Deloitte Money League: Liverpool FC move back into top 10

Liverpool FC thrilling form last season didn’t just take them agonisingly close to winning the Premier League – it also pushed them back into the top 10 of the Deloitte Money League after an absence of a year.

Using figures posted for the 2013-14 season, the Reds gathered revenue of £255.8million, an increase of £49.6m on the previous campaign.

As with the rest of their Premier League rivals, the Anfield club benefited from the improved television deal agreed with Sky and BT Sport.

However, Liverpool received the highest central distribution of any English club of £97.5m, leading to a 58% increase in overall broadcast revenue, which includes prize money for finishing second to champions Manchester City.

The Reds’ figures – transfer dealings are not included in Deloitte’s rankings – are even more impressive considering they are the highest-placed team in the table not to have been playing in the Champions League last season.

Nevertheless, the Money Table highlights Liverpool still have work to do to cement their place back in the Premier League’s elite, especially as their most recent accounts in March 2014 showed a £50m loss.

The four teams they would consider main rivals for Champions League qualification – Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea and Arsenal – are all above the Reds in the Deloitte standings.

Indeed, United’s commercial revenue of £189.3m was almost double that of Liverpool’s. City and Chelsea also had a greater commercial return.

Reds chief executive Ian Ayre has made no secret of the club’s desire to greater exploit commercial revenues – Deloitte state the club’s international reach is among the strongest of all Money League clubs – and there was a 6% increase in the figure last season, up to £103.8m.

While Anfield attendances remained largely the same, matchday revenue grew by 14% to £51m due to improved matchday hospitality sales.

That number, though, is dwarfed by United (£108.1m) and Arsenal (£100.2m). Chelsea, whose average crowd is 3,000 lower than the Reds, took home £20m more in matchday revenue.

The redevelopment of Anfield’s Main Stand, and the addition of 8,500 extra seats is expected to generate extra revenue of £20m a year.

In terms of social media, Liverpool are ranked seventh of those in the Money Table with 24.9m Facebook likes and 3.8m Twitter followers.

Dan Jones, partner at Deloitte’s Sports Business Group, says: “It was a very successful year for the Merseyside clubs.

“On top of illustrating their obvious talent on the pitch, this is also a testament to how well run the clubs are as businesses.

“They play a major role in Liverpool’s growing economy which shouldn’t be understated.”

Heading the Money Table for the 10th successive year were Real Madrid, who made £459.5m after winning the European Cup for the 10th time.

United, despite failing to qualify for the Champions League, moved up to second behind Real, with Bayern Munich staying third and Barcelona dropping to fourth.

Liverpool, despite their early exit from the Champions League this season, will have had their coffers considerably bolstered by the competition and are expected to strengthen their place in the top 10.

All a load of sh*t really...............Cit y get lower income from their match day attendance than us, less money from TV and yet still generate more turnover! There owners pumping money into the club = turnover!

They can't fill out their stadium yet they want to increase the stadium capacity, Are they going to fill the extra seats with plastic figures   

All a load of sh*t really...............Cit y get lower income from their match day attendance than us, less money from TV and yet still generate more turnover! There owners pumping money into the club = turnover!

They can't fill out their stadium yet they want to increase the stadium capacity, Are they going to fill the extra seats with plastic figures   

Those plastic figures being ex Manchester United fans..

Those plastic figures being ex Manchester United fans..

Lot of sh*t alright, cannot wait for the global economic climate to pick up and the oligarchs use the more conventional methods of safe investments, corrupt governments and dubious international market traders. By their very nature none are worth the risk in today's political mayhem.
The likes of Citeh, Chelski and the Spuds are relatively secure holding sites for the odd billion or so in these mad arse days of global unrest.
LFC could be included in that list as an afterthought.

Somewhere John Henry lit up a victory cigar.

Lot of sh*t alright, cannot wait for the global economic climate to pick up and the oligarchs use the more conventional methods of safe investments, corrupt governments and dubious international market traders. By their very nature none are worth the risk in today's political mayhem.
The likes of Citeh, Chelski and the Spuds are relatively secure holding sites for the odd billion or so in these mad arse days of global unrest.
LFC could be included in that list as an afterthought.

Bollocks.

Absolute nonsense.
The only people getting richer are the very rich.
Their holdings are the most secure in the world, and always will be.

PSG with the highest grossing commercial revenue at €327m? Doesn't seem dodgy at all.

Bollocks.

Absolute nonsense.
The only people getting richer are the very rich.
Their holdings are the most secure in the world, and always will be.

So the Russian Federation is a sound commercial prospect??
The Asian continent is a speculators paradise??

The Abramovic's of the world are small fry and are subject to ever changing global, political and natural phenomenon, there are bigger players who can actually affect the outcome of world events; their holdings are secure and always will be. 

So the Russian Federation is a sound commercial prospect??
The Asian continent is a speculators paradise??

The Abramovic's of the world are small fry and are subject to ever changing global, political and natural phenomenon, there are bigger players who can actually affect the outcome of world events; their holdings are secure and always will be.

 
Trying to say that billionaires put their money into football clubs because it is safe there.
Comical.

Trying to say that billionaires put their money into football clubs because it is safe there.
Comical.

Read the post Mr Beano before using the ''amusing'' add ons.
Putting capital in a UK financial institution is a far safer bet at this moment in time than investing in the respective countries of the Chelski, Citeh and Spuds owners.
Abramovic is a perfect example, he made billions in the mayhem of the social turmoil and upheaval in Russia, a situation that is ongoing and not a base for his alleged ill gotten gains.
The same applies with the owners of Citeh and the Spuds; safer/less risky word it how you like the proposition is viable despite your pathetic cartoon of a response.

It's not how rich you are that counts, it's how much of the money you have you're willing to invest in the team and players. Proportionally to the rest of the top ten I doubt very much we even come close to their investment, certainly not the English teams anyway.

Read the post Mr Beano before using the ''amusing'' add ons.
Putting capital in a UK financial institution is a far safer bet at this moment in time than investing in the respective countries of the Chelski, Citeh and Spuds owners.
Abramovic is a perfect example, he made billions in the mayhem of the social turmoil and upheaval in Russia, a situation that is ongoing and not a base for his alleged ill gotten gains.
The same applies with the owners of Citeh and the Spuds; safer/less risky word it how you like the proposition is viable despite your pathetic cartoon of a response.

Just unbelievable.
Money is global, it isn't static, and is moved constantly.
Capital rarely sits in the country of its origin.
The only UK investment that is safe in the context of buying property (which a football club is) is the high end London property market.

This really is bizarre.
Football clubs as a haven for foreign money 

Now if you'd said off shore tax havens, I'd agree, but football clubs? 

Just unbelievable.
Money is global, it isn't static, and is moved constantly.
Capital rarely sits in the country of its origin.
The only UK investment that is safe in the context of buying property (which a football club is) is the high end London property market.

This really is bizarre.
Football clubs as a haven for foreign money 

Bizarre how you imply I use the word ''haven'' when there is no sign of the word in my posts; there is mention of individuals for reasons best known to themselves and security issues in former holding institutions, opting for a relatively safer choice in a successful football club.
The IMAO add ons are juvenile yet somehow appropriate.

Now if you'd said off shore tax havens, I'd agree, but football clubs? 

The owners of those clubs undoubtedly have substantial holdings off shore as well as the footy clubs.

Bizarre how you imply I use the word ''haven'' when there is no sign of the word in my posts; there is mention of individuals for reasons best known to themselves and security issues in former holding institutions, opting for a relatively safer choice in a successful football club.
The IMAO add ons are juvenile yet somehow appropriate.

The owners of those clubs undoubtedly have substantial holdings off shore as well as the footy clubs.

Trying to defend a post that makes absolutely no sense, and is wrong on every level isn't the way to go here fella.

Trying to say that oligarchs put their money into football clubs as a safe investment is laughable.
Every single one of them has lost money.
So yeah, REALLY safe. 

Just unbelievable.
Money is global, it isn't static, and is moved constantly.
Capital rarely sits in the country of its origin.
The only UK investment that is safe in the context of buying property (which a football club is) is the high end London property market.

This really is bizarre.
Football clubs as a haven for foreign money 

Now if you'd said off shore tax havens, I'd agree, but football clubs? 

I'm not taking sides here but just to point out that the reasons why football clubs are chosen are not always to do with investing finance. Abu Dhabi's purchase of City is to present Abu Dhabi as a place for investment and to do business through the use of City as a global shop window because the EPL has global exposure. The money they're investing in City is peanuts compared to the investment that can roll in to the Gulf state from businesses world wide.

Trying to defend a post that makes absolutely no sense, and is wrong on every level isn't the way to go here fella.

Trying to say that oligarchs put their money into football clubs as a safe investment is laughable.
Every single one of them has lost money.
So yeah, REALLY safe. 

How about informing me of the state of Abramovic' ins and outs as Chelsea owner.
Their commercial income rose 19% to a figure of £79.9m.
A £1.4m profit in 2012 was turned into a £49m loss in 2013 which enabled the club to meet EUFA FFP regulations, failure to do so would mean penalties and restrictions on the club impacting on the status of the team. That £49m loss must be considered a price worth paying in the longer term.
They achieved a record turnover which bodes well once again in the long term, not exactly the picture your cartoon posts describe.

Trying to defend a post that makes absolutely no sense, and is wrong on every level isn't the way to go here fella.

Trying to say that oligarchs put their money into football clubs as a safe investment is laughable.
Every single one of them has lost money.
So yeah, REALLY safe. 

Bizzare post - even from stuey.

They must be serving weekend drinks early at the care home 

I'm not taking sides here but just to point out that the reasons why football clubs are chosen are not always to do with investing finance. Abu Dhabi's purchase of City is to present Abu Dhabi as a place for investment and to do business through the use of City as a global shop window because the EPL has global exposure. The money they're investing in City is peanuts compared to the investment that can roll in to the Gulf state from businesses world wide.

So you think Abu Dhabi needed an English football club to present themselves in the global shop window?

I'm pretty sure they were doing ok without owning a football club, that's why they could afford one to start with.

Seems to me that the club is more of a play toy for them. Not a tool for economic growth.

great news 

So you think Abu Dhabi needed an English football club to present themselves in the global shop window?

I'm pretty sure they were doing ok without owning a football club, that's why they could afford one to start with.

Seems to me that the club is more of a play toy for them. Not a tool for economic growth.

You're under the mistaken assumption I'm stating opinion.

You're under the mistaken assumption I'm stating opinion.

Oh...so sorry

So you think Abu Dhabi needed an English football club to present themselves in the global shop window?

I'm pretty sure they were doing ok without owning a football club, that's why they could afford one to start with.

Seems to me that the club is more of a play toy for them. Not a tool for economic growth.

Abu Dhabi is the richest Emirates state with unimaginable wealth and reserves, perhaps a distant nephew in the royal family was contemplating a trip to Manchester and instructed an aide to acquire a season ticket for Citeh...the rest is history.

Keep adding those sponsorships John.

Oligarchs put money into football clubs for dick swinging purposes.
Not to keep the money "safe", not as an investment, it's all about dick swinging.

End of story.

Oligarchs put money into football clubs for dick swinging purposes.
Not to keep the money "safe", not as an investment, it's all about dick swinging.

End of story.

They also do it to seek asylum from criminal conviction - something broadly along those lines, as Ambramovich and the Abu Dhabi lot who bought City have skeleton's in their closet.

Chelsea and City's success is down to blood money. Simple as that.

They also do it to seek asylum from criminal conviction - something broadly along those lines, as Ambramovich and the Abu Dhabi lot who bought City have skeleton's in their closet.

Chelsea and City's success is down to blood money. Simple as that.

You're going to have to explain this, because it makes no sense to me.
How can owning a football club qualify for asylum?

Agreed about the blood money though.

You're going to have to explain this, because it makes no sense to me.
How can owning a football club qualify for asylum?

Agreed about the blood money though.

My guess is he is inferring money laundering.

My guess is he is inferring money laundering.

They don't need to launder money, they own their own banks

Oligarchs put money into football clubs for dick swinging purposes.
Not to keep the money "safe", not as an investment, it's all about dick swinging.

End of story.

That's how I see it.

You're going to have to explain this, because it makes no sense to me.
How can owning a football club qualify for asylum?

I think it gets the foot in the door Swab...an Oligarch or Sheikh on the run for whatever reason could go to the country (where they own a club) and say "Look how much money i poured into your community..etc..etc)

I think it gets the foot in the door Swab...an Oligarch or Sheikh on the run for whatever reason could go to the country (where they own a club) and say "Look how much money i poured into your community..etc..etc)

I'm just not seeing it mate.

If someone can cite actual evidence, then great, but if not it doesn't really ring true for me.

Presumably you are not familiar with Thaksin Shinawatra. I think he probably had the exact same thought process as you AZ. Didn't quite work out for him!

Presumably you are not familiar with Thaksin Shinawatra. I think he probably had the exact same thought process as you AZ. Didn't quite work out for him!

I am familiar with him, and that's why I don't buy all this "asylum" stuff.

Liverpool FC thrilling form last season didn’t just take them agonisingly close to winning the Premier League – it also pushed them back into the top 10 of the Deloitte Money League after an absence of a year.

Using figures posted for the 2013-14 season, the Reds gathered revenue of £255.8million, an increase of £49.6m on the previous campaign.

As with the rest of their Premier League rivals, the Anfield club benefited from the improved television deal agreed with Sky and BT Sport.

However, Liverpool received the highest central distribution of any English club of £97.5m, leading to a 58% increase in overall broadcast revenue, which includes prize money for finishing second to champions Manchester City.

The Reds’ figures – transfer dealings are not included in Deloitte’s rankings – are even more impressive considering they are the highest-placed team in the table not to have been playing in the Champions League last season.

Nevertheless, the Money Table highlights Liverpool still have work to do to cement their place back in the Premier League’s elite, especially as their most recent accounts in March 2014 showed a £50m loss.

The four teams they would consider main rivals for Champions League qualification – Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea and Arsenal – are all above the Reds in the Deloitte standings.

Indeed, United’s commercial revenue of £189.3m was almost double that of Liverpool’s. City and Chelsea also had a greater commercial return.

Reds chief executive Ian Ayre has made no secret of the club’s desire to greater exploit commercial revenues – Deloitte state the club’s international reach is among the strongest of all Money League clubs – and there was a 6% increase in the figure last season, up to £103.8m.

While Anfield attendances remained largely the same, matchday revenue grew by 14% to £51m due to improved matchday hospitality sales.

That number, though, is dwarfed by United (£108.1m) and Arsenal (£100.2m). Chelsea, whose average crowd is 3,000 lower than the Reds, took home £20m more in matchday revenue.

The redevelopment of Anfield’s Main Stand, and the addition of 8,500 extra seats is expected to generate extra revenue of £20m a year.

In terms of social media, Liverpool are ranked seventh of those in the Money Table with 24.9m Facebook likes and 3.8m Twitter followers.

Dan Jones, partner at Deloitte’s Sports Business Group, says: “It was a very successful year for the Merseyside clubs.

“On top of illustrating their obvious talent on the pitch, this is also a testament to how well run the clubs are as businesses.

“They play a major role in Liverpool’s growing economy which shouldn’t be understated.”

Heading the Money Table for the 10th successive year were Real Madrid, who made £459.5m after winning the European Cup for the 10th time.

United, despite failing to qualify for the Champions League, moved up to second behind Real, with Bayern Munich staying third and Barcelona dropping to fourth.

Liverpool, despite their early exit from the Champions League this season, will have had their coffers considerably bolstered by the competition and are expected to strengthen their place in the top 10.

Whoo - Hoo... have we got a song for it yet? 

I'm no financial expert. But from a superficial standpoint, it doesn't seem like owning a football team is a great way for someone to 'make money'.

Just seems like there are only a few revenue streams, and the pressure to spend more is never ending.

I'm no financial expert. But from a superficial standpoint, it doesn't seem like owning a football team is a great way for someone to 'make money'.

Just seems like there are only a few revenue streams, and the pressure to spend more is never ending.

FSG wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't something in it for them, I don't believe they are novices

I'm no financial expert. But from a superficial standpoint, it doesn't seem like owning a football team is a great way for someone to 'make money'.

Just seems like there are only a few revenue streams, and the pressure to spend more is never ending.

Pretty much.

If people are in it for the money, owning a football club is not for you unless you do something like what has happened at Southampton or purchasing a club in the Championship and investing there to pick up the £50m+ Premier League money. It is a new trend with Nottingham Forrest and Leicester being prime examples.

Edit: I dont mean there isnt money to be made. Of course there is. But definitely greater ROI's available out there for investors.

I think it gets the foot in the door Swab...an Oligarch or Sheikh on the run for whatever reason could go to the country (where they own a club) and say "Look how much money i poured into your community..etc..etc)

That John Henry fella hedging his bets just in case the IRS coming knocking then . 

Seriously, who cares?

It ruins everything it touches. The only ones who care about money are those who have it all and want more.

Football was great before the advent of the PL and the CL and the endless drive for larger revenue streams, which have created the monstrosity of player power, and falsely created big club mentality ala City and Chelsea and their idiotic fans.

Liverpool could fall to bottom place in the bottom division and create F**k all revenue, but I'd still follow them.