• This is default featured slide 1 title

    Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

  • This is default featured slide 2 title

    Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

  • This is default featured slide 3 title

    Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

  • This is default featured slide 4 title

    Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

  • This is default featured slide 5 title

    Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Derby County's American Dream


In the notoriously competitive Championship it is perhaps unsurprising that so many clubs lose patience with their managers in their eagerness, almost desperation, to reach the promised land of the Premier League. Indeed, four have already exited stage left this season, including two former England managers in the form of Sven Göran Eriksson and Steve McClaren. So, when Derby County’s board extended Nigel Clough’s contract until 2015, it somehow seemed more extraordinary than the customary news of another manager’s sacking.

Admittedly the Rams made an excellent start to the season, winning their first four games, despite an absence of star names in their squad, so it should probably not be classified as a major shock. Even though Derby found the going more difficult in October, they still sit in the play-off positions with nearly a third of the campaign gone, so promotion remains a possibility, albeit very far from a fait accompli.

When Clough arrived at Derby in January 2009, he spoke of a 10-year plan and reinforced this approach when he signed the new contract, “From day one we knew this was going to be a long-term project and it is still very much a work in progress.” He has received solid backing from the club’s owners, notwithstanding the indifferent results in the last three seasons, when Derby have finished 18th, 14th and 19th respectively.

Indeed, Derby fans will hope to avoid a repetition of last season, when a promising start in which they briefly looked like realistic promotion contenders merely foreshadowed an awful run of two wins in 18 games which turned them into relegation candidates.

"Steve Davies - Going Up?"

The Rams’ support has become accustomed to having their hopes dashed in recent years, as the thrilling victory in the Championship play-off final against West Bromwich Albion in 2007 only paved the way for a nightmare time in the Premier League, when the team collected a paltry 11 points, winning just once and finishing rock bottom.

Even Billy Davies, the manager who guided Derby to promotion, admitted that the club had been promoted at least a season too early, as he left “by mutual consent” in November. His successor, Paul Jewell, fared little better, lasting only a year before he resigned in December 2008. Clough thus became the ninth Derby manager since 2001, so it is understandable that the board would seek a period of stability at the helm.

While performances on the pitch have not exactly set the world on fire, it should be acknowledged that the board has at least improved the state of the club’s finances, slashing the wage bill, though this has been at the expense of weakening the squad, notably when two reliable goalscorers were sold: experienced striker Rob Hulse to rivals QPR in August 2010 and Scottish international Kris Commons to Celtic in January 2011.

"Theo Robinson - Hand in Glove"

This has caused some fans to call for more investment with a few protests against the board’s parsimony. Nigel Clough was moved to observe, “I think we need about half a dozen good, established Championship players to take us forward.” There have been many new arrivals this summer, including a trio of loan deals that were made permanent: England U21 goalkeeper Frank Fielding from Blackburn Rovers and two forwards, Theo Robinson from Millwall and Jamie Ward from Sheffield United.

However, many of the signings left the fans distinctly under-whelmed, even though players like Jason Shackell (from Barnsley) and Craig Bryson (from Kilmarnock) figured prominently in Derby’s promising start to the season. There’s little doubt that it is difficult to secure promotion without the necessary investment, but on the other hand it is by no means impossible, as evidenced by both Norwich City and Swansea City going up last season on a shoestring budget.

Older supporters will remember a glorious period in the early 70s, when the legendary Brian Clough (Nigel’s father) and Peter Taylor led the Rams to their first ever League Championship in 1972 with a team featuring the prolific Kevin Hector and the commanding Roy McFarland. They reached the semi-finals of the European Cup before being controversially eliminated by Juventus.

"Glory Days"

Clough and Taylor left the club following a disagreement with the directors, but former player Dave Mackay repeated their feat by winning the title in 1975, boosted by the signings of Francis Lee and Bruce Rioch. Again, they (briefly) shone in Europe, including a memorable 4-1 demolition of Real Madrid that included a hat-trick from the darling of the terraces, Charlie George.

Since then, it is the boardroom battles that have dominated coverage of Derby County, as there have been frequent financial problems, spiced up with an embarrassing legal case. They were once owned by the notorious “bouncing Czech” himself, Robert Maxwell, who sold the club to Lionel Pickering, a local newspaper businessman, in 1991 after relegation from the old First Division and shortly before his demise, which was officially described as “death by accidental drowning.”

There followed a period of relatively high investment in new players, culminating in promotion to the Premiership in 1996. Pickering anticipated the trend of clubs building brand new stadiums by moving to Pride Park in 1997 and for a while the club flourished in the top tier. However, relegation in 2002 proved to be disastrous to the club’s finances, as key players such as Malcolm Christie, Chris Riggott and Danny Higginbotham had to be sold. This did not prevent the club’s principal debtor, the Co-Operative Bank, from putting it into receivership in October 2003.

The club was then rapidly sold for the princely sum of £3 to the mysterious ABC Corporation, based in Panama, who provided a loan of £15 million, albeit at an exorbitant rate of interest of 10% a year. At the time, former chairman John Sleightholme described them as “a mixture of persons, at home and abroad, who have asked to remain anonymous.”

"Pride Park (In the Name of Love)"

The ownership trio was finally revealed to be Sleightholme, Jeremy Keith (subsequently appointed chief executive) and Steve Harding. Dubbed “The Three Amigos” by the local press, this was very much a case of “out of the frying pan, into the fire” and they were met with a storm of protest by two separate supporters groups, the Rams Trust and the Rams Protest Group, who did not fully trust their motives – with much justification. In April 2006, they eventually succumbed to the pressure and sold the club to a group of local businessmen, led by Peter Gadsby, and (perhaps inevitably) known as “The League of Gentlemen”.

Years later, the fans were shown to be right, as Keith was jailed, along with co-conspirators, Andrew Mackenzie, the finance director, and Murdo Mackay, the director of football, in a squalid tale of false accounting and conspiracy to defraud. Each of them had claimed £125,000 in commission for their “services” in helping to secure a loan for the club, but these payments were never approved by the board.

At that stage the bank loans and money owed to the ABC Corporation had reached a worrying £50 million, but Gadsby’s consortium brought the debt down to more manageable levels. Eighteen months later in October 2007, Gadsby stepped down as chairman and was replaced by former Hull City owner, Adam Pearson, who was identified as the man who could bring in overseas investment to take Derby to the next level.

"Fielding - Our Frank"

In spite of the calamitous results in the Premier League, Pearson quickly succeeded in finding new investors in the shape of General Sports and Entertainment (GSE), who bought 93% of the club via the parent company Gellaw 101 Limited in January 2008. Pearson continued to act as chairman and retained his 7% stake until October 2009, when he left the club to pursue “new challenges.”

On their website, GSE modestly describe themselves as “the only company with the breadth and depth of experience, knowledge and contacts to truly maximise the power of sports and entertainment”, though their record before acquiring Derby County was rather thin, largely consisting of a successful turnaround story at the Fort Wayne Wizards, a Minor League baseball team in Indiana that they bought in 1999 and sold in 2006.

Again, there was an issue over the identity of the owners, as incoming chairman Andy Appleby said, “GSE will be managing the investment of members of the USA consortium they have brought together” without revealing exactly who those members were. The key players on the Derby County board are Appleby himself and the chief executive Tom Glick. Both of these have sports experience in the NBA: Appleby as a Senior Vice President at the Detroit Pistons; Glick as Chief Marketing Officer at the New Jersey Nets.

In fairness, this American takeover was funded by cash, as opposed to increasing borrowing, so is more akin to Randy Lerner’s acquisition of Aston Villa than the Glazers’ purchase of Manchester United. As Pearson said, “the key thing is that the money coming to Derby is not repayable.” The deal was described as being worth £50 million, but only around £16 million of that actually went to the previous directors with the rest being used to take on the club’s existing debts.

"Glick - Tommy Gun"

Given Derby’s troubled background with new directors, it was entirely understandable that the fans were cautious in their welcome. Once bitten, twice shy. Nevertheless, Nigel Clough has tried to reassure supporters, “There was a lot of scepticism, people saying they are only here for the short-term. But all that has gone – what they’ve done is what they’ve said they’re going to do. They’ve put money into the club and all the off-field activities have been spot on.”

It is easy to see what the football club has got from the deal, but what inspired GSE to invest their money in Derby County? Appleby has spoken of the club’s tremendous potential, great support and excellent stadium, which is fair enough, but eyebrows were raised when GSE’s stated that their aim was “to establish the Rams as a global brand and a Premier League force of the future.”

While applauding the ambition, the immediate reaction is that this objective is not only a tad unrealistic, but is also the wrong way round, as it would be better to get to the Premier League before trying to establish a global presence. Even Appleby admitted, “It will be less easy in the Championship.” It is true that “the entire world watches English football”, as Appleby put it, but that level of global exposure is only offered by the Premier League.

In fact, there have been a few contradictions in GSE’s approach. One moment, they unassumingly talk of producing incremental improvements from their “knowledge of best practices in management, marketing and selling.” The next moment, they’re shouting the odds, “Our goal is to become the best-run football club in the world. I’m not sure Derby could be a Manchester United, but it could certainly be in the top six or seven of the Premier League.”

"Jason Shackell - Eyes Down"

Similarly, when they arrived at Derby, they were highly complimentary about the incumbent leadership, “We respect the manager (Paul Jewell) and Adam Pearson. They’ve forgotten more about English football than we know.” Of course, both of these respected gentlemen have now gone.

GSE are on far safer ground with their financial strategy. Buoyed by the parachute payments received after relegation from the Premier League, they have lived up to their promises to reduce liabilities and the wage bill, though the jury is still out on whether they have built a squad good enough to achieve promotion.

They have emphasised that they have “a sensible and sustainable plan” to take the club back to the Premier League. Appleby said, “We will provide the resources necessary to be successful, (but) we don’t want to spend money foolishly.” The 2009 annual report put this another way, saying that the club would “operate within its means” and “not wildly speculate with the future.”

To be fair, this does not automatically sound the death knell for Derby’s promotion hopes. As chief executive Tom Glick explained, “It has been proven time and time again… that you can run a responsible club and you can also be in the play-offs and achieve promotion.”

The reality is that without substantial investment from GSE, Derby County would struggle to find any more money to spend on new players, as they rarely make profits. In the last six years, the club has only reported a profit twice, on both occasions due to special circumstances. In 2006 the £51,000 profit was entirely due to a £7 million exceptional item due to a loan restructuring. As the accounts said, “No-one should be under any illusion that the business was losing in the region of £7 million a year.” Similarly, the £1.8 million profit in 2008 was driven by the much higher television revenue in the Premier League.

That said, the £2.2 million loss in 2010 represents steady progress compared to the £14.9 million loss reported the previous year. Revenue actually slightly declined by £1.5 million, so almost all of the improvement came from player costs, as the wage bill was cut by £5.7 million and player amortisation was reduced by £4.4 million.

However, offloading players from the wage bill has come at a price, as Derby have consistently made losses on player sales (£4.5 million in the last three years) and have had to impair (write-down) player values. On the other hand, the progress the board has made in reducing debt is reflected in the reduction in annual interest payments from £3.8 million in 2005 to £0.7 million in 2010.

"Kilbane - We need to talk about Kevin"

The club’s losses are covered each year by additional investment from the owners, but they have also been effectively subsidised in the past two years by the Premier League parachute payments: £11.8 million in 2009 and £12.4 million in 2010. These have now come to an end, so Derby will have to cover this hole somehow from 2011 onwards. Although there is some scope to raise revenue, this essentially means a further reduction in wages.

Like all football clubs, Derby’s operating profit is influenced by non-cash items such as depreciation and amortisation. In fact, in 2010 they were actually cash profitable, as their EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest Taxation Depreciation and Amortisation) was a reasonable £4.9 million, but this is unlikely to be the case in 2011, due to the loss of the parachute payments.

However, as Liverpool’s owner, John W Henry, said, “I don’t think you go into sport to make a profit.” That’s certainly the case in the Championship, where the vast majority of clubs make losses with only four reporting a profit before tax in 2009/10 and one of those, Burnley, had the benefit of Premier League money. The total losses in the Championship worsened for the sixth consecutive year to a record of around £130 million, while the total net debt rose to £875 million.

In fact, Derby’s loss of £2.2 million was one of the better financial results with six clubs reporting losses above £10 million, the worst being Sheffield United at £18.8 million. As the 2009 accounts stated, “In comparison to the club’s peers in the Championship, the club is in a very healthy state.” Tom Glick went further, “If other clubs decide to lose tens of millions of pounds, that is up to them, but what we are committed to doing is building a stable club that can consistently perform at a high level.”

By the way, the size of the loss appears to have little bearing on a team’s chances of success, as the three promoted clubs in 2011 represented all points on the spectrum: QPR made a large loss, but Norwich City only had a small loss, while Swansea City were actually profitable.

As we have seen, Derby were one of the Championship clubs that benefited from parachute payments, which helped them to their sixth place in the revenue “league table” for 2009/10. As might be expected, the three clubs that were in the Premier League the previous season (Portsmouth, Hull City and Burnley) had the highest revenue (between £45 and £60 million), while the next three teams (Middlesbrough, Reading and Derby County) still had the benefit of parachute payments.

That significant financial advantage was lost last year, though Football League chairman Greg Clarke has argued that the effect is not necessarily so important, “Largely the parachute payments are absorbed by the club paying their debt and players. Last year three clubs came down and did not make the play-offs.” This is true, but the previous season was a different story with Newcastle and West Brom returning to the Premier League at the first attempt.

Given Derby’s lowly position in the Championship, it could be argued that they have under-performed recently, especially in 2008/09 and 2009/10. However, this might be a little misleading, as Paul Jewell famously said that the previous regime had already spent the first year’s parachute payments before relegation.

Nevertheless, even excluding parachute payments, Derby would have had higher revenue than all three promoted teams, almost twice as much in the case of Swansea City. In other words, a well-managed and organised team can still succeed in the face of financial disparity.

Revenue over the last three years has been distorted because of one season in the Premier League, which produced a record high of £49 million in 2008, followed by the parachute payments impact. Excluding this factor in 2010 would reduce total revenue from £29.8 million to £17.4 million and make TV the smallest revenue category at £3.6 million, behind commercial income of £7.5 million and match receipts of £6.3 million.

However, it should be noted that both of these revenue streams actually fell in 2010, particularly match receipts by £1.9 million (24%), which was “mainly a reflection of the success the club had in the previous season’s domestic cup competitions.” Although the big boys tend to not take the FA Cup and Carling Cup seriously, they can represent important money-spinners for others not so fortunate.

Television money in the Championship is mainly sourced from the Football League central distribution of £2.5 million that is made to all clubs, which was increased last season, plus a £1 million solidarity payment from the Premier League.

In 2010/11, Derby’s parachute payment disappeared, but the Championship payments increased to around £5.2 million, as the solidarity payment increased £1.2 million up to £2.2 million and each Championship club was given an additional £0.5 million as their share of the parachute payments for Newcastle and WBA, because those two clubs went straight back up to the top tier.

However, the new Football League three-year TV deal that kicks off in the 2012/13 season will be £69 million lower than the current contract at £195 million, a reduction of 26% or £23 million a season, reflecting what Greg Clarke called, “a challenging climate in which to negotiate television rights.” As there was no interest from BBC, ITV or even ESPN, the only game in town was Sky, who could get away with a much lower bid. The annual reduction for each Championship club has been estimated at £766,000 by Ipswich chief executive, Simon Clegg.

Although TV has been the main driver of revenue growth at football clubs, it has only really been keenly felt in the Premier League. This is why people refer to the Championship play-off final as one of the most lucrative matches in world football with the value estimated at £90 million. Even if the promoted club came straight back down, it would receive £40 million TV income plus £48 million parachute payments over the next four years (£16 million in each of the first two years, and £8 million in each of years three and four) plus additional gate receipts and commercial revenue.

Of course, if it finished higher in the Premier League, the club would receive even more TV money and every season survived adds another £40+ million to the coffers. It’s incredible to think that just one place in the football pyramid can make such a difference. Given the spectacular difference in revenue, it is understandable why some clubs push themselves to the absolute limit to secure promotion, though it’s a dangerous game, as only three clubs go up every year, leaving another 21 disappointed.

One concern is that the club might eat into that higher revenue by increasing wages and other costs, but the net effect is still likely to be positive. If we look at the three teams that were promoted to the Premier League in 2008/09 (using the last available figures from 2009/10), we can observe this phenomenon with Wolverhampton Wanderers, Birmingham City and Burnley, but all three of them went from operating losses in the Championship to profits in the Premier League.

Where Derby do score well is in attendances, as they are one of the best supported clubs in the Championship. In 2010/11 their average crowd of 26,000 was only behind Leeds United, even though this represented a 3,000 drop over 2009/10. In fact, Derby enjoyed the 15th highest attendances in England last season, ahead of six Premier League clubs. Derby’s brief sojourn in the top tier produced a stunning average of 32,400, but this was actually surpassed last month when a sell-out 33,000 crowd watched the Rams draw 1-1 with league leaders Southampton.

Derby have frozen their season ticket prices for six years in a row, though this year supporters had to renew before the early bird deadline of 30 April. This is quite generous compared to other clubs, especially as the cost of the VAT increase has been absorbed and the price freeze applied even where seats were re-categorised to a higher priced area.

There’s no doubt that Derby were ahead of the game when they built the splendid Pride Park stadium in 1997 and they now have a splendid arena that has hosted a full international match and several England U21 games.

Derby’s commercial income of £7.5 million is made up of commercial activities £2.9 million, sponsorship and advertising £2.3 million, merchandising £1.6 million, programme sales £0.2 million and other receipts £0.5 million. In 2010 the shirt sponsor was changed to buymobilephones.net, replacing Bombardier, in a three-year deal. Financial details were not disclosed, but it is reportedly the largest sponsorship deal in the Rams’ history worth a seven-figure sum. The kit deal with Adidas runs until the end of the current season.

This is pretty good for a club in the second tier. Indeed, Tom Glick commented, “We know we are generating more than almost every club in the Championship.” However, the commercial boom that GSE promised when they bought the club in 2008 has yet to happen, as commercial income has actually fallen each year since then (admittedly after relegation from the Premier League).

On the costs side, the directors’ report in the accounts highlight the tricky balance that the club is striving to achieve, particularly in 2008, “The cost base of the club has been restructured in line with those of similar sized Championship clubs, but not to the detriment of the club’s ambition of returning to the Premier League.” Fine, but the large loss in 2007 was justified as “the cost of the investment… in a squad capable of challenging for promotion.”

The wage bill that year, when promotion was achieved via the play-offs, amounted to £17.3 million, but in 2010 (after three years of wage inflation) it is down to £16.4 million and has been further reduced in 2011, so the question is whether this is enough to mount a sustained challenge?

In fairness, in 2007 Derby’s wages to turnover ratio was a completely unsustainable 125%. To place that into context, big-spending Manchester City’s ratio is “only” 107%. The board has improved this ratio to a very respectable 55%, which is the third best in the Championship. However, and stop me if you’ve heard this before, this is largely due to the impact of the parachute payments. Without this, the ratio would be up to an uncomfortable 95%, hence the desire to keep cutting the wage bill.

In 2009/10 Derby’s wage bill of £16.4 million was around mid-table in terms of the Championship wages league with eight teams paying between £14 and £17 million. Tom Glick has said that the wage bill will come down to £9-10 million, but my guess is that he was referring purely to the players’ salaries, so the total cost will be a bit higher than that.

This is certainly achievable, given the departures of high earners such as Hulse, Commons and Robbie Savage since the 2010 accounts were published. In some cases, accounting losses have been made when offloading players, e.g. Claude Davis and Roy Carroll, in order to get them off the wage bill. Glick would actually like to go further, but he has found it difficult to move on surplus players such as goalkeeper Stephen Bywater and defender Dean Leacock, complaining of “very large wages that are non-productive for us.” Ouch.

This thrifty approach has also been reflected in the transfer market where Derby’s activity over the last four years has resulted in net sales proceeds of £1.4 million, though this is a little misleading, as there has been positive net spend in each of the last two years. Once again, this is par for the course in the Championship. Yes, many clubs have spent more, though only three have net spend above £10 million in the same period (Nottingham Forest, Hull City and Leicester City) – but equally many clubs have spent less.

However, this must feel like small beer compared to the net £22.5 million that Derby splashed out around the time of the Premier League promotion. In fairness, Derby have never been big spenders with their transfer record standing at only £3.5 million paid to Norwich City for striker Robert Earnshaw in 2007. Indeed, in the years following their receivership, they were consistent net sellers, virtually having to fire sale many of their stars.

Glick has certainly talked a good match recently, “We expect to put a side together that is capable of competing in the top six.” He added, “If the right player was available and we thought he was good value, we would be prepared to spend in excess of a Shaun Barker-type fee” (reportedly around £900,000). However, he acknowledged that not everyone bought into this undertaking when the club offered fans a money-back guarantee on their 2011/12 season tickets if they were not satisfied with the transfer business over the summer.

In the P&L, the low spending in the transfer market is reflected by the fall in player amortisation from £7.3 million in 2009 to just £2.9 million in 2010. This is the annual cost of writing down transfer costs over the length of a player’s contract.

Perhaps the crowning financial achievement is the substantial reduction in Derby’s net debt, which has been cut from £59 million in 2005 to £19 million in 2010. First, Peter Gadsby’s group waived repayment of £24.6 million in 2007, leaving GSE to take over debt of £31 million in 2008 (per Adam Pearson).

Second, GSE reduced this by £16 million (£6 million in 2008 and £10 million in 2009), so that the only real debt remaining is the £15 million bank loan with the Co-operative Bank, which is due to be repaid in 2016 (interest rate 2.5% over Bank of England base rate). The stadium is used as security for the loan, so this is often described as a mortgage on Pride Park, which is an asset valued at £55 million.

The reported debt also includes other loans of £4.7 million, but Glick describes this as “a revolving facility on a portion of the season ticket income, which shows on the accounts as an additional debt, but actually comes in and out every year.”

"Lay your hands on me"

This is an excellent position compared to many other clubs. Indeed, Football League chairman Greg Clarke observed, “Debt’s the biggest problem. If I had to list the 10 things about football that keep me awake at night, it would be debt one to 10. The level of debt is absolutely unsustainable. We are heading for the precipice and we will get there quicker than people think.” Derby would (now) appear to be an exception to that rule. As a comparison, neighbours Nottingham Forest have net debt of £63 million.

Another concern when new investors come into a football club is how much money they will take out of the club, but this is also not really an issue (yet) for Derby. Directors’ emoluments (essentially salaries) actually fell from £747,000 in 2009 to £424,000 in 2010, due to Adam Pearson’s departure. The highest paid director received £326,000, which I assume is Glick, as the chief executive normally earns more than the chairman, leaving £98,000 for (presumably) Appleby.

In addition, £189,000 of management charges were paid to GSE in 2010 (down from £375,000 in 2009) with the accounts stating that 2011 would be “materially reduced”, as there was less need to rely on third party services. Interest on loans from GSE of £152k has been accrued, but not paid. Glick also stated, “There hasn’t been a dividend yet and we’re not scheduled to pay any dividend to our North American owners.” At some stage, you’d have to assume that they expect a return on their investment, but not just yet.

In fact, GSE have been putting a great deal of money into the club via a series of capital injections, which is required as the cash flow before financing is consistently negative. Indeed, the latest accounts state, “forecasts indicate that additional working capital financing is required to enable the company to fund its business plan and to meet its liabilities as they fall due.”

My calculations suggest that GSE has put around £39 million into Derby to date, comprising £16 million to buy the directors’ shares (according to Appleby), £14.4 million equity injections (£7.7 million in 2009, £6.6 million in 2010), £1.7 million loan capital and £6.6 million working capital. The latter was reported as £5.6 million in the football club’s accounts, but I have used the £6.6 million figure from the parent company, General Sports Derby (UK) Limited.

Bearing in mind that the windfall from the parachute payments has come to an end, what will Derby’s strategy be going forward?

"Jeff Hendrick - one of the young soul rebels"

An obvious route is one followed by other clubs in a similar position, namely to invest in youth development, which is a policy Derby have embraced, increasing their investment in the academy in each of the past three seasons. Four players have graduated from the impressive Moor Farm academy this season: defender Mark O’Brien, midfielder Jeff Hendrick, forward Callum Ball and England U17 international Mason Bennett, who made the headlines when he became the Rams’ youngest ever player at 15 years and 99 days.

Commercially, the club has announced plans to develop Pride Plaza, the area around the stadium, with offices, shops and restaurants. A more ambitious development was approved four years ago, but was put on the back burner when the recession hit.

The commitment of the owners seems solid for the time being, having rejected a bid from former chairman Peter Gadsby to regain control of the club last year. Glick argued, “The owners have worked too hard to get this club in great financial shape and stable in so many other ways, and put in so much money, that to stop now would make no sense. We came here to make Derby County a sustainable Premier League club and we don’t intend to go anywhere until we have achieved that goal.”

"Ben Davies - Long may you run"

The introduction of new Financial Fair Play regulations in the Championship from the 2012/13 season should be advantageous for Derby, as they already aim to balance their books, while others have spent wildly and to a certain extent forced the agenda for other clubs. Glick, who incidentally sits on the Football league board, has confirmed that Derby will be able to exclude costs for their stadium and academy from the break-even calculation, so the Rams should be sitting pretty.

The owners’ philosophy was neatly summarised by Tom Glick, “We have a notion that it is possible to have a club that is stable financially that is also competing in the league.” The Americans can already take pride in their achievements off the pitch, but only time will tell if they can also deliver success in one of the most competitive divisions in world football. If they do manage to find that elusive balance and accomplish “more with less”, then their investment could well pay off, as Derby County clearly have a lot of potential with their fantastic facilities and large, passionate following.

Share:

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Get ALL Your Tax back . . .

Visit http://howmuchtaxcanisave.co.cc/

Lets say this year your gross income is $20,000 ( about $ 1,700 a month ), you may start to pay tax.  ( about $10 a month ).


Click the extend + sign to see everything.  Then think of which item is relevant to you.  For below case, this guy can

  • buy a life insurance of $ 3,800
  • buy $500 magazines
  • buy a $2,000 PC 
Make sure keep all the receipts and the receipt dates show 2011.  Then comes 2012 when you are filing your tax, you can get back all your tax deducted by your company !!



The web site is just an estimator or for fun or for educational purpose only.  Your actual tax plan and figures may subject to your very own unique condition.  Do consult a proper tax consultant or IRB is providing FREE advices when it is near tax submission date.

Enjoy !!
Share:

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

The Revolution Will Be Televised


The last few days have provided a great deal of ammunition for those lamenting the state of football, specifically the seemingly inevitable march towards a game completely dominated by financial matters. The charge was led by Liverpool’s managing director, Ian Ayre, who suggested that the leading clubs should receive a larger slice of the money from overseas TV rights, as the average fan in Kuala Lumpur “isn’t subscribing… to watch Bolton.”

Ayre adopted the language so beloved by marketing men the world over by adding, “Personally I think the game-changer is going out and recognising our brand globally.” Although this statement would score highly in a game of corporate buzzword bingo, it provoked a scathing response from the football community, which roundly condemned the apparent avarice behind these cringe inducing words.

If his intentions weren’t clear enough, Ayre whistled a version of the Pet Shop Boys’ “Opportunities (Let’s Make Lots of Money)”, while he explained his grand plan, “Maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain.” The only problem was that the other football clubs did not seem to match his enthusiasm to rip up the status quo (at least publicly), so Ayre rapidly back-tracked via a clarification that this initiative wasn’t in fact “about Liverpool trying to breakaway and sell their own rights.” Oh no, it was purely about the way that the Premier League distributed its international rights.

Clearly, any idea that apparently involves applying the opposite approach to Robin Hood, namely to take from the poor to give to the rich, is likely to attract a huge degree of opprobrium, but before Ayre is completely dismissed out of hand, it is surely worth asking the simple question: does he actually have a point? In addition, we should try to understand the factors driving a (presumably) rational man to stick his head above the parapet in such a masochistic manner.

Looking at the distribution of the Premier League television money in 2010/11, we can see that Liverpool received £55.2 million, which incidentally was £12.3 million more than Bolton’s £42.9 million. A great deal of the money is shared equally: 50% of the domestic rights, which is worth £13.8 million to each club, and 100% of the overseas rights, worth £17.9 million to each club. However, 50% of the domestic rights is allocated in a way that does favour the leading clubs.

For these funds, 25% is for merit payments, determined by the club’s final league position, and 25% is paid in facility fees, based on how often a club is shown live on television. Each place in the league is worth an additional £757,000, which can make quite a difference, so Liverpool’s sixth place delivered £11.4 million last year, while Bolton only received £5.3 million for fourteenth place. Similarly, it’s no surprise to see that the top clubs feature much more often on television than those lower down the league, so Liverpool’s 23 appearances produced a £12.1 million facility fee, compared to Bolton’s £5.8 million, which was a result of the guaranteed minimum 10 appearances.

Nevertheless, although this algorithm does benefit the leading clubs, it is not a gigantic benefit. Ayre’s issue is with the overseas rights, which are distributed entirely in equal shares, as opposed to the domestic rights, which to a degree reflect performance and popularity.

In the past, this would not have been a concern, but the point is that this is now serious money. First of all, the growth in payments secured for TV rights has been nothing short of astonishing, from the initial £253 million five-year deal in 1992 to the £3.4 billion payment three-year deal that commenced last season. To make that spectacular progress even clearer: the original deal was worth just £50 million a season, while the latest brings in more than £1.1 billion a year.

That’s obviously fabulous news for football clubs, but closer examination of the new rights deals reveals an interesting (and potentially worrying) trend. Revenue for the sale of domestic TV rights (live matches and highlights) hardly grew at all in the new contract, implying that the home market may have reached saturation point. Instead, it is overseas fans that have been behind the explosive growth with the revenue more or less doubling each time that the rights are re-negotiated: 2001-04 £178 million, 2004-07 £325 million, 2007-10 £625 million and 2010-13 £1.4 billion.

To place that into context, in 2001-04, the overseas rights accounted for only 11% of the total deal, while they are now worth 42% with many analysts predicting that they could be higher than domestic rights after the next deal is signed. Therefore, what was previously the icing on the cake is now a very substantial slice, so it was really only a matter of time before the top clubs pointed out the anomaly between the different allocation methods used for domestic and overseas rights.

"Bolton - not popular in Kuala Lumpur apparently"

Some of the money paid to secure overseas rights seem barely credible: the Abu Dhabi Sports Channel paid over £200 million for the Middle East and North Africa (almost three times the £80 million paid by previous incumbent Showtime Arabia); in Singapore, an island with a population of less than 5 million people, SingTel paid £200 million to secure the rights from its rival StarHub; similarly, in Hong Kong i-Cable paid nearly £150 million, much more than the £115 million Now TV paid last time around.

There’s no doubt that the Premier League is one of England’s most successful exports, being shown in 212 countries around the world. Recent research from leading sports business consultancy Sport + Markt suggested that 70% of global football fans watch “the best league in the world” (© Richard Keys).

Given these amazing statistics, Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson has suggested that broadcasters should pay even more for the rights to live football, “When you think of that, I don’t think we get enough money”, though he appeared more concerned about television’s impact on his team’s fixture list.

That said, the Premier League’s TV rights deal is the envy of other leagues. At £1.1 billion a year, it is well ahead of the rest with only Serie A (£0.9 billion) coming close. Incredibly, the deal is twice as much as La Liga (£0.5 billion) and three times as much as the Bundesliga (£0.4 billion). The principal reason for the disparity is the overseas rights, which are worth nearly £0.5 billion in England, but are negligible everywhere else. This helps explain why English clubs are increasingly focused on this element of the deal.

This argument is further supported by looking at how other major leagues distribute their TV income. In England the current deal works out at 67% of the revenue being allocated by means of an equal share with 17% based on on-pitch performance and the same amount on popularity, defined as the facility fee for number of times a club is broadcast live. No other league distributes as anywhere near as much via an equal share.

The closest is France, where the equal share comprises 50%, while the remainder is distributed based on league performance 30% (25% for the current season and 5% for the last five seasons) and the number of times a team is broadcast 20% (over the last five seasons).

Italy returned to collective bargaining this season with 40% divided equally among the Serie A clubs; 30% is based on past results (5% last season, 15% last 5 years, 10% from 1946 to the sixth season before last); and 30% is based on the number of fans (25%) and the population of the club’s city (5%).

TV revenue in the Bundesliga is divided among clubs via a points system based on their league position over the past four years. Performance is weighted in favour of the more recent years, so last season a factor of 4 was applied to 2010/11, 3 to 2009/10, 2 to 2008/09 and 1 to 2007/08. However, a form of equality is then applied, as the club with most points only receives twice as much money as the club that has the lowest number of points.

La Liga allows each club to arrange its own individual deal, which is largely attributable to popularity, though you could argue that some of this is derived from past performance. No matter, it is clear that none of the money is allocated via an equal share.

In summary, with the exception of La Liga, every major league distributes a good proportion of the TV funds equally, either explicitly or via the weighting of the allocation. However, the Premier League distributes more money this way than any other league, mainly due to the surge in overseas rights.

The result is that the ratio from top to bottom earning clubs in terms of TV payments is much smaller in the Premier League at 1.5, especially compared to La Liga where it is 12.5. So, last season Manchester United received £60 million, while Blackpool got £39 million. In contrast, Barcelona and Real Madrid received around £123 million, while Malaga had to make do with £10 million.

That’s bad enough, but the real issue in Spain is that the drop starts immediately with third placed Valencia only receiving £37 million, so the big two earn at least three times as much TV money as their closest challengers. Every other league is more equitable with the top team earning between 1.1 and 1.2 times as much as the third highest earner.

"Pictures on my wall"

It is however true that the Premier League still has the smallest ratio between top and bottom clubs with 1.5 against 2.0 in Germany, 3.5 in France and 10.0 in Italy (the gap in Serie A will reduce after the introduction of collective bargaining). This is largely due to the impact of the rise in the value of the overseas TV deal, as this ratio was almost three to one in the early days of the Premier League.

In other words, the TV deals at Barcelona and Real Madrid are very much the exception to the rule, so Ayre’s “unfair” comparison only really works for these two behemoths and not for the hundreds of other clubs in Europe. In fact, Liverpool’s TV deal compares favourably to everyone else, especially now that Italy’s clubs have switched from individual arrangements to collective bargaining.

The winds of change have even hit Spain with a proposal to reduce Barcelona and Real Madrid’s share of the combined TV revenue from 45% to 34%, though they seem to be blowing rather slowly, as this would still provide them with a massive competitive advantage and any move towards revenue sharing is unlikely to be implemented before 2015/16.

From the perspective of the lesser lights in England, TV money is critically important to their prospects. In 2009/10 television accounted for a staggering 70% or more of revenue at clubs like Wigan Athletic, Blackburn Rovers and, yes, Bolton Wanderers. Without this money, these clubs simply wouldn’t be able to compete and might even struggle to survive. According to Wigan chairman Dave Whelan, “We will finish up like the Spanish league with just two teams in it, no competition, no anything, no heart and soul.”

Some might argue that no more than six clubs could realistically mount a title challenge in any case, but “on any given Sunday” (or Saturday) any team in the Premier League is capable of winning against “the big boys”, as Sam Allardyce used to describe them.

However, TV money is also of great importance to the top clubs, as evidenced by the most recent Deloitte Money League that shows that television is the largest revenue stream for 16 of the top 20 clubs. The only exceptions are three German clubs that place more emphasis on commercial operations and Arsenal, thanks to the money-spinning Emirates stadium.

In England, TV rights have driven the virtuous circle often referenced by Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore, “The continued investment in playing talent and facilities made by the clubs is largely down to the revenue generated through the sale of our broadcast rights.” Put another way, English clubs need strong revenues to compete with their European rivals when trying to attract world-class players, both in terms of transfer fees and wages, which is surely one of the main reasons behind Ayre’s intemperate outburst.

He will have recognised that Liverpool have been growing their revenue much more slowly than their peers. In 2005, Liverpool’s revenue of £122 million was £44 million lower than Manchester United and £120 million behind Real Madrid. In 2011, the gaps have widened to £144 million and £234 million respectively. That means that Real Madrid, Barcelona and Manchester United earn around twice as much as Liverpool, which is an enormous shortfall every season.

The inequality is growing all the time, as Liverpool’s revenue has essentially been flat for the last three years. In 2011, the improvement in commercial income thanks to the new Standard Chartered shirt sponsorship has been offset by the failure to qualify for the Champions League. It’s a similar story of lack of growth at Arsenal, though their revenue did overtake Liverpool after the move to a new stadium.

The harsh reality in football is that money does tend to buy success, so Liverpool have to explore every possible avenue of generating additional revenue and their options are limited. In particular, they are hamstrung by Anfield. Although this is a wonderfully atmospheric old ground, redolent with history, it lags behind the others in terms of money-earning potential.

Its capacity is only 45,400, which is much less than Old Trafford (76,000) and The Emirates (60,400). As Ayre said, “We are 30,000 seats behind our biggest competitor and that’s worth a lot of money.” In fact, Liverpool’s match day revenue of £43 million is less than half of Manchester United (£108 million) and Arsenal (£93 million), while even Chelsea, whose Stamford Bridge ground is even smaller (41,800), generate more than them (£67 million). Liverpool only earn around £1.6 million from each home match, which is significantly less than United (£3.7 million) and Arsenal (£3.3 million).

This structural weakness has been exacerbated by Liverpool’s failure to qualify for the Champions League. In 2010/11 Liverpool battled their way through to the last 16 of the Europa League and received €6 million (£5.4 million) for their efforts. In contrast, the four English clubs in the Champions League enjoyed an average of £35 million, excluding gate receipts and bonus payments from sponsors. After reaching the final, Manchester United collected a hefty £47 million.

Of course, this does rather suggest that one old-fashioned way for Liverpool to grow their revenue would be to do the business on the pitch, which would not only boost their coffers with higher performance payments, but would make them more attractive to prospective sponsors. This is a winning combination that has propelled Manchester United’s commercial income above £100 million, assisted by the significant global TV exposure.

The impact can be clearly seen by looking at the composition of English clubs’ TV revenue. The payments from the Premier League are much of a muchness, but the real “game-changer” (to use Ayre’s own word) is the Champions League. Yes, qualification for the Europa League helps, but the money is only around 20% of that earned by clubs in Europe’s flagship tournament.

Interestingly, English clubs receive a higher proportion of the TV (market) pool in the Champions League, due to England’s television deal being bigger, which produced the bizarre result of losing finalists Manchester United actually receiving more money than the winners Barcelona.

Currency movements have also helped English clubs, as Champions League money is distributed in Euros, which, despite recent travails, has strengthened against Sterling in the last few years. Although this is a moving target, it is a factor that should be considered when making comparisons with clubs from the continent, as this has contributed to the relative improvement by the likes of Barcelona and Real Madrid against English clubs.

Now that we have established some of the reasons why Ayre might seek to increase his club’s share of television revenue, we should explore whether such a move would actually increase revenue.

"Our house, in the middle of our street"

The Premier League believes that its international appeal is largely down to a model that delivers competitive matches, which is in stark contrast to the procession offered by La Liga, where the third-placed team has finished 21 and 25 points behind second place in the last two seasons. Indeed, Sevilla’s president Jose Mari del Nido described the Spanish league as “a load of rubbish”, because only two teams could conceivably win the title.

While there is a lot of truth to this argument, it is not necessarily the full story, as it’s not as if the upper echelons of the Premier League have been anything but a closed shop since its formation. The traditional “Sky Four” (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool) have rarely been threatened, though Manchester City have now become a highly credible challenger, thanks to the injection of oil millions.

Furthermore, if a competitive league were the only reason for success in overseas sales, then surely the Bundesliga would be the viewers’ preferred choice, but, as we saw earlier, the Germans’ overseas rights of around £40 million are less than 10% of the money received by the Premier League.

"Global A Go-Go"

That said, although it is far from certain that reducing the Premier League’s competitive nature would reduce revenue, intuitively we can probably conclude that this would weaken the bargaining position of its marketing men, who, in fairness, have done a superb job to date.

Looked at from another perspective, we do have tangible evidence from Italy that moving from individual rights to a collective system increases revenue, as broadcasters pay a premium for having the whole product rather than the rights to individual clubs. In fact, the new Serie A deal is on course to meet its target of €1 billion, which represents a considerable improvement on the aggregate of the previous individual deals. Spanish football expert, Professor Jose Maria Gay de Liébena from the University of Barcelona, believes that introducing collective bargaining would boost total TV revenue for La Liga from €600 million to €900 million.

Therefore, Ayre’s fondness for individual rights might not produce the gains he envisages, as it is entirely possible that Liverpool would merely receive a larger slice of a smaller cake.

Of course, after Ayre’s “clarification”, we now know that his proposal was restricted to international rights. If that is indeed the case, then it is difficult to see why he would risk so much contempt for so little reward. Assuming that he wanted to allocate these rights in the same manner as domestic rights (50% equal share, 25% merit payment, 25% facility fees), then that would have produced an increment for Liverpool of only £4.3 million in 2010/11 (and incidentally a reduction for Bolton of just £2.7 million).

Of course, the potential future increase in overseas rights may make such an amendment more valuable, while Ayre may have been thinking of another distribution methodology that was more favourable to his team, e.g. 50% for Liverpool and 50% for Manchester United. Only kidding.

In fairness to Liverpool, if they wish to remain competitive in a world where they once reigned supreme, they need to address the financial imbalances caused by the money pumped into the game by Roman Abramovich at Chelsea and Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City, which has inflated transfer fees and wages for every other club. Despite the advent of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations, other clubs have also been boosted by wealthy benefactors, such as Paris Saint-Germain, Malaga and Anzhi Makhachkala.

"John W Henry - This is the modern world"

Liverpool’s owners are cut from a different cloth. Although John W Henry’s Fenway Sports Group (FSG) is a clear improvement on the reviled duo of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, they are far from following the classic sugar daddy model. Instead, this is a group of savvy businessmen who will seek to manage the club well, aiming to maximise revenue and ideally get a return on their investment. This is no different from other American owners like the Glazers at Manchester United, Stan Kroenke at Arsenal, Randy Lerner at Aston Villa and Ellis Short at Sunderland.

While in many ways their ownership will benefit their clubs, it would be naïve in the extreme not to appreciate that they have been attracted by the financial possibilities offered by the Premier League. In contrast to sports franchises in the US, where they have to share all revenue received, including TV money, gate receipts and merchandising, in the Premier League they keep the vast majority of revenue earned.

This was confirmed by Liverpool chairman Tom Werner, “That is the difference with the EPL. If we can generate interest in Liverpool here and around the world, we will benefit from that.” That comment also touches on the other attractive aspect of the Premier League for American investors, namely its global appeal, which again is not something enjoyed by sports like baseball, basketball and American football.

"I am the son and Ayre of nothing in particular"

So that’s the plan, but Ayre raised another point that gave pause for thought, which was that the Premier League bubble might “burst, because we are sticking to this equal-sharing model”. He was specifically referring to La Liga’s ability to attract the top players from the Premier League, which seems like a blatant attempt at scaremongering, given that there’s no shortage of imports from Spain, such as Juan Mata and David Silva, while Cesc Fabregas’ return to Barcelona was a special case. In any case, there are other equally important factors at play here, such as currency and tax rates.

However, there are a few threats that might endanger owners’ strategy of coining it from television, which are primarily due to: (a) economic pressures on the Premier League’s customers, i.e. the TV channels; and (b) regulatory decisions.

TV channels are not immune from the recession, as we saw when ITV Digital and Setanta went bankrupt. Although the latter’s collapse did not in itself prove problematic, as ESPN snapped up the TV rights relinquished by Setanta, if Sky were to hit financial difficulties this would be extremely serious for the Premier League and by extension the clubs. This may not seem likely, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility. For example, Mediapro, the company that owns the TV rights in Spain for La Liga, applied for bankruptcy protection last year.

"And it's... LIVE!"

On the other hand, it is clear that the Premier League is central to Sky’s business model. Of the satellite company’s nine million customers, around five million of them pay for the sports package, earning Sky some £2.5 billion a year. On top of that, pubs pay Sky huge sums for licences to show matches. Admittedly, the sports package contains more than just football, but the Premier League is the jewel in the crown, so must be responsible for most of that business.

In these days of multimedia with countless entertainment possibilities, television viewing figures are declining across the board, but average audiences for live football matches have remained consistent. This is particularly important for companies struggling to push their brand through traditional advertising.

Perhaps a more plausible possibility is that broadcasting companies would seek to end the cycle of ever increasing payments for TV rights, as happened recently with the new Ligue 1 deal in France.

The courts of law might also pose a threat to the television money enjoyed by Premier League clubs. A recent ruling by the European Court of Justice in a case brought by a Portsmouth pub landlady stated that broadcasters cannot prevent customers from using cheaper foreign satellite television services to watch Premier League football. As Sky /ESPN will no longer have exclusivity in the UK market and are likely to be under-cut by foreign broadcasters, the theory goes that they would have to lower prices to compete and so pay less for the TV rights.

"Richard Scudamore - One way or another"

However, to date the Premier League has proved very adroit at finding creative solutions to such challenges, so it would not be a great surprise if it found a way to maintain (or even grow) its revenue. The likeliest outcome is that they would market one pan-European rights package, though other options are also possible, such as launching their own TV channel, as the Dutch Eredivisie has done, but this would be a pain and more complicated than working with professional broadcasters.

Another possibility might be to sacrifice the continental European revenue, which represents around 16% of all European rights (£390 million), in order to protect the significant £2 billion of UK revenue by stopping sales elsewhere in Europe.

Finally, this might just be a storm in a teacup, as in practice very few subscribers would switch to a foreign language service. Although many of Sky’s commentators and pundits are not that popular, they’re surely easier on the English ear than their Greek or Polish equivalents.

However, English clubs could face a sizeable reduction in their Champions League revenue as a result of the ECJ ruling. William Gaillard, adviser to UEFA president Michel Platini, warned, “This may force us to sell the rights on a Europe-wide basis, which would prevent us from identifying individual national TV pools. That will be bad news for clubs in big TV markets such as England.” This is a genuine threat, as the current £400 million deal with Sky and ITV is the biggest in Europe.

"Boy with a problem"

Another regulatory factor arises from UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations, which force clubs to break-even if they want to compete in European tournaments. This means that most clubs will either have to cut costs (effectively wages) or increase revenue from football operations, which again helps explain why Liverpool have dared to question the distribution of the TV money. Indeed, when John W Henry bought the club, he said, “With the FFP rules, it is really going to be revenue that drives how good your club can be in the future.”

Of course, the introduction of FFP does in itself raise questions about the inherent unfairness of clubs like Barcelona and Real Madrid being able to sell their TV rights individually, as this clearly provides them with a monetary advantage over clubs in other leagues.

Looking further ahead, advances in technology could provide a threat to revenue (via illegal internet streaming) or a major opportunity to make even more money. There is little doubt that overseas investors see huge potential in football clubs’ TV rights. As John W Henry said, “American owners understand media and the long-term global implications. They're going to want to reach their fans in the new media landscape. The Premier League was created in response to changing media. Audiences will drive leagues rather than the other way round.”

"Werner - Ground control to Major Tom"

This is particularly relevant to Liverpool, as FSG have substantial expertise in this sphere, owning 80% of New England Sports Network, a regional cable television network, while chairman Tom Werner is an experienced television producer. To give an idea of the size of the prize, the value of the New York Yankees’ official cable network is three times as high as the club itself.

It is equally clear that foreign owners see great promise in online delivery, hence Stan Kroenke’s purchase of a 50% share in Arsenal Broadband long before he launched his takeover bid for the whole club. Indeed, the emergence of fast broadband networks might be the catalyst for clubs to launch their own channels to interact directly with their fans.

That’s all future music, but in the here and now what are the chances of Ayre’s TV rights initiative succeeding?

In practical terms, such a change would require a two-thirds majority at the annual shareholders meeting, so 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs would have to approve the plan. However, not one club has come forward to provide support, leaving Ayre to change his song of choice to The Beautiful South’s “I’ll Sail this Ship Alone”. Given that turkeys are unlikely to vote for Christmas, it is no surprise that smaller clubs are not in favour, but all of the leading clubs have also praised the concept of collective selling.

"Glazers - What do I get?"

Even Manchester United, who would benefit most from such a move, said via their chief executive, David Gill, that “the collective selling of the television rights has clearly been a success.” There is still a suspicion that some clubs may be considering the idea privately, e.g. there are rumours that John W Henry has discussed the plan with the Glazers, but for the moment the idea appears to be dead in the water.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that football clubs are now prepared to think out of the box in order to grow their revenue. It does not take a particularly large leap of imagination to see that this idea is part of a grander strategy to form a European Super League, as hinted at by Ayre’s decision to compare Liverpool to Barcelona and Real Madrid while attempting to justify the change.

Wigan chairman Dave Whelan thundered, “They want to take all the money for themselves, but they know the top six cannot play each other every week, so they will eventually look to Europe and the creation of a European league.” He found a surprising bedfellow in Real Madrid’s former General Manager, Jorge Valdano, who said that the overwhelming domination of the big two in Spain would inevitably lead them to abandon Spain for a European league.

"Slave to the rhythm"

Whatever Ian Ayre’s intentions were in raising this subject, there is a sense that this is only the beginning in terms of clubs exploring new revenue opportunities. Most fans would understandably be against his views, but as he said, “It’s a real debate that has to happen”, and it’s not going to go away that’s for sure.

In any case, it’s hardly a bolt from the blue that a club from a league formed with money as its primary focus should look for ways to earn even more, especially as football has become big business in recent years. Whether it be the inflationary impact of mega-rich benefactors or the desire of owners to make a return on their investment, money has become the name of the game.

Much of that is down to the huge amounts of cash provided by television, which on the plus side has helped to fund investment in new stadiums and to attract top players to England, but has also driven some questionable priorities. As Sir Alex Ferguson said recently while commenting on the increasing influence of television, “When you shake hands with the devil, you have to pay the price.” That may be a touch over-dramatic, but there are undoubtedly some uncomfortable issues around football’s cosy relationship with the television. Following his elevation to pariah status, Ian Ayre for one would surely now agree that the sun does not always shine on TV.

Share:

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Robert Kiyosaki copied our article ?

Finally, even a guru like Robert Kiyosaki has to copy MalPF article and post as his own ...


just kidding, of course.
Share:

Friday, October 7, 2011

A new level of Frugality

Frugality in Kuala Lumpur has just gone one level deeper.  A saving of about $550 monthly, a 2 hours exercise sessions for FREE and an opportunity to explore natures within the city has just been proven recently with just ONE simple ACT !  As everything goes, there is some trade off or 'risk' too ...

Its Cycling To Work !

Mathew was a guy who suffers from a terrible 24.3% inflation in 2009.  After he started to follow this blog, he has learned a trick or two to keep things going smoother.  Today he is working as a top executive in a public company but situation hasn't changed much.  He is still in middle level income group.  After his 5 figures income divided by the number of people he has to support, his actual cash-at-hand per person monthly is much less than average personal income ie. $1,500.

Many staffs who worked for Mathew always complains about how tough their lives are and demand a salary increment without extra performance to the company ( while their single income is about $1,500 as well).  Mathew thinks it was obvious his staffs weren't educated well enough in personal finance so he decided to role model to show a point - live frugally.

He used to drive about an hour to work, commute about 22 km and then spent about $10+ for parking fee.  Now instead of doing all that, now

He cycles to work

After the decision was made, he first bought a huge term insurance to cover this temporary needs.  After all, he doesn't want his teaching to his staff to affect his even more important loves to his families.

Once the insurance is approved, he started cycling to work.  It wasn't easy.  He first followed his driving route.  It was dangerous as cars and motorbikes are cruising fast by, ignoring his existence.  But the good thing about cycling . . . is that its both a pedestrian and a driver.  So very soon he found a much shorter and safer path, only 12.1km instead of driving 22 km away.


It took him about one hour to cycle to work.  ( Above 2.5 hours was for walking time )  So practically this doesn't affect any of his schedule at all.  As a matter of fact, this improve the stability of his schedule.  Even when there is an unexpected traffic jam which would cause a normal 1 hour driving to 2-3 hours, his cycling time remains the same as 1 hour.


Mathew also lost 6-8kgs since then, has a much tougher built body now.  He used to pay a lot joining fitness centers etc. but never got the time to actually exercise because he is a workaholic.  Now he HAS TO exercise 2 hours a day.

Mathew also started a health diet to eat more veggie and fruits even before this cycling idea.  Thanks to this cycling exercise, his cycling route passed by a local market at Chow Kit ( one of the oldest and largest wet market in Kuala Lumpur ), he now manages to buy 5 star fruits for only $1, which fuel his breakfast and lunch.

There are much more indirect benefits he received since he started cycling to work.  But as everything goes, there must be some Cons that comes with the Pros.  Should one accident happens during his cycling commute, it would most probably cost him his life.  While he was well aware of the risk, he took action to insure against that rick and he also find ways to improve his own skills and awareness to maximize his own safety.

There are quite a lot of tips and tricks he has developed since he cycles to work.  If you were moved by this article and wanted to try this too . . . be warn ahead, there is some risks involved.  Do spend some time to buy me a cup of coffee so I can share with you whatever those tips and tricks are so that you can minimize your risk and maximize your return / saving / investment.


DrivingCycling
Time1 hour1 hour
Petrol$10 per day$0
Parking$5 - $10 per day$0


I am just glad living frugally in a city like Kuala Lumpur has just gone one level deeper.  With tons of other extra benefits and with only ONE major risk that a person who really cares can mitigate easily with skills and experience.

Have you managed to find any innovative ways to cut your expenditure or increase your saving by 25% !?
Share:

Labels

Blog Archive

Recent Posts

Unordered List

Theme Support