Takeovers spell the end of football’s Premiership plc
LONDON (Reuters) – As Eng lish soccer clubs are being taken over by foreign billionaires, the era of stock marketlisted clubs could soon be over with a new wave of owners opting to stay out of the financial spotlight. But if fans, politicians and newspapers take moral um brage at the foreignled takeo vers, few are mourning the end of the publicly listed club. Going public became some thing of a craze for Premier League clubs in the mid1990s. At its peak, fans and investors could buy shares in 10 of the 20 current Premier League clubs. Only a trio of Premier
League clubs still have publicly tradeable shares following the latest buyoutswhich have seen Manchester City purchased by ousted Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and New castle bought by reclusive Brit ish retail tycoon Mike Ashley. Only Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Birmingham City remain, although takeover ru mours surround all three fol lowing big changes in their ma jor shareholders in the last few months. Heralded in the 90s as a more democratic ownership structure and a way to pump cash into clubs, stock listings
have come to be seen as a mis take by many: unprofitable for investors, unrewarding for teams and costly for fans. “What investors didn’t ap preciate is one of the peculi arities of football,” said Chris tine Oughton, director of the Football Governance Research Centre at Birkbeck, University of London. Making a profit is the over riding goal for most companies, she said: but soccer clubs have the even higher priority of win ning games. They also have to pay out around 60 per cent of their revenues to players. Alan Sugar, the outspoken
former Tottenham chairman and star of TV reality show The Apprentice, claimed run ning Spurs had been a com plete waste of time. He labelled football “prune juice econom ics”, referring to the way rev enue is washed out of clubs in multimillion pound transfer fees and wages. He sold the last batch of his shares in the club for £25 mil lion in June.
Sky’s the limit The big hope for investors in the 1990s was a new lucrative contract with Sky television. While clubs were right that
soaring revenues were just around the corner, the money often did not make it to bot tom line as it was sucked up by spiralling player wages. Share prices crumbled. When American billionaire Randy Lerner bought Aston Villa, the club’s shares were worth just half of the £11 they listed at in 1997, while New castle shares were 30 per cent lower than their IPO price when Ashley scooped them up in June. This despite a more than 1,300 per cent rise in annual TV revenues since 1992. Love for their club makes
fans vulnerable investors. Tot tenham fans would never swap their shares for stock in Arse nal, even if their fierce north London rivals did look set to deliver better profits. Floating on stock exchang es did offer benefits, allow ing teams such as Manchester United and Arsenal to raise capital to invest in stadiums. But the need for financial transparency shackled clubs in the fastmoving and shadowy transfer market. “People who run these clubs ultimately want to have free dom of movement,” said Jim McLean, a soccer financing ex
pert at business advisers Grant Thornton. For some people poor prof itability may matter little and the lure of owning a premier league team remains strong, Thornton added. “They want to enjoy the benefits and the prestige that flows from being involved in a wellknown football club.”
Fans Despite racking up hefty loss es, some fans view the end of the plc era with a touch of sad ness. “They didn’t get a sufficient slice to exercise financial clout
but at least they had a right to turn up at shareholders’ meet ings and ask questions,” said Malcolm Clarke, chair of Brit ain’s Football Supporters’ Fed eration. Clarke said Barcelona, Real Madrid and several German clubs offered the ideal of demo cratic control for soccer clubs where supporters’ associations wield the power. But for now at least, Eng lish soccer clubs have settled on one kind of corporate struc ture. Whether their owners are foreign or domestic, they are nearly all alike in their prefer ence for privacy.