Deloitte Money League: Liverpool FC move back into top 10

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.