Finances of the Top 6 clubs

[Jazzman]

Cheers for this @Prestwich_Blue great work.
Can even be understood by a layman like me.

 

[SilverFox2]

After writing about this in KOTK a couple of months ago, I've posted a big thread on Twitter looking at the finances of the top 6 over the last six published accounting years (2015 - 2020).



There's lots of takeaways from this but the key one is that we reinvest virtually all the cash we generate. We have of course had external financing over the period, from China & Silverlake, but in terms of transfers we've spent 97% of the cash we generated. Others are that it's Chelsea, not us, who are still heavily reliant on owner finance and Spurs have absolutely cheated their fans, despite paying for their new stadium. Their true net spend over those 6 years is just over £1m. For comparison, even Arsenal have spent nearly £450m net in the same period. Even Liverpool, the next lowest net spenders, have spent over £330m.

Thanks again Colin for making sense of the financial mysticism that seems to follow the multi million pound dealings that surround our football sector.

My education is once again enhanced as I can now confidently deal with top club financial comparisons.

 

[Chris in London]

Excellent thread, PB.

Sort of confirms what a lot of us thought already - Rags spend big but unwisely, Chelsea are still owner-dependent, Spurs could spend a lot more but choose not to - but provides the stats to prove it.

Your analysis is taken over the last six years looking at that period as a whole. Did you spot any trends within that period, eg did Chelsea become less owner-dependent during that period or less so, have United been spending bigger (for less and less reward) as that period has gone by, etc?

 

[cityontheup]

Incredible that Chelsea are £1bn in debt!!!!!!…even worse than the scum !

 

[scousemanc]

Very useful thanks Colin. I have a question which I hope you can answer. When was the last time our owner put money into the club?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Excellent thread, PB.

Sort of confirms what a lot of us thought already - Rags spend big but unwisely, Chelsea are still owner-dependent, Spurs could spend a lot more but choose not to - but provides the stats to prove it.

Your analysis is taken over the last six years looking at that period as a whole. Did you spot any trends within that period, eg did Chelsea become less owner-dependent during that period or less so, have United been spending bigger (for less and less reward) as that period has gone by, etc?

Roman put in a lot of money in 2018/19 but it's been steady most other years, with some money going in or some being repaid.

Liverpool's wage bill also increased significantly, pretty well doubling over those 6 years, possibly indicating that they were putting their cash pot into higher wages rather than transfer fees.

 

[BrianW]

But, but, City only have dirty oil money! And a secret slush fund that pays everyone a second salary, and another one that buys all the empty seats every week. Whereas the other teams spend nothing, and rely on donations from the Salvation Army. City won't be a real team until they have a £50 million noodle sponsor in Korea and are owned by Americans who take money out of the club.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Very useful thanks Colin. I have a question which I hope you can answer. When was the last time our owner put money into the club?

Probably January 2018, when we bought Laporte and had to meet his buyout clause in full.

 

[David Kloppesh]

Proper post. Cheers.

 

[Corky]

Leicester and West Ham are missing, or is it the Sky top 6?