Leicester City losses 2012-13 - £34m

[beardy gull]

Tweet from @StringerSport Leicester football reporter...

#LCFC confirm losses of £34m for 2012-13. No Financial Fair Play penalty yet. Shows work needed for 2013-14. 104.9fm for more


Can't think they'll be bothered given their position......

 

[hybrid_x]

Great gamble by them, soon to pick up £120m or so and become a world wide product.

 

[Rugrat]

They are by no means the worst and, by Championship standards, have pretty decent revenues too.

For me it just reinforces the state football has got itself into. FFP is daft and to survive many clubs are going to need to rely on the rich benefactors. The FL should focus their effort on seeing that clubs remain solvent and not stifle it of "investment"

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

35 million loss last year, unknown loss this year, +60 million for reaching the PL next year ( rest of the 120 million is future parachute payments ), PL wage bill next year at least 40 million....

Still looks grim financially.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Great gamble by them, soon to pick up £120m or so and become a world wide product.

A Midlands-wide product more like. Can't see too many people around the world, or in Torquay or Brighton, rushing out to pick up a Leicester City shirt or club-endorsed clock/radio anytime soon, Premier League or no Premier League.

 

[nwgull]

35 million loss last year, unknown loss this year, +60 million for reaching the PL next year ( rest of the 120 million is future parachute payments ), PL wage bill next year at least 40 million....

Still looks grim financially.

This is a very good point. You don't just get handed a cheque for 120m and expect all your players to carry on playing for the same wage for the next 3 years - regardless of whether or not they get relegated in the first season.

Football is currently unsustainable, and all it will take is for one of these foreign investors to get bored of the game and withdraw their millions for a club to go under.

 

[gordonchas]

Great gamble by them, soon to pick up £120m or so and become a world wide product.

Gamble? Yes, you've got that right. As for picking up big bucks and becoming "a world wide product"..........hmmmm.

Any time Leicester spend in the Premier League will be temporary (not just them, this applies to 70% of that league at any one time). When their inevitable relegation follows at some time in the near or less-near future, I guarantee they will be in a far, far worse financial position than they even are now.

Wolves is a great example. They sensibly and prudently broke even during their PL years (OK, they gave their modest budget to Mick McCarthy to spend which was less sensible). They get relegated with no debt, and then, having adapted to a level of income they can no longer rely on, post losses of £30 million.

It will end in tears, and Leicester have form in this regard.

 

[nwgull]

Bolton is another good example: 50m debt in their first year back in the Championship.

 

[drew]

They are by no means the worst and, by Championship standards, have pretty decent revenues too.

For me it just reinforces the state football has got itself into. FFP is daft and to survive many clubs are going to need to rely on the rich benefactors. The FL should focus their effort on seeing that clubs remain solvent and not stifle it of "investment"

Can you put some meat to the bone of your idea as to how the FL, and Premier League come to that, can achieve that. After all, most of the 'investment' as you put it, are actually loans!!!

 

[KZNSeagull]

Great gamble by them, soon to pick up £120m or so and become a world wide product.

60m of which 24m will be donated to charity if they do that again this season. Not so healthy now really is it?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

This is a very good point. You don't just get handed a cheque for 120m and expect all your players to carry on playing for the same wage for the next 3 years - regardless of whether or not they get relegated in the first season.

Football is currently unsustainable, and all it will take is for one of these foreign investors to get bored of the game and withdraw their millions for a club to go under.

Look at Cardiff. Their owner has everybody by the balls at the moment and look at their debt.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/cardiff-city-debt-reaches-118million-6497122

What happens if they go down. Well they have parachute payments but it looks nowhere near enough to cover the debt. And then what about FFP rules, doesn't somebody have to find the money to plug the gap.

I will stick with the way we are doing things thank you very much.

 

[Rugrat]

Can you put some meat to the bone of your idea as to how the FL, and Premier League come to that, can achieve that. After all, most of the 'investment' as you put it, are actually loans!!!

If a benefactor wants to gift the club or wrap it up as soon spurious sponsorship deal or naming rights or whatever then fine. Equally if other "investors" want to buy shares or equity that overvalues the club then why not?

It's only when clubs and owners use their assets to borrow or simply convince creditors that by lending they will get their money back when they get to the promised land, that things go wrong.

There's nothing unusual about borrowing against future revenues just as long as those revenues are fairly well set or guaranteed. I'd have thought the FL could act in a supervisory capacity to oversee clubs borrowings. It may well not be able to actually stop them but it has the ability to impose sanctions if a club exceeds it's reasonable borrowing capability.

I don't know, perhaps it's unworkable but I'm convinced FFP is not the way to go, far too simplistic

 

[CheeseRolls]

They are by no means the worst and, by Championship standards, have pretty decent revenues too.

For me it just reinforces the state football has got itself into. FFP is daft and to survive many clubs are going to need to rely on the rich benefactors. The FL should focus their effort on seeing that clubs remain solvent and not stifle it of "investment"

How exactly is paying disproportionate wages viewed as "investment" ?
It doesn't help owners, it doesn't help fans it doesn't help develop the national game. All that is happening is that a bunch of second tier players and their agents are reaping massive rewards.

 

[Rugrat]

How exactly is paying disproportionate wages viewed as "investment" ?
It doesn't help owners, it doesn't help fans it doesn't help develop the national game. All that is happening is that a bunch of second tier players and their agents are reaping massive rewards.

It's not an investment as such, which is why I used inverted commas. FFP isn't going to stop disproportionate wages, because those are driven by TV. What it might do (although I doubt it) is make half the Championship clubs and those in L1 and L2 totally uncompetitive and maybe drive some out of business.

IMO all footballers are vastly overpaid, just cutting off the relative high(ish) wages for those playing for lower league clubs doesn't feel like the smartest way to address the financial excesses of the game

 

[CheeseRolls]

A Midlands-wide product more like. Can't see too many people around the world, or in Torquay or Brighton, rushing out to pick up a Leicester City shirt or club-endorsed clock/radio anytime soon, Premier League or no Premier League.

This is a very good point. You don't just get handed a cheque for 120m and expect all your players to carry on playing for the same wage for the next 3 years - regardless of whether or not they get relegated in the first season.

Football is currently unsustainable, and all it will take is for one of these foreign investors to get bored of the game and withdraw their millions for a club to go under.

Gamble? Yes, you've got that right. As for picking up big bucks and becoming "a world wide product"..........hmmmm.

Any time Leicester spend in the Premier League will be temporary (not just them, this applies to 70% of that league at any one time). When their inevitable relegation follows at some time in the near or less-near future, I guarantee they will be in a far, far worse financial position than they even are now.

Wolves is a great example. They sensibly and prudently broke even during their PL years (OK, they gave their modest budget to Mick McCarthy to spend which was less sensible). They get relegated with no debt, and then, having adapted to a level of income they can no longer rely on, post losses of £30 million.

It will end in tears, and Leicester have form in this regard.

So why are so many foreign owners attracted to buying football clubs in this country ?

I think it boils down to three main factors and sometimes a combination of these.

1 Prestige - pretty much along the lines of owning racehorses and a big yacht in the Med.

2 Business legitimacy - Owning a premiership football brand, looks fabulous in Thailand, Malaysia, India, Hong Kong. Take your team on a pre-season tour, flog merchandise, take a cut of the local TV revenue, but also examine the impact this has on your business. You must be a powerful global businessman, to run such a powerful empire. Why is it we see owners smiling and waiving, as their own supporters boo and gesticulate at them. Guess which bits the cameras back home will focus on ?

3 Wanting to be part of the British establishment -Why else would you pore money into Fulham, or Hull.

4 To make money directly - not a general rule, but one specific to the cash cow that is Man Utd.

The population of Leicester is 330,000. The population of Thailand is 66 million. Which is easier to achieve ?

1 Sell 10,000 extra season tickets at £400 per season = £4m revenue.
2 Sell 100,000 TV and shirt deals in Thailand at £40 per season - £4m revenue

Simplistic, I know, but I think this demonstrates the point. Global does not have to mean that a brand appeals to the whole world.

 

[Bozza]

Bolton is another good example: 50m debt in their first year back in the Championship.

If Bolton are a good example then so are the Albion. Bolton are being bankrolled by Eddie Davies in the same way we are by Tony Bloom. Nearly all the money Bolton owe is to Davies (or a company he controls) in the same way we own Bloom.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

So why are so many foreign owners attracted to buying football clubs in this country ?

I think it boils down to three main factors and sometimes a combination of these.

1 Prestige - pretty much along the lines of owning racehorses and a big yacht in the Med.

2 Business legitimacy - Owning a premiership football brand, looks fabulous in Thailand, Malaysia, India, Hong Kong. Take your team on a pre-season tour, flog merchandise, take a cut of the local TV revenue, but also examine the impact this has on your business. You must be a powerful global businessman, to run such a powerful empire. Why is it we see owners smiling and waiving, as their own supporters boo and gesticulate at them. Guess which bits the cameras back home will focus on ?

3 Wanting to be part of the British establishment -Why else would you pore money into Fulham, or Hull.

4 To make money directly - not a general rule, but one specific to the cash cow that is Man Utd.

The population of Leicester is 330,000. The population of Thailand is 66 million. Which is easier to achieve ?

1 Sell 10,000 extra season tickets at £400 per season = £4m revenue.
2 Sell 100,000 TV and shirt deals in Thailand at £40 per season - £4m revenue

Simplistic, I know, but I think this demonstrates the point. Global does not have to mean that a brand appeals to the whole world.

How marketable is Cardiff City compared to say Man Utd, Chelsea or Arsenal abroad. These fans are no different to the plastics we have here who will only support the teams at the top and the teams that keep winning, anything else is considered a failure. May be it is one reason why he changed the colour to red to it could be more recognisable to brands like Man Utd, Arsenal. Seems to me that part has failed.

Another example was Blackburn Rovers, I thought once again the plan was to promote Blackburn Rovers in India, and also raise the profile of Venkys business in the UK. I have not seen a Venkys yet.

These owners probably thought they would walk these teams to the Champions League final. Because of their lack of understanding of our game, supporters and the general make up of football in the UK, it's turned out not to be so easy.

They would honestly have more fun buying a team in conference and bring them up to the Championship. At least that is where the heart is.

 

[skipper734]

If Bolton are a good example then so are the Albion. Bolton are being bankrolled by Eddie Davies in the same way we are by Tony Bloom. Nearly all the money Bolton owe is to Davies (or a company he controls) in the same way we own Bloom.

Freudian slip there Bozza?

 

[Stat Brother]

Can you remind me again, how brilliant a cash cow The Premier League is:-

[tweet]440762745253011456[/tweet]

 

[Acker79]

If Bolton are a good example then so are the Albion. Bolton are being bankrolled by Eddie Davies in the same way we are by Tony Bloom. Nearly all the money Bolton owe is to Davies (or a company he controls) in the same way we own Bloom.

I think nwgull was more trying to highlight further evidence that the 60m you get in the premier league plus parachute payments is eaten up quite quickly and won't stop you falling into debt, using how much Bolton have lost as an example, so Albion are not relevant to that point (yet)