Post on 04-Apr-2018
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
1/23
Focus on ootball nanceMarch 2012
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
2/232
Focus on ootball fnance
Contents
03 2020 Vision
04 Football fnance air play
08 Club versus country
09 Eastern mystery
10 Where does the money go?
14 Is the Sky alling in?
16 Investment in youth is changing18 TV rights
21 About Grant Thornton
This is a game otwo halves: the havesand the have nots.And the haves want more
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
3/23
3
Pulling together the dierent
themes covered in this newsletter
gives us a vision o the possible
uture or ootball, in England
and beyond.
Picture the scene: Manchester United
v Barcelona; the nal o the World
Champions League, played beore a
ull house in the Beijing National
Stadium in China. There are 100,000
ans, 50,000 each rom Manchester
United and Barcelona, watching the
game live, and all are Chinese residents.
The game is also being broadcast live
around the world, with 750 million
viewers paying $10 each on pay-per-
view. It is ootballs biggest game,producing revenues o $7.5 billion.
Sounds unlikely? Lets see how it
could happen.
In this brochure we talk about
UEFAs Financial Fair Play Regulations.
These will seek to bring stability to
the game by restricting the spending
o clubs to match their income. We
support this initiative strongly as it
will encourage clubs to develop young
players rather than spending their wayinto nancial trouble.
We consider FIFAs increasing
demands on the clubs to release their
highly-paid players or international
duties in an already xture-packed
season. These clubs are also required to
take part in domestic cup competitions,
such as Englands FA Cup and Carling
Cup. The weakened sides elded by
the Premiership Clubs in the early
rounds o these competitions already
send a clear message about how they
view them.
We look at the reasons behind
Manchester Uniteds decision to seek to
sell shares in Singapore, and conclude
that the Glazers may actually see Asia
as a major source o uture revenues
or the Club. We believe Chelsea,Liverpool, Manchester City and the
top European clubs share this vision.
And we comment on the monies that
the Premiership Clubs receive rom the
sale o media rights. Are the top clubs
really happy with their share?
I we put all these actors together,
we can see the background to what we
think may be the next big contest in
international ootball. Not Manchester
United v Barcelona in China, but
UEFA versus one o our top clubs. We
wonder what would happen i one, or
more, o the top European clubs were
to all oul o UEFAs Financial Fair
Play Regulations, prompting UEFA
to exclude them rom the Champions
League. Would the clubs simply accept
UEFAs ruling and be content to
pass up the prize o Champions
League money?
We suggest that would be unlikely.
Such a move by UEFA could thereorebe the catalyst or something truly
epoch-making: the break-up o the
game in Europe as we know it. This
might happen i a deaulting club
tempted others to break away and
orm a European Super League, or
a World Super League. This might
eventually lead to a league o perhaps
16-20 teams rom Spain, Italy, France,
Germany, England, Argentina, Brazil,
Asia and North America. Breakawayclubs, with the best brands and the
biggest supporter bases, could demand
a greater share o media rights, and
could generate increased income rom
sponsors and advertisers. Why play 60
matches each season i you could play
just 50 but still generate more revenue?
Why play in your home town every
other week when you have millions ooverseas ans, in Asia or the rest o the
world, keen to pay premium prices to
watch their avourite teams live?
For the bigger clubs the temptation
o the additional monies that could be
earned on a world stage must surely,
at some point, become irresistible. But
when? 2020? Is that a realistic timescale
or the Manchester United v Barcelona
vision sketched out above to
become reality?
Certainly, i it did happen, it would
give rise to a whole series o urther
questions. What would be the impact
on those clubs let behind? What TV
deal would these non-Super League
clubs be able to command? And what
sort o state would their nances be in?
And who would want to lend to them?
All points to ponder.
2020 Vision
For the biggerclubs the temptation
o the additional moniesthat could be earned on aworld stage must surely,at some point, become
irresistible.
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
4/23
Focus on ootball fnance
4
It was in September 2009 that
UEFAs Executive Committee
approved unanimously a concept
called fnancial air play. The
background to its decision was as
ollows: many clubs were reporting
fnancial losses in worsening
market conditions in the 2009
fnancial year. Total revenues
or top division clubs reached a
record 11.7 billion but increased
costs had created net losses o
1.2 billion, almost double the
previous record. Many clubs were
paying enormous bills or
players wages.
More than one in eight club auditors
expressed uncertainty about whether
certain clubs could continue as going
concerns. Those clubs with wealthy
backers were able to out-spend their
competitors, orcing transer ees andwages into a spiral that risked the uture
o the clubs, and the very abric o
the sport.
UEFA decided that action was needed
to level the playing eld. The air play
concept was its answer: an attempt to
orce clubs to live within their means
by limiting spending to the income they
were generating. Financial Fair Play is
crucial in order to promote the long-
term sustainability o European ootball
and is entirely consistent with the
sporting values we have in Europe, said
UEFA President Michel Platini.
The nancial air play objectives
are to:
improvetheeconomicandnancial
capability o clubs, increasingtransparency and credibility
ensureclubssettletheirliabilitiesona
timely basis
introducemoredisciplineand
rationality in club ootball nances
encouragelong-terminvestmentin
the youth sector and inrastructure
encourageclubstooperateonthe
basis o their own revenues
protectthelong-termviabilityof
European club ootball.
At Grant Thornton we endorse and
support the objectives o nancial air
play as we have campaigned or some
time or ootball clubs to be operated
with the same level o nancial discipline
applied by other business models,
rather than relying on the deep pockets
o their chairmen and other directors.
Introducing the new regime, UEFA
general secretary Gianni Inantino
summed up the situation rathermemorably. What kind o healthy
business is it that waits or a white
knight on a horse with lots o money to
throw round and then, rom one day or
another, he could jump on his horse and
ride away?
UEFAs Executive Committee
approved the UEFA Club Licensing
and Fair Play Regulations in 2010. The
Regulations introduced the air play
Football nancial air play
UEFA general secretaryGianni Inantino summed up
the situation rather memorably.
What kind o healthy businessis it that waits or a white knighton a horse with lots o money
to throw round and then, romone day or another, he could
jump on his horse and
ride away?
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
5/23
5
measures that will be implemented
over a three-year period, requiring
clubs to operate on a break-even basis.
The rst season that a club could be
excluded rom European competition
or non-compliance is 2014-15, butthe rst break-even assessment will be
undertaken during 2013-14.
The period in which the assessment
is made is termed the monitoring
period, and the assessment is based
on the aggregate results o the three
previous reporting periods. For example,
in monitoring period 2015-2016 the
reporting periods will be those or the
nancial years ending in 2015 (T), 2014
(T-1) and 2013 (T-2). The exception
to this rule will be or the 2013-14
monitoring period, which will assess the
reporting periods ending in 2013 and
2012, (2012, o course, being the
current season).
The Regulations are applicable
only to those clubs with income and
expenditure o over 5 million euros. The
maximum decit that such clubs will be
allowed to incur will be 5 million euros
or the aggregate o the three reporting
periods (T, T-1 and T-2). This aggregatecan be exceeded in the early years but
only i the excess is made good by equity
injections. The allowable decits will
be 45 million euros or the combined
seasons 2013-14 and 2014-15, alling to
an aggregate 30 million euros or seasons
2015-16 to 2017-18. Where a club shows
aggregate losses in a monitoring period,
it can use prots rom the two years
prior to T-2, (T-3 and T-4) to reduce the
aggregate loss.
Whilst clubs are being challenged to
ensure they do not spend more
than they earn, they will be given some
fexibility i the trend is moving in the
right direction. Accordingly, in the
2013-14 and 2014-15 monitoring
periods, i a clubs decit arises because
o over-spending on players wages
in the 2012 reporting period, then the
expenditure on players wages arising
rom contracts signed beore 1 June
2010 can be excluded rom the break-
even calculation.
Clubs will still be able to spend on
long-term ventures such as inrastructureor academy projects, and this spending
will not count towards the break-even
calculation. This is to ensure that the
other aims o the Regulations, such as
youth development and improving/
upgrading sports installations, are not
aected adversely by nancial air play.
Monitoring is the role o the Club
Financial Control Panel, headed by the
ormer Prime Minister o Belgium, Jean-
Luc Dehaene. Its rst task was to look
at all transer and employee payables in
the summer o 2011. Transer spending
made over the summer o 2011 will
impact on the break-even results o the
nancial years ending 2012 and 2013, the
rst nancial years to be assessed under
the break-even rule. All payments due
on transers, and to employees, will be
assessed by the Panel. So, Mr Dehaene
and his colleagues will have been
watching with interest the summer 2011
transer window business conducted by
the Premiership Clubs, especially the
big our net spenders, Manchester City
(52.5m), Manchester United (42.9m),Chelsea (41.75m) and Liverpool
(34.1m).
Consideration has also been given
to the possibility o clubs attempting to
circumvent the regulations by articial
means. Provision is made to adjust
income and expenses rom related parties
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
6/23
Focus on ootball fnance
6
to refect the air value o any such
transactions. One deal, which is sure
to be considered closely, is Manchester
Citys 10-year sponsorship deal with
Etihad Airways announced in July 2011,
and said to be worth up to 400 million.City successully increased its revenue
rom sponsors and partners by 400% to
32.4 million in 2009-10, thanks to the
agreement with Etihad and other Abu
Dhabi based companies, such as Etisalat,
Aabar Investments PJSC and the Abu
Dhabi Tourism Authority. This latest
deal, the largest o its kind in sport, is
certainly a huge step towards a return to
protability or Manchester City, which
incurred a 194 million loss in 2010/11.
And given that City does not even
own its stadium, and that Etihad has
never made a prot, the deal is even
more extraordinary.
City, o course, is owned by Sheikh
Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan o Abu
Dhabi and Etihad Airways. The act
that this deal doubles the previous
record o $300 million (187 million)
or the world-amous Madison Square
Garden, and is way ahead o Arsenals
90 million, 15-year sponsorship dealwith Emirates, has already been noted,
not least by some o Citys competitors
in the Premiership. The club has
apparently already consulted UEFA
over the arrangement, which includes
nancial backing or inrastructure and
regeneration projects, both types o
expenditure that do not count in the
break-even calculation or nancial
air play. Arsenal manager, Arsene
Wenger, has already suggested that i
Manchester Citys sponsorship deal is
accepted by UEFA, then the nancial
air play rules will be blown apart.According to Wenger, The credibility
o Financial Fair Play is at stake. The
sponsorship cannot be doubled, tripled
or quadrupled because that means it is
better i we leave everybody ree. But i
they bring the rules in they have to
be respected.
The spectre o the nancial air play
regulations raises some key questions.
What will be their eect i they work?
And will UEFA really expel one or more
big clubs out o European competition i
they do not comply?
With regard to the rst question,
France gives a possible indication o the
impact o nancial air play. The DNCG
(Direction Nationale du Controle
de Gestion) is in its third decade o
monitoring that nations strict nancial
regulation regime. Clubs expenditure
is tied to income. As a result Lyon is the
only club to have nished in the top our
in Le Championnat more than ve timesin the past 10 years. By contrast in the
ree-spending English Premiership, our
clubs have achieved that goal. In France,
i a team incurs a loss it has to make
cutbacks, or generate compensating
income by selling a key player. This is
the nancial model that Michel Platini
is so keen to impose on the rest o
The spectre o
the fnancial air
play regulationsraises some
key questions.
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
7/23
7
Europe. In terms o the nancial air
play objectives it will introduce more
discipline and rationality in club ootball
nances and will encourage clubs
to operate on the basis o their own
revenues. But how will it aect playersdenied pay rises, and talented managers
who have worked tirelessly to build a
winning team? Many o them may well
look elsewhere, beyond UEFAs reach.
Any club gambling on winning
a Champions League spot and its
resultant rewards, and ailing, may
well nd itsel caught out by nancial
air play. Will that club be content to
make the cutbacks necessary to ensure
its expenditure alls back to meet the
shortall in revenue, as required by
air play?
That then leads us to the question o
whether or not UEFA will act robustly
and seek an expulsion o that club i it
does not do so. UEFA president Michel
Platini is on record as saying We
have worked on the nancial air play
concept hand-in-hand with the clubs,
as our intention is not to punish them
but to protect them. But i it comes
to the crunch and UEFA has to punish
them what will happen? UEFAs record
on enorcement to date has not beenexemplary. For a man who has been
quoted as saying our policy on racism
is one o zero tolerance we have seen
no real eort rom Mr Platini or UEFA
to stamp out racism. That issue came to
the ore again in the recent England v
Bulgaria Euro qualier. Will Mr Platini
take air play all the way, or will he back
down and allow loss making clubs to
remain in Europe i the trend o losses is
heading in the right direction?
We believe that excluding a major
club rom European competition on
grounds o nancial air play will
threaten the continuation o the game as
we know it in Europe. It could threaten
UEFA itsel. I the excluded club were
able to persuade other clubs that their
uture lay outside UEFA, in some orm
o elite European League, or even a
World Super League, then would others
ollow? Liverpool, as we note elsewhere
in this brochure, is one club apparently
unhappy with its current allocation
o European TV monies. How many
others rom Europe and the rest o the
world could be tempted to share in the
inevitable riches that could be generated
rom such a league? And where would
that leave the others, and the nancial
institutions lending to them?
Will Mr Platini take air play allthe way, or will he back down and
allow loss making clubs to remain
in Europe i the trend o losses is
heading in the right direction?
We believe
that excluding a major
club rom European
competition on grounds
o fnancial air play will
threaten the continuation
o the game as we know it
in Europe. It couldthreaten UEFA itsel.
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
8/238
Focus on ootball fnance
European clubs were told by FIFA
that they must release their players or
13 international dates in 2011. They
included the 10 August clash between
England and Holland that
was cancelled due to the rioting in
London. That game would have been
played just three days beore the start
o the English Premier League season
a state o aairs that was not exactly
popular with Premier League managers.In 2013, FIFA has plans or an
unprecedented 15 international dates.
No wonder clubs, under pressure to cut
losses, question the commercial sense
o being orced to allow highly-paid
players to participate in international
games or little or no payback.
Europes leading clubs in England,
Germany, Italy and Spain dream o
the prots they could make rom a
European Super League. This, plusthe increasing demands o FIFA
or international games, mean the
current status quo is unsustainable.
The memorandum o understanding
between FIFA and the clubs expires in
July 2014. The memorandum creates a
legal requirement or the top European
clubs to play in UEFAs Champions
League and to release players orinternational riendlies, or tournaments,
including the World Cup.
It seems unlikely that it will be
renewed on the same terms. Umberto
Gandini, o AC Milan, and the
European Club Association suggested
in July 2011 that a reusal o co-
operation in respect o international
ootball was a possibility. The
potential riches that a Super League
could generate are best illustrated
by the FIFA World Cup. A total o
$3.7billion o income was generated
rom the 2010 World Cup. Yet the
400 clubs providing the players
shared a total o only 25.3million
in compensation. Barcelona, which
released 13 players, received the highest
amount at 557,000. English clubs, the
best rewarded in the scheme, shared a
combined 3.8 million. These clubs will
be wondering how much they could
have earned had they been in control othe revenues o a world
club competition.
The English Premier League was
ormed over 20 years ago when leading
clubs broke away rom the Football
League. The commercial success o the
Premiership sets an example that could
be replicated by the top European
clubs. Bayern Munich, Real Madrid,
Internazionale, Milan, Manchester
United, Liverpool and Barcelona havewon 36 European Cup and Champions
League titles between them. They
would be the natural choice or any
elite European Super League, and
approaches would surely be made
to other clubs that demonstrate an
ability to generate revenue rom their
international an-bases. These might
include Arsenal, Chelsea, ManchesterCity, Juventus, Roma, Ajax, Porto,
Marseille, Celtic, Rangers and others.
And why stop at Europe? Clubs,
ater all, are increasingly ocusing their
attention on Asia. Taking into account
the major teams in Argentina and
Brazil, which enjoy substantial support,
as well as the growing commercial
interests o American owners, surely
a World Super League is the logical
conclusion or elite clubs seeking to
maximise their revenue potential?
Club versus country:a memorandum o misunderstanding
No wonder clubs,under pressure to
cut losses, question theommercial sense in beingorced to allow highly-paidplayers to participate ininternational games or
little or no payback.
The English PremierLeague was ormedover 20 years ago
when leading clubsbroke away romthe Football League.The commercialsuccess o thePremiership sets anexample that couldbe replicated by thetop European clubs.
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
9/23
9
The growth in theeconomic power o
the East and the resultantincrease in disposable
incomes have combined
to attract the interesto western brands.
It is seven years since the Glazers
took Manchester United private
or a purchase price o 790
million, provoking ury amongst
supporters.
It looks like they are now moving to
ofoad 25% o their shares at more
than double the purchase price, leaving
themselves with a healthy capital gain
and the ans more outraged than ever.
In June 2010 the Glazer amily held
talks with several investment banks
with a view to listing Manchester
United on the Hong Kong stock
exchange. This ollowed a number o
recent high-prole fotations in HongKong. Clearly the Glazers and their
advisers were attracted by suggestions
that a listing could value the club at
1.7 billion.
Hong Kong has been the worlds
biggest Initial Public Oering (IPO)
market or the past two years, raising
$57.4bn (35.6bn) in 2010. Recent
listings include luggage manuacturer
Samsonite, Macau casino operator
MGM China and, in June 2011, Prada.
Ater our previously unsuccessul
fotation attempts, Prada recognised
the importance o Asia as a consumer
o luxury goods and decided to list in
Hong Kong.
However, it is Singapore, and not
Hong Kong, that is expected to see the
launch o Manchester United shares,
slightly later than planned due to
volatility in the world nancial markets.
No explanation has been provided
or the change o venue to Singapore,but indications are that 25% o the
shares will be oered or sale and the
listing is expected to raise 600 million,
although there are suggestions that
the valuation o the club is too high.
Despite 2010 revenues o 286m, and
an operating prot o 91m (the highest
in the Premiership), the club reported a
79m loss ater interest costs). The highinterest costs refect the act that the
Glazers nanced their 2005 purchase
with 600 million o loans.
The growth in the economic power
o the East and the resultant increase in
disposable incomes have combined to
attract the interest o western brands.
These brands now include some o the
top European ootball clubs. The places
clubs visit on their pre-season tours give
a clear indication o where they expectgrowth to come rom. Liverpool toured
in China, Malaysia and Singapore,
Chelsea in Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and
Hong Kong, and Arsenal in Malaysia
and China. Did they go there or
the weather, or to raise their proles
amongst their growing Asian supporter
bases? Manchester United has an
estimated 333 million ans, o whom
190 million live in Asia.
Demand or live Premiership action
led to a erce bidding war amongst
Asian broadcasters or the 2010-2013
broadcast rights. In Singapore, an island
with a population o only 4.8 million
people, the rights are held by SingTel,
which paid 200 million - more than
three times the amount paid by the
previous holder. In Hong Kong, i-Cable
paid 150 million, again a signicant
increase on the previous arrangement.
The ootball-hungry younger ans
in Asia are very IT literate, and eageror the latest computer and telephone
gadgets. This growing market oers
new opportunities or streaming and
downloading o ootball matches.
With UK ans currently having
to watch their spending, it is no
surprise that European clubs should
see Asia as a key growth area. So a
listing in Singapore or Manchester
United should similarly occasion no
surprise. United, ater all, does have a
number o advantages over its rivals.
On the playing eld, United is the
most successul team in the history o
English ootball, although, o course,
Liverpool has won a greater number o
European trophies, making it the most
successul English team in Europe.
The Manchester United brand wasrated second most valuable in 2010 by
Forbes magazine behind the New York
Yankees, and the club is one o the best
supported in the world.
We believe that i its IPO does
succeed, Manchester United will
progress to another level that very
ew others will be able to replicate.
Yes, others may be tempted to ollow
Uniteds example. But, while Asia has a
real and increasing hunger or ootball,appetite can be quickly sated. The most
successul clubs are likely to be those
rst to market with attractive oerings.
Eastern mystery
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
10/23
1110
Focus on ootball fnance
Premiership Football Clubs ought to be
among the most proftable businesses
in Britain. They have a quality product
or which there is a seemingly insatiable
demand. Ticket prices increase year
on year, and the Premier League has
delivered signifcant and incremental
increases in TV monies with every
new deal. Our ootball clubs should
be awash with cash. But in 2009/10
only three Premiership clubs reported
profts, and one o those (Arsenal)
would have incurred a signifcant loss
had it not been the or one-o sales o
156 million worth o apartments in
its Highbury residential development.
Premiership winners, Manchester
United posted losses beore taxation
o 79 million. The combined net debt
o the 20 Premier League clubs in 2010
was 2.5 billion. So the questions are:
How can this be? Where does the
money go? Lets ocus on the
TV monies.
According to the Ofce o National
Statistics fgures, the average UK
worker earns 24,076 per year, and
10.26 million people in the UK
subscribe to Sky, paying an average o
535 each year. Approximately hal
o these subscribers take some sport
content and some Sky subscribers are
also amongst the estimated 1.2 million
ESPN subscribers, paying another
108 each year (or 144 or non-
Sky subscribers).
Sky and ESPN are paying circa 1.7
billion over 3 years to the Premiership
or TV rights, equating to 567million
each year.
The Premier League distributed
at least 19.6 million rom domestic
broadcast rights (13.8 million equal
share plus a minimum o 5.8 million
acility ees) to each o the 20 Premier
League Clubs in 2010-2011. Additional
appearance monies were paid to the
clubs, depending on the number o
times they eatured on TV. And, o
course, the Premier League does make
parachute payments to relegated clubs
and solidarity payments to the Football
League or distribution to its clubs, as
well as fnancing youth development
programmes and making various
charitable donations.
So the clubs collect the TV monies,
along with their other incomes rom
ticket sales, merchandising, sponsorship
and overseas broadcasting rights and
use them to deray their expenses, the
biggest o which is the players wage
Where does the money go?
The economics o the mad house
clubsmillion
players,managerial, coaching
and support staff
millionsubscribers paying
PremierLeague
According to the
Ofce o National
Statistics, the
average UK worker
earns 24,076 per
year, and 10.26
million o them
subscribe to Sky,
paying an average
o 535 each year.Approximately hal
o these subscribers
take some
sport content.
costs. Each club has a squad o 25 frst
team players, earning an average basic
salary o 1.2 million. With bonuses
and appearance money this could rise to
between 1.8 million and 2.4 million.
In addition, the clubs have Under 21
players and the associated managerial,
coaching and support sta. Manchester
Citys wage bill in 2010-11 was 174
million, 21 million more than its total
income o 153 million!
In eect then, the hard-earned
money o the estimated 5 million Sky
sports ans ends up helping to line
the pockets o circa 800 players and
support sta. Rather than using the
increasing TV monies to repay debt, it
seems that the clubs have preerred to
pay higher wages to their players and
sta. In 1992-93, the frst year o the
Premiership, the average Premiership
basic annual pay was 77,000, over our
times the average UK wage. Ten years
later in 2002-03 the average players
pay had increased by nearly 800% to
611,000, but the average UK wage was
only 53% higher. By 2009-10, players
pay had virtually doubled again, to an
average 1.2 million, against a 20%
increase or the average worker.
The gul between the Premier League
and the rest o ootball has also widened
signifcantly. The average Premiership
wage is now 5 times more than the
average in the Championship, and 30
times more than the average League
Two wage. Back in 1992-93 those
fgures were 1.9 and 4.6 respectively.
Why has the gap widened so much?
Look no urther than the level o TV
monies in the lower leagues.
What is more, this cash does not stay
in the Premiership ootballers pockets
or long. Despite the massive increase
in players wages, in some cases it is
What is surprising is that despite themassive increase in players wages,
it still isnt enough or some players
to avoid fnancial problems. In 1992-
93, the frst year o the Premiership,
the average Premiership basic annual
pay was 77,000, over our times
the average UK wage. Ten years later
in 2002-03 the average players pay
had increased by nearly 800% to
611,000, but the average UK wage
was only 53% higher. By 2009-10,
players pay had virtually doubled
again, to an average 1.2 million,
against a 20% increase or the
average worker.
1992-93
2009-10
2002-03
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
11/2312
Focus on ootball fnance
still not enough and the number o
ex-Premiership players experiencing
insolvency continues to rise.
The pressure o paying such
unsustainably high wages has resulted
in many clubs likewise succumbing to
insolvency. The ranks o the Football
League include a long list o clubs thathave entered Administration - some
o them shortly ater having been
relegated rom the Premiership. (These
include Leeds, Ipswich, Leicester and
Wimbledon.) Portsmouth became the
rst club to enter Administration whilst
actually in the Premier League.
HM Revenue and Customs
(HMRC) is oten blamed or orcing
clubs into insolvency. But clubs
deducting income tax and national
insurance contributions rom the
unsustainable wages paid to their
players can hardly expect HMRC (and
the taxpayer) to oot the bill. Any club
that has spent the tax it has deducted
rom its employees on higher wages
and transer ees deserves no sympathy
rom the hard-pressed taxpayer.
There will always be ootball.
The present model, however, is
not sustainable. The paying public
who subscribe to satellite TV areencountering real nancial pressures,
and those in work nd themselves
obliged to make sacrices, aced with a
reduction in disposable income as wages
ail to keep pace with infationary price
rises. Can the ootball industry expect
the public to continue paying more andmore each year to nance the increased
wage demands o such a limited number
o individuals? Clubs cannot aord
to continue to operate the same way,
relying on the ongoing support o their
ans digging ever deeper into
their pockets.
We call upon the clubs to
demonstrate a greater sense o morality
and show some empathy with their
supporters, who are under increasingnancial pressures. We call upon all the
directors o our ootball clubs to live
up to the air play ethos that Monsieur
Platini and his colleagues at UEFA are
eager to impose, and to ensure that their
clubs live within their means. We call
upon the ootball authorities to show
the leadership required to ensure that
clubs do attain the breakeven nancial
air play standards demanded by
UEFA. That will require the clubs to
be brave enough to deny the increasedwage demands rom players, to resist
the inevitable pressure o the ans
however hard-up they themselves might
be - to spend those extra millions in the
transer windows, and use their income
to reduce debts. We say: so what i the
clubs dont sign the expensive players
that their ans want? Many o the clubs
that did gamble on spending their way
to ootballing success have entered
insolvency and allen out o sight othe upper leagues. Spending does not
guarantee ootballing success. We
urge the clubs to look realistically, and
We call upon theclubs to demonstrate a
greater sense o moralityand show some understanding
to their supporters, who are
under increasingfnancial pressures.
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
12/23
13
modestly, at their ambitions, and ollow
the air play protocols. Operating
within their means will allow clubs to
nd their true economic level in theleague. That may well be less glamorous
than living the dream, but club directors
and supporters must decide what they
want rom their teams: one gigantic
gamble that is more than likely to ail
and risk the very existence o the club
they love so dearly, or a long-term
sustainable uture.
So we say the
economic model
has to change.
It represents the
economics o the
madhouse, and
cannot continue.
Surely everyone cansee why UEFA is so
keen on fnancial
air play.
Key fnancials or Premier League clubs at June 2010
Turnover Wages
Wages as% o
turnover
Proft/(loss)
beore tax Net debt
million million million million
Arsenal 382 110 29 56 136
Aston Villa 91 80 88 (38) 110
Birmingham 56 38 68 0 16
Blackburn 58 47 81 (2) 21
Blackpool 9 13 144 (7) 4.3
Bolton 62 46 74 (35) 93
Chelsea 213 174 82 (78) 734
Everton 79 54 69 (3) 45
Fulham 77 49 63 (19) 190
Liverpool 185 121 65 (20) 123
Man City 125 133 106 (121) 41
Man Utd 286 131 46 (79) 590
Newcastle 52 47 90 (17) 150Stoke 59 45 76 (5) 8
Sunderland 65 54 83 (28) 66
Tottenham 119 67 56 (7) 65
West Brom 28 23 82 1 10
West Ham 72 54 75 (21) 34
Wigan 43 39 91 (4) 73
Wolves 61 30 49 9 0
Total Net Debt at June 2010 = 2.5 billion
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
13/2314
Focus on ootball fnance
It could be argued that Premier
League ootballers and BSkyB are
the only players in the ootball
market who have ared well in the
recession up to this point.
Even though the credit crisis has orced
UK consumers to make cutbacks in
their spending, it seems that many are
reluctant to cancel or downgrade their
Sky TV subscription. Sky customers
now spend an average o 535 each year,
quite an increase rom the average o
452 they were paying three years ago.
Increased take-up o high denition
services and broadband and xed line
telephones have been the main reasonsor the uplit. Despite an increase o
10% in revenue over last year, the
recession does nally seem to be
catching up with Sky. Estimates indicate
that the number o new subscribers in
the September quarter is down over
80% on the same period last year.
Meanwhile, ootballers wage
demands seem to go orever onwards
and upwards. One wonders how much
more Sky customers, some o whom
are unemployed, will be asked to pay to
keep Premiership ootballers living
in the manner to which they have
become accustomed.
There may be trouble ahead or the
pay-TV broadcaster, however. And
trouble or Sky could mean diculties
or ootball clubs that depend so heavily
on their share o the seemingly ever-
increasing bonanza that TV rights have
turned out to be.
BSkyB is considering careully thedecision o the European Court o
Justice (ECJ), Europes highest court,
in the Karen Murphy case. Ms Murphy
is the Portsmouth pub landlady who
appealed against her conviction or
broadcasting illegally live Premiership
matches by using a Greek TV signal
decoder. The Football AssociationPremier League Limited (the private
company which represents the
broadcasting interests o the 20 English
Premier League clubs), brought the
prosecution arguing that only Sky TV
had exclusive rights to show its games
in the UK.
Ms Murphy considered that BskyBs
charges or commercial premises in
the UK, which can be over 1,000 per
month, were too high and opted or
a much cheaper Greek service until
stopped by the English courts. Having
paid nearly 8,000 in nes and costs Ms
Murphy took the issue all the way to
the ECJ.In essence, the legal case was about
whether or not a rights holder such
as the Premier League can license its
content on a country-by-country basis.
Licensing in this way has allowed the
League to maximise ully the value o
its rights.
The Premier League and Sky were
given a strong indication as to what
the decision o the ECJ would be in
Is the Sky alling in?
Despiteanincreaseof10%inrevenueoverlas
t
year,therecessiondoes fnallyseemtobecatchingupwithSky.
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
14/23
15
February 2011 when the court was
advised by one o its Advocate
Generals, Proessor Dr Juliane Kokott,
to rule that EU law does not prohibit
pubs showing live Premier League
matches rom oreign broadcasters.
Advocate General Kokott s opinion
was that the idea o selling on a
territorial exclusivity basis wastantamount to proting rom the
elimination o the internal market
and that there is ... no specic right to
charge dierent prices or a work in
each member state.
When the judgement was delivered
on 4 October the ECJ, as expected,
ollowed the guidance o its Advocate
General, deciding that the TV rights
deal breached EU competition law. Any
ban on the use o overseas decoders,
said the ECJ, could not be justied
either in light o the objective o
protecting intellectual property rights
or by the objective o encouraging the
public to attend ootball stadiums.
The decision o the ECJ must now
be considered by the High Court in
London, which had sought guidance
rom the ECJ. It is rare or a national
court to take a dierent view rom
the ECJ.
It appears rom the ECJ decisionthat individuals will be able to watch
live TV matches using a decoder
card rom anywhere in the European
Union. The situation or viewers in
pubs and clubs is less clear. The ECJ
ound that the Premier League could
not claim copyright over live ootball
matches as they are not an authors
own intellectual creation, and hence
works as dened in EU copyright
law. Works do, however, include
logos, the Premier League anthem andrecorded highlights, transmission o
which would need the permission o the
Premier League, as they are protected
by copyright. So, whilst pubs and clubs
seem to be ree to purchase a decoder
rom anywhere, transmission to the
public appears to be prevented unless
the transmission can exclude works.
Consequently, the High Court will
need to interpret the ECJ decision and
rule on its implications.
This decision could potentially
revolutionise the way media rights are
sold across Europe, and not only in the
sports sector : the lm industry has also
sold rights to its products on a country-
by-country basis.
Sky has around 44,000 pub, club
and oce subscribers in the UK and
revenues rom such subscriptions are
thought to be about 200m a year.
Exactly how much o this will be at risk
is unclear.So what are the potential
implications i the High Court ollows
the ECJ decision?
Skymaylosecustomersandrevenue
to oreign broadcasters o Premier
League ootball i UK ans are
prepared to accept oreign language
commentaries. Fewer subscribers
would probably mean Sky oeringless when the Premier League
auctions its TV rights this year.
Loss o exclusivity would almost
certainly mean that bidders would
not be prepared to oer as much or
UK rights as they have in the past.
Less money or the Premier League
would mean a smaller payout or the
ootball clubs.
Foreignbroadcastersdonotface
the same restrictions on showing
live ootball that have been imposed
on BskyB by the Premier League.
Matches kicking o on Saturday
at 3pm would be widely available
to watch on TV. How many empty
seats will we see in the stands as ans
are tempted to watch their team on
high-denition TV rom the comort
o their armchairs? More armchair
ans would mean less money through
the turnstiles or the clubs. Would
clubs seek to raise the cost o ticketsin these economically dicult times?
Or would they reduce their budgets
or salaries to players?
Is the sky about to all inon ootballs spiralling TVrights valuations? Watchthis space
This decision couldpotentially revolutionise the way
media rights are sold acrossEurope, and not only in the sportssector: the flm industry has alsosold rights to its products on a
country-by-country basis.
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
15/2316
Focus on ootball fnance
Investment in youth is changing
On 20 October 2011 the 72
Football League clubs voted
in avour o plans or radical
reorm o the structure o youth
development in England.
One aspect o the Elite PlayerPerormance Plan (EPPP) will be a
signicant change in the mechanism by
which clubs are compensated or the
transer o their talented youngsters to
other clubs.
Under EPPP, clubs academies
will be graded. The better their youth
development set-up is deemed to be, the
more money they can expect to receive
in the orm o grants in the coming
years. This theoretically incentivisesclubs to develop their youth operations.
However, the EPPP will also bring an
end to the tribunal system or valuing
the transer o young players. Some ear
that this could reduce substantially a
potentially lucrative income stream or
many clubs: the sale o young players to
bigger clubs.
EPPP sets out a ormulaic approach
to value young players based upon the
time the selling club has invested in
their development. It does not actor
in their potential. This could put an
end to any prospect o major windalls
rom the sale o the next potential star
player. It is important to note, however,
that, should the player go on to play
or the acquiring clubs rst team,
the EPPP rules would trigger urther
compensation payments. These could
possibly be in excess o 1 million.
Not surprisingly, given that a
recent ballot produced only a 46-22vote in avour o reorm, the nancial
implications o EPPP have already
triggered much debate. Will the changes
be good or the game? This is likely
to depend upon the structure within
individual clubs. At present there are
signicant variations between clubs in
terms o the time and money they invest
in their youth development initiatives.Consequently, the importance o
developing players or promotion into
the rst team or resale to other teams
tends to dier rom club to club.
Investment in young talent
What one can say based on the
monitoring o transer activity in
English ootballs top three divisions
by Grant Thorntons Sports Advisory
Group over recent transer windows
is that the reorm comes at a time
when Premier League clubs have been
raising the proportion o their transer
expenditure spent on young players
very substantially.
This trend is detailed in the
table below
In the summer 2011 transer window
this increasing investment in young
players would appear to be infuenced,
as suggested in our Football Transer
Tracker, by the Premier Leagues squad
composition rules, which provide anincentive or investment in youth. With
players such as Jordan Henderson, Phil
Jones, Romelu Lukaku and David de
Gea costing upwards o 15 million
each, the prospect o being able to sign
the best prospects rom around the
country or, say, 150,000 under EPPP
might be very attractive or the nancial
powerhouses o the Premier League.
Indeed, at such levels, big clubs may be
happy to speculate on a ew promising
teenagers, in expectation that one or
two o them will appreciate in value
very considerably.
2009 2010 2011
Age at transer m m m
Under 21 years 21.2 59.7 130.0
Proportion of total spend 5% 17% 27%
21 years and above 428.2 296.5 344.8
Proportion of total spend 95% 83% 73%
Summer transer window
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
16/23
17
What may be the fnancial impact on
the lower league clubs?
What has happened in practice in
recent transer windows? Our Football
Transer Tracker also looks at the
cascading unds rom the Premier
League to the lower divisions. (It must
be noted that the data is an estimate
based upon available inormation.
Transer ees are less widely reported
the urther down the ootball pyramid
one examines.)
As shown by the table, summer 2011
saw some exceptional expenditure by
Premier League clubs acquiring players
rom clubs in the Championship.
However, despite receiving large sumsor players such as Alex Oxlade-
Chamberlain, Connor Wickham and
Charlie Adam, Championship clubs
reinvested only one-tenth o these
monies with lower league clubs. Unless
this situation changes, the impact o
EPPP on League 1 and League 2 clubs
may be relatively slight, simply because
little money has been fowing down
to them under the old system. For
Championship clubs, the impact o the
new rules will bear careul scrutiny.
No doubt there will be examples o
players whose transer ees under EPPP
will be lower than they might have
been under the tribunal system. In these
instances the selling club could miss
out on a lucrative windall. This will
cause problems or clubs which rely ontranser income to balance the books.
Then again, it could be argued that it
would be no bad thing i clubs were
deterred rom engaging in this risky
practice.
Under EPPP it will be easier or
clubs to work out how much income
might be generated rom the sale o
youth team players. Initially, the level
o such income is not great. But the
ormulaic methodology will allow
more accurate prediction o the cash
set to be generated each year. And i a
clubs ormer player becomes a Premier
League regular, it will receive a bonus o
additional monies in years to come.
2010 2011
m m
27.7 75.1
Championship 24.6 72.0
League 1 2.8 3.1
League 2 and below 0.3 0.0
Premier League to lower leagues
2010 2011
m m
6.5 7.2
League 1 4.4 6.3League 2 and below 2.1 0.9
Championship to lower leagues
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
17/23
Focus on ootball fnance
TV rights
With the next round o Premiership
TV rights to be presented to the market
in 2012, (or the years 2013-2015), and
clubs looking to break even to meetnancial air play rules, what levels
o broadcasting income can the clubs
expect to actor into their orecasts
and budgets?
The current SKY/ESPN three-year
deal netted 1.782 billion and overseas
deals produced a urther 1.4 billion or
the Premier League. The resultant TV
rights income reported by Premiership
clubs in 2009-10 was 952 million in
total. Six clubs earned more than 50
million each, with the highest being 60million and the lowest 39 million. Each
round o bidding or TV rights has
seen an increase in the money received
by the Premiership. In 1992-1997 the
average TV income per Premiership
game was 633,000. It leapt to 2.79
million in 1997-2001 and ater steady
increases is currently 4.3 million per
game. Will the increase continue?
The trend in the Football League,
embracing the three divisions o English
ootball below the Premier League,gives a possible indication o the uture
direction o Premiership TV monies.
The bad news is that its new three-
year deal with Sky Sports is worth 69
million less than the current contract.
This appears to be because the BBC
will not be providing any live coverage.
Instead, Sky Sports has agreed to pay
195 million or the rights to screen
75 matches rom the Npower Football
League, the play-os, the Carling Cupand the Johnstones Paint Trophy. The
2009 2011 joint deal with Sky and the
BBC yielded 264 million or the TV
rights. This time around, however, the
BBC decided it was unable to make a
competitive bid ollowing its strategic
review o budgets. Whilst the new deal
does show a signicant reduction or
the Football League, Skys bid is still
well ahead o the 109.5m it paid or the
2006-2009 rights.
In the most recent bids or theEnglish Premiership TV rights, EU
competition law prevented Sky rom
securing all six o the packages, and
Setanta beat rival ESPN to win the
sixth package. Setanta o course,
subsequently ailed and ESPN was
invited to take its place. Owned by
Disney, ESPN is a much larger operator
than Setanta ever was. Indeed Disney
- which owns ABC, one o Americas
biggest networks and operates indozens o countries - out-sizes News
Corporation, which eectively
controls BSkyB.
18
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
18/23
19
ESPN depended heavily on Sky
when it launched its UK business, as
it had neither the inrastructure nor
the expertise to create its own UKsubscription business. It has now
established itsel, and has a UK ootball
oering that includes:
PremierLeague-23livegames
ScottishPremierLeague-30live
games, covering all 12 teams
FACup-25livematchesincluding
one exclusively live FA Cup Semi-
Final and live coverage o the FA
Cup Final rom Wembley
The question now, is whether this taste
o UK ootball has given ESPN the
appetite to mount a challenge to Sky
in the next round o Premier League
bidding. Having just acquired rights
or Europa League games rom 2012-13
to 2014-15 in conjunction with ITV,
ESPN has increased its ootball line-up.
I ESPN decides to expand urther
with more Premiership games, the
competition may orce Sky to increase
its oer to maintain its market position.On the other hand, i ESPN is
content with its current presence, it
may simply submit a low oer or one
o the six packages, and rely on Sky
again being prevented by the EU rom
winning all six packages. Last time,
Setanta secured Package D, (comprising
mainly Saturday games at 5.15pm),
or just 159 million, beating ESPN
in the process. This equated to 2.3
million per game, which was less thanhal o the Sky bid. Obviously, ESPN
as the under-bidder oered less than
Setanta. I ESPN is not prepared to
bid signicantly more than it did last
time, Sky would be able to retain its
TV oering by submitting a similar, or
possibly a lower bid. That could meanno increase, or even a decrease, in TV
income or ootball clubs.
There is certainly prot to be earned
rom broadcasting TV matches. BskyB
has ounded its business on ootball.
ESPN and other broadcasters can see
the potential, but are they prepared
to challenge Skys dominant market
position, and at what cost?
Potential bidders must also take
into account the impact o the KarenMurphy case, considered elsewhere in
this brochure, in which the European
Court o Justice (ECJ) ruled that the
Premier Leagues approach to selling
exclusive TV rights breaches EC
competition law. That decision will
certainly change the way the rights
are sold next time around, as it is
exclusivity within national boundaries
that has driven the price up to the
current level. The Premier League will
be anxious to make sure it continues
to maximise its potential income.
The High Court has still to give itsjudgement on the Karen Murphy
case. It remains to be seen, thereore,
whether the Premier League will seek to
sell UK rights across Europe next time
around, and whether this will tempt
overseas broadcasters into the UK
market.
Al Jazeera, owned by the Qatari
royal amily, is one overseas broadcaster
which could pose a challenge to
Sky. Qatars interest in ootball hasincreased since it won the right to
stage the 2022 World Cup nals. Qatar
is the Barcelona shirt sponsor, and a
Qatari investment rm acquired Paris
St Germain, a leading French club.
Al Jazeera has already demonstrated
its interest in televised sports by
purchasing some o the domestic rights
to screen matches rom Frances top
division, Ligue 1, as well as regional TV
The trend in theFootball League, embracing thethree divisions o English ootballbelow the Premier League, givesa possible indication o the uture
direction o Premiership
TV monies.
I ESPN decides to expand urther with more Premiership
games, the competition may orce Sky to increase its oer
to maintain its market position. On the other hand, i ESPN is
content with its current presence, it may simply submit a low
oer or one o the six packages, and rely on Sky again being
prevented by the EU rom winning all six packages.
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
19/23
Focus on ootball fnance
20
rights or the next three World Cups
and the Champions League, with Gary
Lineker ronting such coverage.
Because o all this, it is dicult toassess whether the price or Premier
League rights will be driven down
by the lack o exclusivity, or up by
increased competition.
It is also possible there may be a
change in the allocation o TV monies
between the clubs. Last year, the
Premierships top club earned 1.54
times as much in TV monies as the
bottom club. In Spain, where clubs
negotiate deals separately, Real Madridand Barcelona, Spains Big Two, earned
12.5 times more than the smallest La
Liga clubs. The discrepancy is explained
by the act that, while TV monies in
the Premiership are distributed partly
on League perormance, the bulk is
distributed equally amongst the clubs.
Liverpool managing director, Ian
Ayre, has recently been voicing his
dissatisaction that, in his view, clubs
such as Real Madrid and Barcelona have
an advantage over Liverpool becausethey are able to negotiate their own TV
rights deals separately rom their rivals
in the Spanish league. The Premiership
clubs share international TV monies
equally, as the Premiership negotiates
a collective deal on behal o all the
clubs. Liverpool is clearly unhappy
about this position. However, others
such as Arsenal and Manchester City
have indicated that they are happy with
the status quo. Any move to changethe arrangement would require the
approval o 14 o the 20 Premiership
clubs. It seems unlikely that those clubs
which would benet rom individual
negotiation o TV monies will be able
to persuade enough o the others to
abandon the collective principle. Thoseopposing any change have highlighted
the expanding revenue gap between
the top clubs and the others in the
Premiership. Allowing the bigger clubs
to take a larger share o TV monies will
only widen that gap, and jeopardise the
unpredictability and competitiveness o
the Premiership, that is at the root o
its popularity.
One nal point to consider
is whether UEFAs nancial airplay regulations will orce clubs to
consider or the rst time allowing live
broadcasts o matches kicking o at 3
oclock on Saturday aternoons the
traditional start-time o all UK ootball
matches beore the age o pay-TV.
The Premier League has ought shy o
allowing 3pm live broadcasts or ear
o the damage that might be caused to
attendances in the lower leagues. Given
the option, many ans might indeed
preer to sit at home in ront o theirHD TV watching a top-fight match,
rather than travel to sit in a draughty
stand with a distant view o the game.
For clubs desperate to increase revenue,
the chance to earn additional income
rom broadcasting 3pm kick-os on
Sky, their own TV channels or the
internet, may just be too tempting.
So the stage is set or the next round
o bidding or Premiership TV rights.
Karen Murphy and the ECJ havemoved the goalposts. The impact o
the recession is urther distorting the
picture. When the whistle is blown
to start the contest, will we see the
same players participating, ollowing
the same game-plan? Or are the
broadcasters tactics about to change?And or the clubs, concerned about
the nancial air play regulations,
will they receive more or less rom
broadcasting rights or their games?
Time will tell. Its ootball, it could go
either way!
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
20/23
21
About Grant Thornton
Football ocus
Grant Thornton is a leading business
and nancial adviser to ootball clubsand recognises the priorities o key
stakeholders in the sector including
club management, bankers, sports
agents, management companies and
regulatory bodies.
We also have extensive experience
working with distressed ootball clubs
and their lenders. This means that
we are well placed to nd the right
restructuring solution or clubs acing
nancial diculties. Our ootballsector team is committed to the delivery
o rst-class advice encompassing
restructuring, corporate nance,
taxation and orensic investigation
services. Our geographic spread and
network o oces across the UK allows
us to deliver the strength o a national
practice through local contacts with the
expertise as required by our clients.
Recovery & Reorganisation
Grant Thornton Recovery &
Reorganisation is one o the UKs topve advisers or corporate recovery,
turnaround and restructuring
assignments to mid-size, large and
global businesses and their nancial
stakeholders. Grant Thornton Recovery
& Reorganisation comprises over 50
partners and directors and over 600
proessional sta.
We supply a wide range o services
to underperorming businesses and
their stakeholders. This is ocusedon identiying and resolving issues
aecting protability, protecting
enterprise value and, where necessary,
recovering value or stakeholders. Our
team in the UK regularly leads complex
and multi-jurisdictional assignments
and we continually make investments
in our international network to allow
us to deliver on the most complex cases.
Amongst others, recent assignments
or our UK team include some o the
largest retail, care home and hotel group
restructurings. Our last 14 international
and complex assignments alone involve
Grant Thornton handling debts o over
US$25 billion.
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
21/2322
Focus on ootball fnance
Grant Thornton is an organisation o
independently owned and managed
accounting and consulting rms.
Combined, these rms have over 2,500partners and 28,000 personnel based in
more than 500 oces in 112 countries.
Member rms in 52 countries are
authorised by Grant Thornton
International to undertake Recovery
& Reorganisation assignments. These
rms have 113 specialist Recovery &
Reorganisation partners and over 1,500
dedicated personnel.
We have invested heavily in training,
systems and inrastructure designed
to deliver consistent methodology
and processes across this network.This means that our teams are closely
aligned and, where legally possible,
ollow the same processes and
methodologies allowing us to avoid the
legal and regulatory pitalls o complex
international restructurings.
Countries with a Recovery & Reorganisation accredited member firm within Grant Thornton International
Countries with a member firm within Grant Thornton International
Countries with a correspondent firm of Grant Thornton International
The international reach o our Recovery & Reorganisation practice
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
22/23
23
Identiying and resolving
issues aecting protability,protecting enterprise value and,where necessary, recovering
value or stakeholders.
7/29/2019 Focus on Football Finance
23/23
2012 Grant Thornton UK LLP. All rights reserved.
Grant Thornton means Grant Thornton UK LLP,
a limited liability partnership.
Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member irm within
Grant Thornton International Ltd (Grant Thornton International).
Grant Thornton International and the member irms are not
a worldwide partnership. Services are delivered by the member
irms independently.
This publication has been prepared only as a guide.No responsibility can be accepted by us or loss occassioned
to any person acting or reraining rom acting as a result o
any material in this publication.
www grant-thornton co uk
Contact us
Belast
Birmingham
Bristol
Cambridge
Cardi
Edinburgh
Gatwick
Glasgow
Ipswich
Kettering
Leeds
Leicester
Liverpool
London
ManchesterMilton Keynes
Newcastle
Northampton
Norwich
Oxord
Reading
Shefeld
Southampton
Grant Thornton oces:
Geo MesherPartnerForensic and Investigation Services
T 029 2034 7547E georey.l.mesher@uk.gt.com
Joe McLeanPartnerAdvisory Services
T 0113 200 1506E joe.mclean@uk.gt.com
David PatonChie Sports Advisory Ofcer
T 020 7728 2757E david.paton@uk.gt.com
Mark ByersPartnerRestructuring
T 020 7728 2522E mark.r.byers@uk.gt.com
Matt DunhamPartnerAdvisory Services
T 0161 953 6495E matt.dunham@uk.gt.com