It was Chelsea with £1.5bn but now we are one of only 4 big clubs in Europe debt free. Surprised Arsenal are still in so much debt: is that from the Emirates? And surprised about Liverpool too: no wonder they were so desperate for Super League
1 Barcelona €1.35B
2 Juventus €900M
3 Tottenham €826M
4 Inter €702M
5 AC Milan €666M
6 Real Madrid €662M
7 Arsenal €625M
8 Atletico Madrid €523M
9 Manchester United €450M
10 Liverpool €386M
Clubs with most debt in 2022
posted on 8/6/22
comment by Culèr: Back Soon (U9489)
posted 34 seconds ago
Nobody can tell me Liverpool aren’t financial dopers. They’re one of the most in-debt clubs but they've suddenly found £100 million to sign Nunez??? There’s clear breaches of FFP going on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not when they get £200m for Mane.
posted on 8/6/22
Klopp is a chequebook manager, he really is.
They haven’t got £100 million to spend ffs. Clear doping.
posted on 9/6/22
OP should do a list of so called big clubs with the most dilapidated and minuscule stadiums.
Chelsea would top that by a countrymile.
posted on 9/6/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 12 hours, 22 minutes ago
It has Spurs has number 1 in Europe, but as you say it has an asset. Spurs just need deliver a decent team to fill the stadium, unsold corporate areas etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL Spurs attract 61,000 crowds, whilst Chelsea attract 31,000 crowds. Spurs have a cash cow of a stadium, whilst Chelsea have to call the builders in every month, just to keep the stadium from falling down.
posted on 9/6/22
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 12 hours, 22 minutes ago
It has Spurs has number 1 in Europe, but as you say it has an asset. Spurs just need deliver a decent team to fill the stadium, unsold corporate areas etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL Spurs attract 61,000 crowds, whilst Chelsea attract 31,000 crowds. Spurs have a cash cow of a stadium, whilst Chelsea have to call the builders in every month, just to keep the stadium from falling down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.statista.com/statistics/384458/premier-league-stadium-capacity/
posted on 9/6/22
Operating profit or loss provides a good indication of the financial health of a football club. This is basically the cost of operating the club (all costs, wages etc) against the revenue gained, before allowing for any transfers and interest.
If you go back to 2019 (the last full season unaffected by Covid), Chelsea had an operating of £5m. They did not have UCL that season. Their player trading was net -£107m meaning they posted a loss of about £90m, allowing for other smaller elements.
Compared to 2018, when they did have UCL, their operating profit was £74m, but their net player trading was just £10m, meaning a profit overall of about £60m. So UCL money and the sale of hazard contributed massively to CFC turning a profit. Without
This shows that actually Chelsea's operating profits are slim for a club that commits so much to transfers (av. £145m per season), and they have been reliant on profit on player disposals (av. £85m each season).
Now if you compare that to Spurs, in 2018 and 2019 their operating profit averaged £150m, meaning their more modest transfer spend - Net about £60m, translated in to massive profits and cash in the bank.
Our more recent figures show the interest payable to be around £38m....but within these figures of high operating profits, the debt can easily be paid and there is scope to increase transfer spending & wages.
LFC by comparison show their figures slightly differently, including transfers IN within their operating profit, so while they showed just £500k operating profit in 2019, that included gross £112m spend on transfers....so take that out and their operating profit is about £112m before allowing for a net trasnfer spend of £70m (£112m spent, £45m profit) Along with some other costs, including interest payments of about £5m, they showed a profit of about £34m.
Both LFC and Spurs demonstrate much greater underlying financial strength than Chelsea and are therefore well capable of meeting the payments on their debt.
Chelsea have had the luxury of never having to pay interest or repay any of their debt. £1.5bn debt would typically see repayments of about £75m a year. a sum that they have never had to account for or show in the FFP assessment.
One can predict that for the coming season, Spurs with their stadium running at full capacity, commercial revenue returning to previous highs, involvement in the UCL could top the £500m revenue mark - £125m Matchday, £70m UEFA money, £150m PL TV, Commercial £160m. That will thrust us towards the top of the revenue tree still behind the massive traditional clubs - Barca, Real, United, Bayern etc....but close to the likes of Liverpool & Chelsea
posted on 12/6/22
Debt is not a negative. It is how companies leverage for growth. Ability to service debt is the only thing that matters when reviewing borrowing exposure.
posted on 18/6/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
Operating profit or loss provides a good indication of the financial health of a football club. This is basically the cost of operating the club (all costs, wages etc) against the revenue gained, before allowing for any transfers and interest.
If you go back to 2019 (the last full season unaffected by Covid), Chelsea had an operating of £5m. They did not have UCL that season. Their player trading was net -£107m meaning they posted a loss of about £90m, allowing for other smaller elements.
Compared to 2018, when they did have UCL, their operating profit was £74m, but their net player trading was just £10m, meaning a profit overall of about £60m. So UCL money and the sale of hazard contributed massively to CFC turning a profit. Without
This shows that actually Chelsea's operating profits are slim for a club that commits so much to transfers (av. £145m per season), and they have been reliant on profit on player disposals (av. £85m each season).
Now if you compare that to Spurs, in 2018 and 2019 their operating profit averaged £150m, meaning their more modest transfer spend - Net about £60m, translated in to massive profits and cash in the bank.
Our more recent figures show the interest payable to be around £38m....but within these figures of high operating profits, the debt can easily be paid and there is scope to increase transfer spending & wages.
LFC by comparison show their figures slightly differently, including transfers IN within their operating profit, so while they showed just £500k operating profit in 2019, that included gross £112m spend on transfers....so take that out and their operating profit is about £112m before allowing for a net trasnfer spend of £70m (£112m spent, £45m profit) Along with some other costs, including interest payments of about £5m, they showed a profit of about £34m.
Both LFC and Spurs demonstrate much greater underlying financial strength than Chelsea and are therefore well capable of meeting the payments on their debt.
Chelsea have had the luxury of never having to pay interest or repay any of their debt. £1.5bn debt would typically see repayments of about £75m a year. a sum that they have never had to account for or show in the FFP assessment.
One can predict that for the coming season, Spurs with their stadium running at full capacity, commercial revenue returning to previous highs, involvement in the UCL could top the £500m revenue mark - £125m Matchday, £70m UEFA money, £150m PL TV, Commercial £160m. That will thrust us towards the top of the revenue tree still behind the massive traditional clubs - Barca, Real, United, Bayern etc....but close to the likes of Liverpool & Chelsea
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs will blow Chelsea out of the water this season on stadium revenue alone.
posted on 18/6/22
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 5 days, 20 hours ago
Debt is not a negative. It is how companies leverage for growth. Ability to service debt is the only thing that matters when reviewing borrowing exposure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn’t the only thing.
Manchester United had zero debt. When the Glazers completed their takeover, the club was saddled with close to £300m of debt secured against its assets (and a further close to £300m unsecured). That’s an immediate devaluation of the brick and mortar assets of the club.
The debt has cost the club close to £1bn since the takeover, and, yes, with some desperate scrambling and refinancing at one point, it has been serviceable. But where has the benefit been to the business?
None of that debt was used in any way to invest in the business: not in player acquisition, not on stadium renovation (let alone development), not on training or medical facilities. Nothing. It was money conjured out of thin air by a bunch of bankers who gambled against the future revenues of Manchester United, for the Glazers to hand over to the shareholders they were buying out.
The debt was accrued solely to leverage the buyout, not growth. And from the club’s perspective (and not that of the owners) it was wholly unnecessary.
In fact, of the huge debts we see against clubs across Europe, very few have been accrued in the name of investment in growth.
posted on 18/6/22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LNZRHyyQTc