http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...nited-sponsors-Aon-eyeing-long-term-deal.html - Current shirt deal is £80mill over 4 years, by my reckoning that's £20mil a year (£5mil less a year than UIR has just fabricated. I can see you are right in your claim that the club wish to generate £100mil a year but I want to win the lottery but I can't guarantee I will at any time in my life!
They have or intend to pay about 70million of it off. This was a condition of the IPO. The cash reserved were partly uses to pay back bonds aswell. They seem to be planning on renegotiating the interest rate soon.
The £100 million is actually pretty well supported. Shirt sponsorship currently £20 million per year New shirt sponsorship from 2014 will be £51 million per year http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...niteds-chevrolet-sponsorship-is-worth-1215088 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/manchester-united-says-gm-deal-to-generate-559-million.html So £31 million more Current PL TV rights are £1 billion per year, of which Utd get around £60 million The new TV rights deal will push this up to around £1.7 billion per year, so Utd's share will rise to £100 million http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/in-premier-league-sun-always-shines-on.html So £40 million more Current Nike sponsorship is around £24 million a year The new deal is expected to be around £40 million a year http://www.football-marketing.com/2...ks-with-nike-on-a-400m-world-record-kit-deal/ So £16 million more The £10 million DHL kit deal wasn't in the most recent accounts as it only started last season http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/aug/22/manchester-united-kit-deal-dhl So 31 + 40 + 16 +10 = £97 million more from sponsorship and PL TV revenue by 2014/15. Should be noted that £40 million of that will apply to the entire PL, as all clubs will benefit from the new TV deal.
Oi Whonext, you owe Swarbs £100 quid. You better pay up or i'll get Sweats or the Hammerhead on you.
You're only going to get a percentage of that tv deal, it is in fact split 20 ways as there is 20 clubs in the league. Plus, that £3Bn is over the length of the tv deal..not £3bn a season. You cannot amortisise that either. You get x per season and thats it. As for your deal, Liverpool are making £50 million from their deal with Warrior as they only bough 50% for £25 million, Liverpool hold the rights to the other 50% which is expected to make £25 million a season.
Nice figures, good work if you can get it I guess! On that basis Liverpools revenue should grow quite considerably year on year also. And add to the already agreed deals, more in the pipeline Henry is setting us up to be financially astute which, compared to 2 years ago it's Eons away from those dark days! And on that the basis of those figures, both clubs should fair pretty well in the FFP rules if they are governed and adhered to
Thats correct, but I still feel though despite the protests of the Manchester United fans that those interest repayments will hamper them. The clubs that don't have any i.e. Liverpool and Arsenal will also be in a strong position.
Liverpool are nowhere near as marketable as united. No where near as desirable to sponsors. You are also a midtabke club, not in the champions league and have little if any quality or marketable players.
Ofcourse we'll always be better off without the interest repayments than with them, but we aren't in too bad a situation as it stands because the debt isn't stopping us from competing even without the FFP in place. Like most things, we'll have to see what happens. FFP is good news for most clubs though, United and Liverpool included.
If you put the club rivalries to the side for a moment, Liverpool are actually the second biggest club in the UK despite going off the boil for the last few seasons. If anything, FFP will help them in the long term.
They will hamper us, but to a much lesser extent than Liverpool and Arsenal's lower revenue levels hamper them. Ultimately any interest payments are paid out of revenues. In 2011 Utd had revenues of £330 million and interest payments of £45 million, leaving £285 million for football spending. In 2011 Liverpool had revenues of £184 million and no interest payments, leaving £183 million for football spending So even without any debt, Liverpool will need to double their revenues by 2014 if they want to keep up with us once the new deals I detailed above come into force. Arsenal are in a better position, with revenue of £225 million, but they still need to pay some of their stadium debt off, and have lower commercial appeal than Utd.
Just when the conversation turned a little mature, this twat has to come along and spew his bile out - **** off you idiot!
You forget though Swarbs, as of yesterday KPR told us that by 2014 LFC will the the Premier League 'Commercial Superpower' So you lose
This is true, but then sponsors are more concerned about brand exposure than the size of the club. Not being in the CL will still hurt Liverpool commercially, tho' obviously not as much as a smaller club like City. How could I forget?
