18 Dec 2009

EXCLUSIVE - Liverpool FC 10 year TURNOVER/PROFIT analysis

As part of my ongoing effort to cut through the misinformation/embellishment/exaggeration and present accurate FACTUAL data re Liverpool FC's finances, here is a breakdown of the club's turnover and profit over the last 10 years.

There are three tables below.

* Table 1 presents the annual turnover/profit figures for the last 10 years, including percentage increase/decreases per year.

* Table 2 looks at individual income streams from which the club benefits. it also looks at gross transfer spending as a percentage of turnover each year.

* Table 3 compiles all the totals in the first two tables and looks at averages per year; each income stream as a percentage of turnover each year, and pre/post Hicks and Gillett figures.


* Until season 01-02, match day income and TV fees were counted as one in the club’s annual reports. Since there is no way to get individual figures for each income stream, I have separated the figures.

Thus, the combined Matchday/TV income figures for 1998-2001 are separate from the individual Matchday/TV income figures from 2001-2008. If they were all added together, the figures would not be entirely accurate.

* The annual report for 2008-09 has not been published yet so I have only included figures up to and including the 2007-8 financial year (31 July 2007 – 31 July 2008)

TABLE 1 - TURNOVER FIGURES (Click to enlarge)

TABLE 2 - TURNOVER ANALYSIS (Click to enlarge)


Jaimie Kanwar


  1. I'm sure that is all very nice.

  2. have you any data on Tv contracts or did i miss that?

    i think the americans have been great commercially but it's not just down to them, the prem sky contracts have gone through the roof in recent years

    i suppose its just a shame its all gone on their debt

  3. Interesting, good to see the turnover increasing steadily over the years, just a shame the profit is abit inconsistent.

    Any ideas why there was so much loss in 06-07? I would have thought getting to the CL final that year would have helped!

  4. Weel seeing as we were "bought" by Hicks and Gillett in feb 2007 I would think that the loss has a bit to do with the debt we incurred from that.

  5. You see - this is where the typical Anti-owner bias comes into play.  You probably go around saying similar things like this about the owners that are 100% untrue.  The majority of that loss came from costs relating to the new stadium (planning permissions etc), all of which were accrued BEFORE H+G bought the club. 

    What makes it worse is the original stadium was massively flased and was discared upon the advice of architects.  So, the fault for the huge loss lies with Moores and Parry, NOT H+G.

    If you click on the image attached to this comment you will find the relevant snippet from the report that explains this.

  6. TV income is in the MI section (Media income)

    And please stop spreading misinformation - what is your evidence for the contention that TV money 'has all gone on their debt'?  Do you both to research independently or do you just believe everything the superfans over at RAWK say?

    If you look at the figures you will see that the club is struggling to make a profit at the moment.  Over the last 10 years, net profit stands at -22m.  Also, look at ooperating costs, which swallow up a large chunk of turnover.

  7. ok fair point, i don't know how much money has gone on debt

    but according to you Liverpool have spent 47 million net on transfers under the yanks, and according to you the debt is about 200 million, what have we got for the additional 153 million of debt?

    do you not agree that the club would be better off if we didnt have to pay 20m in interest payments alone per season?

  8. You are looking at things in the wrong way.  Why do you not get that buying clubs with debt is the normal way of doing things?  Buying a club outright rarely EVER happens!  Debt is a normal part of the business transaction.

    Look at Man U - their owers heaped far more debt onto the club than H+G did at Liverpool, but has it hurt them?  NO. 

    In order to buy a club, you need to borrow money to do it unless you are Abramovich.

    This is accepted, yet despite this, Liverpool fans use it as a way of attacking the owners. 

    The debt has not affected the club in any way.  transfer spending has increased; the quality of player Liverpool is able to buy has increased; commercial success off the field has increased.

    Using FACTS, not baseless opinion and conjecture, please tell me how the debt has, as a matter of fact, negatively affected the club.

    The only negative thins to come from the debt is the ceaseless moaning of ill-informed Liverpool fans.

    Yes, it would be great if the club had no dent BUT THIS IS NOT REALITY!

    The club has always had debt; befoer H+G arrived it had tens of millions of pounds worth of debt.  The club also had interest payments before H+G!

    The only thing that has changed is the debt has increased.  Big deal!  It's an investment in the future that will definitely pay off.

    You have to speculate to accumulate - if fans want Liverpool to progress to the next level then this is part and parcel of that. Under Moores and Parry, Liverpool were small time.  To become big time, you need to take risks, just like United did with the Glazers.

    Try and take an overviewq instead of pointlessly focusing on the debt.

    New investment WILL be found.  The new stadium WILL be bought.  More commercial opporunities WILL be discovered.

    All of this adds up to a copious influx of money into the club, and when this happens, are you still going to moan about the debt?!

    H+G have been at the club for less than 3 years.  The debt is the price the club pays for securing a profitable future.

    This constant complaining about the debt is just the blind leading the blind.  It's robotic: fans complain about it and they don't even know why; it just SOUNDS bad. 

  9. A quick question.  What does the debt repayment get labelled under?

  10. In your little snippet there it does not actually say how much of 13m was attributed to the stadium planning permission and how much was attributed to eh sale to Kop holding company which is owned by who?

  11. Greetings from Norway. Impressive work Jaimie. Interesting stuff. My impression is that you like to stick with facts. And that is what everybody should do :) But if you look in the crystal ball, and with all your knowlegde of this club, both off-field and on-field, where do you see it in 5 years time? 

  12. Please read it again. I states explicitly that 13m was attributed to stadium costs.

    'There are exceptional costs of 13m included in the figure. These exceptional costs represent...costs directly attributable to planning permission for the original new stadium design'

    See  - 13m on the stadium design.

    If you subtract that from the loss for the year you're left with a loss of of 7m, which is par for the course, especially considering the fact that two years prior to that, Liverpool had a net loss of 18m.

  13. What would be really interesting JK, seeing as your into "critical realism" is a look at Kop holding company and the losses they made and the financial implications that this could have for the club.

    Instead of trying to paint the owners, who basically bought the club with borrowed money then passed the debt onto the club, as angels in order to continue your Rafa hate obsession mabye a little objectivity and some common sense could prevail?

    Of course this post will never see the light of day on this site as it dares to point out your quite obviouls irrational agenda  

  14. Well its quite obviousl in your haste to defend teh owners you have failed to read what you yorself have posted.

    The snippet you posted clearly says that the 13m cost is directly attributed to the stadium <span style="text-decoration: underline;">AND </span>the sale of the company to KOP Football limited.  What it does not say however is how the 13m was split 

  15. "<span style="">Debt is a normal part of the business transaction."</span>

    So tell me why did G&H proclaimed they would NOT be putting debt on the club when they purchased it?

    Oh, because theyre American so they just tell people what they want to hear, not the truth.


  16. Jaime
    there is a problem when you compare us to United.  They are YEARS ahead when it comes to commercial revenues (we can thank Rick Parry, amongst others, for this) and the fact they have a stadium which holds almost double Anfield also helps them.  
    I would say that, in fact, United are in far more serious trouble.  Yes, they are doing quite well right now, but if I remember correctly they are due to pay a TON of money back in 2011 (some sort of bubble payment).  Add to that the fact that SAF is close to retiring and I could see them going into some serious decline.  
    As for the current owners, the fact they said they weren't leveraging the buyout is what (in my opinion) upsets fans.  Yes, it's the way things are done, but by promising NOT to do that, and by ACTING as if they were benefactors, they dug themselves a very deep hole.  
    Right now it would simply behoove all fans to take the long view.  H&G will not be here forever.  The debt is coming down and the commercial revenues are increasing.  The stadium will be built (I'd bet Purslow will convince a corporation to build it in return for it being named after them for the next 20 years or so).  Right now things aren't great but they will get better.  

  17. I don't need to respond to this because it's pointless.  What you're asking is irrelevent.  There are no financial implications for the club.  as I explained, debt in the purchase of football clubs is normal. if you cannot grasp this simple concept then there is no point discussing the issue with you.

    Just saying 'the owners put debt on the club therefore they're evil' is laughably simplistic. 

    I don't paint the owners as angels at all; I've criticised them many times in my articles (check out the Hicks + Gillet link in the label cloud); I defend them now because I'm sick of ill-informed fans spreading false information, which they do (most of the time) because they don't have a clue about business reality.

    Just because you and others don't understand how things are done doesn't make the owners wrong.

    The fact that you and others continually ignore the fact that debt is norma when making big purchases like this jiust says it all.  You probably also dismiss the impact of the WORLDWIDE credit crunch over the last couple of years; you probably think that has nothing to do with anything.

    Arguing with people who think this way is an exercise in futility.

    So many fans have now jumped on the anti-owner bandwagon, and the majority haven't got a clue WHY they feels so strgonly against the owners. if you ask them, they'll say 'they put debt on the club...said there would be a spade in the ground within 60 days etc...

    They basically come out with the same old baseless labels propagated by the media/fan boards, but they're just saying the words; they don't know anything about the actual situation.

    It's the blind leading the blind, and the fan response to the owners is far more damaging for LFC than the owners themselves.

    3 years from now when new investment has been secured; when work on the new stadium is well underway; when Liverpool's finances are in even better shape (last year was a record turnover year), all these mewling fans bitching about debt are going to look like idiots, just like all the sage Man United fans who bitched how the club would collapse when the Glazers took over.

  18. No, they are not liars - you just do not understand.

    What they said was correct: They bought the club with no debt on the club.  Please read the following from an article by taf Mcdonald, which explains the comment:

    <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="">The debts on the club argument I believe comes about from a very early interview with George Gillett. During the interview he said "We have purchased the club with no debt on the club, so I think in that regard it is different (from the Glazer deal)", it was then a reporter who suggested "Unlike Glazer, who saddled United with borrowings of $1.1 billion, Liverpool's new owners said their offer would leave the club debt-free". These are two completly different statements; only one of which are attributable to the owners. Having reviewed the accounts for Liverpool Football Club it is clear that at one point, following the purchase of the club, the club itself was indeed debt free.</span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="">
    <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="">I have found no evidence to suggest that either H or G stated the club would always be debt free. So I am reasonably satisfied, having found no direct quote to substantiate the claim, that they did not lie about this. </span></span></span>

    You're just another fan who has jumped on the bandwagon.  I have no doubt that the najoiryt of the vitiol hurled at H+G is due to to latent xenophobia more than anything else.

  19. You spew on as if your only one who knows the facts and are full of your self importance that im sure you actually believe some of what your writing at times and that its not all just sensationalist articles ot get hits on your site. 

    You go on about the Glazers at Utd who if you listen to some of the reports and look at them selling a player for 80m with negligable reinvestment are not actually looking that good financially at teh moment. 
    You say that once the owners obtain investment then everything will turn out rosy but what about the fact that both have recently sold franchises (well almost in the case of Hicks) and would surely have the money to reinvest in LFC but have stated that they wont.

    One of the main factors stopping investors at teh moment is the debt so to dismiss it as "a normal business transaction" is naieve in the extreme and shows that you do not really have a ful grasp on what you are talking about

  20. Semantics,  LFC are responsible for the debt of KOP Holdings and if Kop holdings went into administration then LFC would suffer the sanctions applied.  Just because the owners used financial smoke and mirrors does not change that.

  21. Mate , seriously you are so deluded.
    How much did we spend on transfers summer just gone ?
    Did you know that contract extensions etc all come under Rafa's transfer fee allowance ? I know most didnt beofre Purslow told us.
    Net spend Rafa has averaged 16M since he has been here .
    The club owes RBS about 240M as we speak , No debt you say ?

  22. I See that there is no aknolagement of a mistake make by JK in relation to the 13m exceptional costs. Then again I doubt his overinflated ego would allow him to accept any mistake on his part.

  23. What JK will tell you is that the club does not infact owe anything it is just KOP holdings that owe the money nevermind the fact that if Kop holdings goels into administration that the club woud also incur teh relevant penalties

  24. I love how you've nicked Guillem Balague's 16m net spend figure - you just believe it without question.  Did he provide any figures/evidence for that total? NO.  Despite the fact he is close to Benitez, and is basically an apologist, you jus accept what he says without question.  he owuldn't have any vested interests in painting Benitez in a good light, would he?!

    Contract extenstion do not come under benitez's allowance usually; they did this one time because BENITEZ DEMANDED THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE SIGNED ASAP.

    He could have spent the money on buying new players but HE chose to bring forward contract extension.  There as no mo ney in the budget for that, so he used his transfer money.

    And the debt is below 200m - it is not 240 'as we speak'; I got that figure from the someone at the club who is in a position to know:


  25. Seeing as Rafa's transfer policy relies heavily on sell to buy it makes very good sense to tie your most saleable commodoties to long term contracts.  Of course we could go down the Owen route and leave it as long as possible and risk losing htem for pittance.

    You would think that the owners would see the value in that and ensure that they release a little more after what was a very successful season but it matters not to them if we actually win anything as long as we stay in the top 4 and get into the CL.  Of course winning things would be an added bonus but as they themselves have said they do not need to.  

    The owners have little interest in the success of this club all they are interested is exploiting the commercial prospects (of which there are many after teh criminal handling of this aspect by Parry and Moores) and lower the debt by getting the club to pay it off then sell for a healthy profit with very little of their own money actually spent.  Its what they do.  They will spend as little as possible to make the maximum amount of money then sell on and never look back. 

  26. Hello Jaimie.

    I've read your blog a few times with interest.

    I appreciate you trying to unearth/clarify facts to use as a meaningful basis for debate.  I also agree that fans should be pulled up for using no basis for saying such things as "the owners are bad because the bought the club with debt".

    At the same time, I imagine you would welcome someone pointing out where you to have strayed into hyperbole; statements such as "the debt is an investment in the future and will pay off", and "new investment WILL be found, new stadium WILL be built" etc.

    Essentially, in absolute terms the Glazer debt is more than our debt.  However, United's cash flow is better able to service that debt.  The American owners have managed to increase our ability to generate cash flow, but that is being largely used to service the debt.

    Certainly, debt is normal in buying any business. but in our case it is the amount of debt, relative to the cash flow potential of the underlying asset, which is the "problem".

    Nothing in your analysis to-date indicates that this can happen, mainly because the entire picture is still not clear to make such statements.

    First of all, the real cost of servicing the debt, does not only lie in Liverpool Football Club, but also in Kop Holdings, the parent company. 

    Second, using gross transfer spend is perhaps not the best indicator of our ability to compete in the market.  Our gross spend in calendar year 2009 looks impressive, but when you consider that it was largely funded by selling players within the squad (Keane, Alonso, Hobbs, Leto, Arbeloa), it tells an entirely different story regarding the availability of cash.


  27. He hasn't had to sell to buy. He's sold players who wanted to leave or his own failed signings. Like any manager does. It's called running a football club. I know in your fantasy world he should have a net-spend of 100M every year but if that's what you're looking for i suggest you follow City, Chelsea or Madrid. They might keep you happier.

    Ife he kept half the players he's sold we'd have a first team squad of 60 players with half of them doing absolutely nothing at all.

    He's signed more players than any other manager in the last 5 years. You can't complain he hasn't been backed becuase he has, he's just wasted a lot of money on rubbish. He got lucky with Torres and Reina, Masch fell into his lap and other than that it's been hit and hope stuff. He has no idea how to build a squad becuause he's never done it anywhere.

    The longest job he was in before here was 3 yrs. That's why so many of his signings leave within that timespan. Because he works year to year instead of long-term. For 5 years work our squad without Torres would look distinctly ordinary.

    He's here now becuase he has cunningly lived off 2 events. Istanbul and the signing of Torres. The desperation of our fanbase allows him to manipulate it at will.

  28. Well said,  completly agree 100% . when will our own fans wake up ?? We all want the best for our club , the current squad is not good enough , 5 years is long time to get a decent team together ! Rafa out now !!!!!!!

  29. Well said, Guest.  Take Torres out of our team, and even with Gerrard, it is very ordinary.

    The idea that Benitez has had to sell to buy irritates me beyond believf because it is just not true.

    We bought Keane in Summer 2008 - are we to believe that he was forced to sell him 6 months later to buy new players?!  NO.  He treated him like crap and forced him out the club.  Same goes for Crouch, Alonso et al.  We didn't need to sell Alonso; Benitez alienated him.  We didn't need to sell Bellamy; Benitez just didn't want him.  And the list goes on.

  30. Interest payable and similar charges. It is in the profit and loss statement with a further breakdown in note 8.

    Kop Football Holdings had c.£35m payable on bank loans. 

  31. it is £10.3m for the stadium costs. It is in the notes of the financial accounts (note 6)

    In the '08 accounts, the note states "During 2007, the Company contracted with a new architect and design firm for the redesign of the new stadium at Stanley Park. This resulted in exceptional costs during 2007 of £10.3m for the write-off of the costs incurred under the old design"

  32. Are you a shill, Kanwar, or merely a confused and deluded young fool?

  33. in all fairness, reina, carra, yossi and masch are all quality players.

  34. Hi,
    Do you have data on the playing staff and total number of staff for the following years for LFC; 2004/05,2005/06,2006/07,2007/08. If U also have the staff costs for the above years, I would appreciate U making the data available to me. Cheers

  35. i visited your site and it was good enough than othere site that i visited before.

    part time job

  36. I believe Crouch was offered a new contract by Benitez but turned it down as he did not want to play second fiddle to Torres.

    Strangely compare the Premiership scoring rates of Crouch, Bellamy and Keane this season to Ngog and then we can agree that non of them have actually turned out so good (although one of them is hardly in his prime).


  37. Jamie, I'd suggest you get irritated too easily.

  38. Jesus, you're really irritating me now.


  39. <span>Asking all Liverpool fans, WORLD WIDE, to protest the Banks: Barclays and RBS to put pressure on the loan for a quick sale... otherwise our club will fall.. so please... I urge all Liverpool fans whether richer or poor to protest against these Banks who hold the key to our survival.<span>   </span>Please put pressure on the Kop holdings Loan to be settled within 31 days (end of July 2010) so hicks and Gillette will have to sell quick and not hold out for the ridiculous amount of money they are asking for... they do not care what state they leave the club they are just looking at the figures they can get in there bank... so please join me and ask for your accounts to be closed and move banks in protest to save our Club.<span>   </span>CALLING ALL LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB FANS!!!</span>
    <span>Please help me and the city of liverpool before the americans kill our city and image.... </span>