Man Utd diff between Rooney & Evans is 180k a

week our equivalent is RVP and Djourou only 40k a week it defies bel ief and Wenger has a lot to answer for. It was

highlighted in here and is becoming well known we cant now get rid of the Bendtners, Almunias, Fabianskis,

Denilsons, Arshavins, Djourous, Chamakhs, Velas, Squilaccis of this world because no one else is prepared to

pay them the stupidly high wages Wenger has burdened our club with and someone needs to bring him to book

for it. Board were also at fault for letting this phi losophy proliferate.

I would also like an analysis done of the wages being paid to non playing staff like this "highly paid commercial

team" also Gazidis and Wenger hims elf. In myview Wengers salary (currently 7m) should be renogotiated to half

that with him earning the rest based on winning trophies. Same for Gazidis current 1.7m drop it to 500k with

bonuses for team success not profits.

Finally is it possible to ascertain how much extra revenue would be gleaned if we won the Premiership and

champions league - the prize money is significant as is the extra TV revenue and the value and bonuses from

sponsorship & advertising deals - in other words what I am sugges ting Gazidis is concentrate on having a team

that wins trophies and you will find the rest takes care of itself - just try it !!!

Reply

North Bank Ned February 29, 2012 at 12:39 AM

I'm not sure "the rest" does "take care of itself". Doesn't your proposal just provide an incentive to buy

short-term success without any regard to long-term sustainability? Reeks of pre-2008 Wall Street orThe City.


Like North Bank Ned, I don't think that it's quite that simple, but I absolutely accept the point that

success on the pitch equates directly to more prize money and indirectly to better commercial deals .

You can estimate the s ize of the prize by looking at the graphs on PL and CL revenue distribution.

Anonymous February 29, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Great work as always! Surely the buck for the underperformance of Tom Fox stops with Gazidis?

Ifwe fail to clinch CL qualification, and lose 40-45 million as a consequence, the knives will be out for Wenger on

account of signing dross li ke Chamakh,Almunia or Park and offering contract extensions to the likes of Djourou.

I have no issue with that, but how the hell are people like Gazidis and Fox still in a job after losing the club that


37/48

Replies

Reply

Replies

Reply

amount every year?

Reply

North Bank Ned February 29, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Excellent analysis of the P&L and balance sheet, as ever.

One question: How much is known about the wage structure at the leading clubs, both in the EPL and the main

European leagues? Do you have information about the range of wages paid, and the balance between bas ic and

performance-based pay? It would make fascinating reading if you do.

Reply


Unfortunately not, as English clubs very rarely report this level of detail. There are some analyses

around featuring individual player wages, though these can only be based on "informed estimates."

DS Helder February 29, 2012 at 1:12 AM

So, it seem s the mystery dance is nothing more than a s afetydance?

There's an assumption behind these writings, that the only way to compete for trophies, is to buy world class

players. This troubles me in two ways: Firstly, it does not put faith in Wenger's plan about building, not buying, a

team. And if we do not respect this plan, it seems fairer to ask him to leave rather than to force him into acting

against his nature/will. Secondly, Swiss Rambler s hows we can not expect to win battles for the best players in the

world, so what is left, really, than to show faith in a group of youngsters breaking through together?

Reply


Ah, yes, but I prefer Elvis Costello to Men Without Hats.


38/48


The thing that irks me so much is average players getting wages they do not even remotely deserve... or even

youth players. The club needs to sort that out. Just think of the cash they're basically throwing away!

Great read as always.

Reply

hollister February 29, 2012 at 4:43 AM

This is m y first time i visit here. I found so many entertaining stuff in your blog, especially its discussion. From the

tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the leisure here! Keep up the good

work.

Reply

hollister February 29, 2012 at 5:27 AM

What would happen if all the teams get equal % share in TVrights? Would'nt it help Arsenal in making those extra

million pounds and ultimately invest for team building? Should'nt FA hollisterand relook at this policy if its going to

help PL in long run?

Reply


You do it again! Great work mate!

Reply


Fantastic & informed piece. Thank you. And I thought I could read it in my lunch hour!

Reply

Red Arse February 29, 2012 at 4:59 PM

As a qualified accountant myself, I take my hat off to you.

You have carefully constructed your report in such a way that non-accountants will have been able to fully

understand the implications and relationship between Arsenal's turnover, profit and cas hflow and their impact on

the club's financial decis ion making, and breathed s ome clarity into the troubled rumours and myths s urrounding


39/48

Replies

Reply

the club and its financial acumen.

This is an excellent piece and you should be proud to have written it! I am veryjealous!! :-)

Reply


Thanks very much for that. I do try very hard to make the numbers accessible to non-accountants, so

comments like this are verygratifying.

London Gooner February 29, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Thank you for yet another ins ightful article. Sadlythe conclusion seems to be that Arsenal's pros pects offer little for

hope but much for continued concern. I suppose the most useful insight is that the loss of champions league

participation would not have necessarily have an immediate disastrous financial impact but an unknown impact

on reputational issues (for player and sponsorship appeals -- the false economy you speak of). The opening

statement of an annual report to Arsenal s hould say som ething to the effect that we have invested in the future with

a new stadium and facilities and have accepted that until debt is brought to more manageable levels and better

sponsorship deals brought in then a title and significant cups are out of our reach. This reality yet again

emphasises the achievement of Wenger to manage to keep Arsenal competitive. There is however one very

concerning issue with regard to Wenger's investment in players. As has been noted promising young players

were secured on long term lucrative deals as a means of keeping a stable and potentially successful squad

together in lean s pending times (a feat which almos t came to incredible fruition in the 2007-08 campaign and last

year's in particular). However many ofthese players have wholly failed to live up to billing and the faith placed in

them, what is even more concerning is the purchase of a player like Park (or Chamak, or as I sus pect Miyaichi who

far from having demonstrated he belongs in the EPL). The man was deemed good enough to be bought from

Monaco (and at the same time damaging relations with Lille the other bidder -- which may impact any actual

desire Arsenal may have had to s ign Hazard). However he's been inexistent, one of three conclusions , (i) wenger

completely failed to assess the player properly (ii) the player experienced an incredible and ins tantaneous drop in

ability and form or (iii) the board is pushing the purchase ofplayers for marketing purpos es des pite aptitude. Thelast of these is a truly concerning issue if there is any truth to it. Indeed there may be truth in it, Arsenal is s urely

compensating for the lack of competitive commercial revenue from sponsorship with the asian/international pre-

season tours. I for one will keep a peaceful eye on the next two seas ons and hope that the bounty offrugality will

pay big dividends in 2014-2015.

Reply



40/48

Replies

Reply

Excellent analysis. The commercial deals look poor value with the benefit of hindsight - hopefully this will be

corrected next time around. the wages structure is fair for all but the risk is that underperformers are difficult to

move on - perhaps a larger element of pay could be performance related in the latter stages ofa contract?

Reply

Anonymous March 1, 2012 at 8:29 AM

I'm a little confused in regard to the stadium debt. Do we still owe over 250million as of right now? How much are

we paying a se ason? When will be done with that?

Reply

The Swiss Rambler March 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Right now, Arsenal owe just over 250m for stadium debt, which will be paid off over 20 years. It's

costing around 20m per annum in interest and capital repayments.

Anonymous March 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM

First and foremost, brilliant analysis . You make it eas ier for amateurs to understand what is happening

behind the scenes.

250m over 20 yrs would mean 12.5m a yr. If we are paying 20m a yr including interests and capital

repayments, we'll be paying a total of400m at the end of 20 yrs. What am I missing here? I went

through your analysis again but couldn't answer it myself. It'd be nice if you could clarify. Thanks.


you're mis sing interest.

Fabr04 March 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Thanks for this article - very well written and thoughtful. I can't devote as much time as I'd like because I have to get

back to work, but I did have one thought (and adm ittedlyI'm a "half-empty glass" person):

I believe that Arsenal is short-sightedly focusing on the easily meas urable areas of the busines s at the expense of

the harder to measure, but ultimately more lucrative, areas. For example, ifthey refuse to pay big transfer fees they


41/48

hold down costs and boost profitability in the short term, but the absence of star players and trophies means the

brand weakens and the commercial revenues s uffer.

Oh, and one more thought: Djourou at 50K/week is about the worst piece of busi ness I've ever heard of. Didn't the

club offer Ashley Cole 55K before he left? I'm s ure Cole is regretting that move.

Reply

Inquirer about net debt March 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM

I can't give enough commendation to your efforts to digest extensive financial information about football andpresent it, in massive detail, in layman's terms. I, for one, have had my understanding of football finance

overhauled by reading your blog.

One thing I'm curious about, however, is your comments on Arsenal's debt. You've said in this article, and previous

posts about Arsenal, that Arsenal is now in no hurry to pay off its debt: it only has the long-term stadium bonds left;

it's unlikely to pay them off ahead of schedule; and it would likely face penalties for trying to clear them. Under this

assumption, it seems Arsenal is breaking even so long as it budgets for the 14m a year in interest payments,

and doesn't need to make any further profits. As s uch, you estimated in this post and your last one that Arsenal

has ~50m in surplus money to spend. Indeed, it seems , as far back as March 2010, you calculated that Arsenal

would have sizable transfer budgets available. Obviously, since then, Arsenal have been making profits above and

beyond what was needed to clear the short-term debt and cover their interest payments.

What strikes me, however, is that this s urely (feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken) neglects the importance of net

debt, does it not? While Arsenal may indeed have the freedom to spend their surpluss es, now that that money is

no longer earmarked for debt obligations, would it not be more beneficial to the club in the long-term to us e it to

offset their stadium bonds ? They maynot be able to lose their gross debt obligations of ~250m, but can they not at

least offset the 14m interest payments through interest payments made on their own surplus assets? Can they

not raise the 250m early, and use it to produce interest offsetting the ~90m in total interest payments until the

last of the bonds expire in 2020? Not only does it achieve this, but it means the club needs to raise no further

finance in the future when the bonds expire and need to be paid off. These seem sufficient benefits for reducing

net debt to zero early, even while gross debt remains at 250m. While the austere financing required to do this

obviously hurts the club in the s hort term, it means that, in every year after net debt is cleared, the club shall have

more resources to make use of. As far as I can tell, you don't seem to have discussed the possibility ofthe club's

decided to continue austere budgetting, even though it looks l ike the path the club is currently taking, and it seem s

to have tangible long-term benefits. Have I missed something here?

At the moment, the club seems to have made remarkable progress to eliminating its net debt. Although the mid-

year slump in cash balances means net debt has currently risen, it seems that, by the summer, this year's hefy

profits shall leave the net debt reduced from 98m in 2011 to ~50m (which may be negligible if you exclude the

30m in everlasting debentures and include the s oon-to-be booked profits from Queensland road). When the club

appears so clos e to eliminating its net debt, surely the frequent calls for it to spend its surpluss es on the pitch are

misguided? Too look at Arsenal's current trophy-droubt optimistically, when the club history of this period is

written, this period may be seen as a 'decade of debt' whose negative repurcussions end when the stadium-

necessi tated inferior commercial deals expire in 2014. While the club may have been able to achieve more during

the decade, if only it had spent more, the subsequent period, in which its resultant resources shall be so much


42/48

Replies

Reply

greater, shall s urely make the austerity worth it?

Reply


IfArsenal had stayed at Highbury and thereby avoided interest on the Emirates' debt repayments and poor

commercial contracts would the club have more or less money today? Liverpool and Chelsea both have similar

incomes without moving to new stadia.

Reply

Glenn March 2, 2012 at 2:16 AM

Judging by the table on matchday income above, the extra seats (and corporate boxes) bring in an extra

1-2m per game, depending on how much is down to high ticket prices. Ev en at a conservative 1m ,

the extra income from home games is m ore than enough to compensate for the interest payments.

Additionally, the extra seats will keep making money once the debt is paid off, leaving us in a much

better position then. By then, of course, Liverpool will probably have moved to a larger stadium, but

they'll be in the "paying off" phase.

One question: does the "matchday income" figure include things like programmes, beer and snacks?

What about all the busines s the club shop gets?


Swiss,

Question 4 was what is the impact of Arsenal failing to qualify for the champions league? I cant see you

answered that one. You did calculate what you think the FFP adjusted pbt of the club used to be in 2010/11 but I

cant see how that answers the ques tion as its out of date and doesnt consider the i mpact on revenues of not justmissing out on UCL prize money but UCL matchday revenue and sponsorship payments linked to UCL

performance and of the wider impact on matchday, TV and commercial revenue of having a team that is outside

the top 4.

Surelyyour starting point should be 2011/2 football pbt before gains from player sales? Player sales are the likely

reaction of the manager to managing the financial problem posed by failing to qualify . Outside of raising equity

finance, player sales are the only real tool open to get cash in and costs down, it is the solution to a problem

youve not fully quantified.

On that basis, rather than starting at a football pbt of 4m y ou should probably start at the football loss before

player sales of 2m in 2010/11. You should then add the increase in the wage bill (minimum 15m) and


43/48

Replies

amortisation charge (12m) being s een in 2011/2 i f the half year results are extrapolated for a full year. From that

we can deduct revenue gains over the year as a whole (some commercial income, maybe 5m if the first halfis

extrapolated) and s ome extra matchday revenue from one extra carling cup game and the 4% ticket price rises

less no league cup final and reduced EPL merit and appearance fees (say 9m in total for revenue). Thats a

20m football loss to which one must add the potential loss of revenues in 2012/3. You then have s ome scale to

the potential problem facing Arsenal and the loss es that need funding from free cash, residu al property assets or

player sales. Remember that Arsenal need to ideally keep their best players, add more quality to the team and

improve on the pitch performances to recapture a top 4 spot whilst m anaging this problem. Sure theres perceived

as being a lot of slack in the enormous si ze of the playing squad and wage bill but balancing all these factors and

delivering a team capable of justifying a top four spot over the next two to three years will require a markedly

improved performance.Simon at the AST

Reply

The Swiss Rambler March 2, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Simon,

Quite frankly, its a bit rich that the AST censures me for lack ofdetail here when your own statement,

despite describing it as a "detailed assessment, only quantifies one item, namely the 27m that would

be lost in UEFAs participation and prize money. Ironically, that figure is taken from the 2010/11 season,

which in my piece you criticise for being out ofdate.

Yes, the costs will increase in 2011/12, which I did mention in my narrative, though this is not always as

sim ple as annualising (doubling) the growth reported in the Interims. I would agree that the growth in

wages is likely to be 15m, but player amortisation is not quite s o straightforward. For example, in the

previous interims, this fell by 3m, which would imply an annual reduction of 6m, but in fact the full

year decrease was only 3m.

As you say, some ofthis increase in the cost base will be covered by revenue growth, but you then

strangely ignore the financial impact of one of your principal themes, namely profit on player sales,

which will be at least 57m higher in 2011/12 than 2010/11. Granted, that is not necessarily how you

would want the club to make money, but that is a done deal. That will provide s ome breathing space for

FFPs first monitoring period, which covers the two accounting years 2011/12 and 2012/13.

You have also not mentioned the impact on the cost base of Arsenal failing to qualify for the

Champions League, which would mean lower costs for inter alia staging home games, travel to away

games and performance bonuses.

Furthermore, you have once again ignored the adjustments al lowed by FFP for excluded costs (nearing

40m), acceptable deviations and salaries of players s igned before June 2010 (the latter for the first

two monitoring periods).

This should tide Arsenal over (at least in terms of FFP) until the cavalry arrive in the form of higher


44/48

Reply

commercial deals in 2014, when we can expect an uplift of around 30m per annum.

I dont disagree that failure to qualify for the CL would have a s ubstantial impact on Arsenals cash flow

(I described this as the real world in todays Arsecast), but Im struggling to see how this would caus e

the club to fail to meet FFP.

There's no doubt that Arsenal face a l ot more challenges i n the next couple ofyears than the headline

profit figures would sugges t (that was s ort of the point of the article). However, there is a sizable cash

pile available, even after taking into consideration factors such as seasonality and the debt service

reserve, which should be boos ted bymore cash from propertydevelopment.

It is indeed a tricky balance, but that's why the club has a highly paid executive management team.

Right?


I don't disagree that with the 2011/2 transfer profits in the bag pass ing the FFP test is n't going to be an

issue until that year drops out of the monitoring period. My point is that getting an improved team

performance whilst having to reduce levels of investment in the squad in terms of wages and player

purchases to balance the books is going to be very hard and something I can't recall other clubs

achieving. The club rejected a call for a rights issue in 2009 and the concern remains that we may

continue losing our best players, that really was what I am saying. As to my comment, I'm not censuring

anyone, I'm merely emphasising that the hole being faced is somewhat larger than 2010/11's resultsinitimated.

If you ever want to ask questions or challenge please do contact us as we don't alway s go into the

explanatory detail you do in a blog on a short release to members.

Simon

The Swiss Rambler March 2, 2012 at 2:04 PM

OK, but the first FFP monitoring period where 2011/12 drops out is 2015/16, which will include 2014/15,

where the main sponsorship deals should have significantly increased after they have been

renegotiated in June 2014.

I do s hare your concerns about this tricky balance and would not be averse to more cash bei ng injectedinto the club either via a rights iss ue or a loan from Kroenke. I actually wanted to include a s ection on

some poss ible actions here, but decided to exclude it, as the piece was already of epic proportions.

I am on the whole supportive of the AST's objectives and have had many discussions with Tim about

the financials. That said, I think that the comments around FFP were unnecessarily misleading and

were certainly taken out of con text bysome in the media.


45/48

Replies

Reply


Is there any truth in rumours that Arsenal have a large potential tax bill due to use ofEBT's? I've heard it suggested

that the current HMRC vs Rangers case could provide the precedent which would free the Revenue to launch

cases against a number oftop flight English clubs.

Cheers - loving your work. Do you have any plans to examine Rangers in the future? I would love to see an neutral

[l assum e] examine their financials, although audited accounts may be a long time coming.

Reply

The Swiss Rambler March 2, 2012 at 1:41 PM

I think that you're right about the Rangers case being a precedent for actions against some English

clubs, but my understanding is that Arsenal have already settled with HMRC a few years ago.

I've had loads of requests to look at Rangers, but there are a couple ofproblems: (a) the story changes

on an almost daily basis; (b) as you say, the most recent accounts are not available.

AJ March 2, 2012 at 10:13 AM

There was the usual breathtaking arrogance in Simon's post that we have come to expect from som e mem bers of

the AST who take themselves too seriously. Their analysis of Arsenal being in danger offalling foul of FFP on the

back of not qualifying for the CL for a season was a whole lot of hogwash.

Reply

mrswoo March 2, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I thought that RM owed all their money to various banks.

Hilariously they annoyed Barca fans by borrowing lots of dosh from a Barcelonan bank relatively recently.

Reply

Holden March 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM

You are a great analyst man, Thanks for your all fantastic blogs.


46/48

Reply

Theroux March 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Great blog!

Benfica is on the verge of renegotiating the broadcasting rights, and is considering broadcasting them on its own

channel (that already exists). It has already turned down 22M a season from the company that holds the righs

today. Ifthat were to happen it would be the first time for a european clube, no?

I hope you'll do an analysis ofBenfica's finances after they release their data for the 11/12 season.

Reply


(whispers) one point behind.

Reply


What an amazing article. This answered many of my questions about Arsenal that the Guardian has hinted at, but

didn't apply enough column space to deal with properly. Thanks.

Reply


I read your blog for long months nos , and it is s o entertaining. I also promote it to friends s upporting orner clubs.

Last example, an Hearts supporter, who hims elf forwarded it to other supporters. Congratulations.

Now one point and one question.

In France there is also the debate about wages being too high, especially mediocre placers. So the clubs are

trying to implem ent schemes based on performance and results, the variable part being more im portant. Like it is

being done in other indus tries.... My own pay slip shows it! Do you know whether this is being applied in AFC? And

in other EPL clubs?

The question: being bas ed in Switzerland, are you following the news about the Swiss League? And the recent

stories of bankrupted clubs? Ifyes, would it be possible you write an article about Servette FC? Or about the

economy ofSwiss football?

Tanks again for your marvellous blog, from a fan of football, of AFC and of Servette FC.

Franois


47/48

Reply


Interesting pos t as always, however I do have to query one part of your analysis.

You put Arsenal fans in the 'long suffering' category, I can think of many fans who would take seven years without a

trophy as normal service rather than long suffering!!!!

Reply

the swiss ramble_ arsenal's mystery dance

Documents