LGP Futbol Thread - (CL, EPL, Serie A, Liga, 2016 Euros)

[pfim]

http://www.epltalk.com/breaking-fox-spo ... orts/14489" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Setanta-USA to be acquired by Fox?

[Draftnik]

Interesting about Setanta. I have Setanta Canada now so I don't think it will effect me. They are owned by Rogers and already have good CDN distribution. They show some Rogers Sportsnet programming and everything else they have is licensed from Setanta Ireland, Sky, other foreign entities, etc. Rogers just secured the EPL contract for 3 seasons (Score has it now and sub-licenses to Rogers Sportsnet & Setanta), so I doubt Setanta CDN will go away since they are probably profitable for Rogers and they do not have the limited distribution issues Setanta has in the US.

EDIT:

All systems go at Setanta Canada. They were originally scheduled to broadcast the Blackburn - Villa League Cup match @ 2:45 EST today but due to the postponement they are showing the Stoke-Fulham match live. Setanta Canada is a quality network, well worth the $15 per month.

[eddysnake]

looks like ESPN is planning on broadcasting the World Cup with new 3D technology

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100105/tv_nm/us_espn3d

ESPN and Discovery Communications Inc both unveiled plans on Tuesday to launch 3-D television networks reflecting a growing momentum in the entertainment industry to usher 3-D into the home....

...ESPN said its first broadcast will be a World Cup soccer match between South Africa and Mexico on June 11. Other events to be produced in 3-D include up to 25 World Cup matches

[Draftnik]

I think it will take a while for 3D to gain acceptance. HDTV didn't roll out overnight.

ESPN is basically committing to the channel for 1 year:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010- ... m?csp=Tech

I don't think it will gain rapid acceptance due to the need for glasses and also potentially a special receiver.

[Draftnik]

Clint Dempsey had a wonder strike today. The match was very entertaining. Its always good to see Danny Murphy walk off the pitch with a frown on his face.

[jmh470]

Spectacular stuff from Clint. I watch nearly all of his matches and he's rounded into a truly admirable player.

http://videos.sapo.pt/TasUKKCqDBGKPB1GCR6R" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GaryRissling]

Incredible strike by Clint...anyone have any insight as to why he was left out of the starting 11 though? I haven't watched every Fulham match, but from what I've seen this year, Clint seems to be among their most reliable players.

Donovan champing at the bit to play at Emirates:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/everton- ... -25535165/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Either way, he may still get baptized by fire with Everton's fixtures during his loan spell, what with matches against Citeh, Chelsea, Liverpool, ManU, and Spurs all in the next several weeks. Hopefully he will be able to suppress the memory of the last time he faced liverpool (or hid from them) in the CL when he was playing for Leverkusen. I'm really pulling for him, but wow, can there be a tougher schedule?

January
9 - Arsenal A
16 - Man City H
27 - Sunderland H
30 - Wigan A


February
6 - Liverpool A
10 - Chelsea H
20 - Man Utd H
27 - Tottenham A

Viera to Eastlands is a done deal:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 979011.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's now 33, won a couple of scudettos for Mancini, and is signing on for 18 months. The move is getting a fair amount of criticism, but I think it's probably a decent short-term solution to provide a bit of protection for a vulnerable back line (especially when money is no object).

[Draftnik]

Viera to wastelands is a done deal:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 979011.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's now 33, won a couple of scudettos for Mancini, and is signing on for 18 months. The move is getting a fair amount of criticism, but I think it's probably a decent short-term solution to provide a bit of protection for a vulnerable back line (especially when money is no object).

Mancini is unsettling the squad. De Jong has been one of their better players IMO and is a very good defensive midfielder. His cover couldn't make Lescott, Toure, Bridge, Richards, etc suck less.

Kompany also was decent and quite committed before his injury. I'm not sure when he is coming back. Barry can also provide cover as a deep lying midfielder. Ireland was chaffed about lack of opportunity because citeh often played 2 defensive mids under Sparky near the end of his time. This will cause problems in the dressing room. I love it.

I don't know how to photoshop, but if I did, I'd take Viera's picture and transplant it on this:

[pfim]

Lescott was a bad buy. Classic case of someone who was underrated so badly he became overrated. And overpaid.

Toure would be a stablizing force if he had a strong player next to him (Dunne?). I think between the two regimes (the Swede and Sparky) they really messed the back line up. If I remember correctly, this was a pretty decent defensive club before the Swede got there.

[Draftnik]

This writer understands United problems:

http://goal.com/en/news/9/england/2010/ ... -goal-only

United can't play 4-4-2 anymore. They lined up 4-4-2 against Leeds and were out-possessed by a League One club. They are built to play 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 against opponents willing to give them time & space on the ball with SAF's myopic obsession with the Euro Cup. None of the central midfielders have any quality on the ball or attacking skills. The left flank is barren. Nani is a flop, Giggs is no longer fast enough to play wide, and Obertan looks like he might not have the bottle for English tackles.

Defensively United will improve as Vidic, Rio, and hopefully Hargreaves return to fitness but offensively they will continue to struggle when domestic teams give them little time and space on the ball.

It looks like Kuz may be a worthy #1 keeper at United though. He's not stopped every stoppable shot during this run but he's made a bushel full of outstanding saves. Given more time I think he looks up to the task.

[Gaucho]

I suppose you guys heard about this:
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... al&cc=5739

[GaryRissling]

I only caught about 20 mins of the Arsenal/Everton match, but Donovan seems to have done quite well in his debut and earned an assist against the Gunners off of a well taken corner.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/st ... nd&cc=5901" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Moyes reserved special praised for his debutant. "I thought Donovan did very well," he stated. "He cramped up, so we had to take him off and the cold probably didn't help him. Landon was a threat to Arsenal all day and he did a great job out on the right. Landon offers us plenty of options and that is why we are delighted to have him."

[pfim]

I watched most of the match, he looked pretty good in what might be his worst position (wide right). He looked a little rusty on a few passes, but his speed gave Traore some problems.

[Draftnik]

I thought Donovan looked decent. Certainly he did not look out of place. He flubbed a couple of opportunities in the box in the 2nd half, but I've seen many better Premiership players do worse. It will be interesting to see if he can maintain this level. If he does, it makes me wonder why he has wasted all this time in MLS. He seems content to be a big fish in a small pond IMO.

EDIT:

Here is the take from the Times. I love the hyperbole that dominates English football coverage:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 982858.ece

[Draftnik]

More furor at Anfield:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 982996.ece

Hicks & Gillett copied the Glazer model of loading the club with debt but they do not adhere to the Glazer cone of silence.

[pfim]

I thought Donovan looked decent. Certainly he did not look out of place. He flubbed a couple of opportunities in the box in the 2nd half, but I've seen many better Premiership players do worse. It will be interesting to see if he can maintain this level. If he does, it makes me wonder why he has wasted all this time in MLS. He seems content to be a big fish in a small pond IMO.

I don't think Germany was ever a good fit for him, although he didn't do that poorly in last year's loan spell.

It will be interesting to see where they play him for the next few months. He's not really a wide player, his direct running is really more suited for playing off of a striker. He has played very well for the Nats on the left side, mostly because he drifts into the middle to use his right foot. He looked limited in what he could do on the right, but I'm not sure how willing Moyes will be to fit pieces around him given that it's only a 3 month loan.

[pfim]

Stuart Holden followed Owen Coyle and is now on trial with Bolton.

[GaryRissling]

I suppose you guys heard about this:
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... al&cc=5739

IMO, Angola was fatally irresponsible in staging a match in a disputed territory. Apparently Cabinda was a Portuguese protectorate until 1974 when the Portuguese government abdicated their power over African colonies. Cabinda was then basically annexed by Angola with no support from Cabinda's political leaders. Today, Cabinda produces upwards of 60% of Angola's oil output (Agip and Chevron being the leading distributors), so if you ask me who the "rebels" were attacking - the Togolese team or the Angolan security detail - I think I'll go with the security detail. Though, unsurprisingly, there is almost no information on their losses. It was reported earlier that the "terrorists" opened fire on the bus for about 20 mins and players survived by crouching low behind seats. What ridiculous reporting.

I would imagine FIFA and the African federation also approved this venue, and they too should be taken to task.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 983886.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rodrigues Mingas, Secretary General of the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (Flec), which claimed responsibility for Friday’s machinegun attack, said: "This attack was not aimed at the Togolese players but at the Angolan forces at the head of the convoy.

[GaryRissling]

More furor at Anfield:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 982996.ece

Hicks & Gillett copied the Glazer model of loading the club with debt but they do not adhere to the Glazer cone of silence.

ManU is only slightly ahead of Liverpool in terms of finances, and will eventually fall into the same vicious cycle. If I understand the situation correctly, United posted a pre-tax profit of ~£40million including the £80million from the Ronaldo sale and that's with making it about as far in every competition as United could possibly go (and not spending much money), and thereby maximizing profits. So next year, not only with no Ronaldo to sell, but with likely a pressing need to buy players, and perhaps without a major championship; United are going to be in the red and it is going to get more and more difficult to strengthen the squad, which translates into lost profits, which makes it more difficult to strengthen the squad, etc., etc. This recession might be tough for many clubs right now, but it is a correction after all, and football will likely be better off for it in the long-run.

BTW Draft,how many United bonds are you queuing up to buy? Going to make a dent in the $800 million issue?

[Gaucho]

I suppose you guys heard about this:
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... al&cc=5739

IMO, Angola was fatally irresponsible in staging a match in a disputed territory. Apparently Cabinda was a Portuguese protectorate until 1974 when the Portuguese government abdicated their power over African colonies. Cabinda was then basically annexed by Angola with no support from Cabinda's political leaders. Today, Cabinda produces upwards of 60% of Angola's oil output (Agip and Chevron being the leading distributors), so if you ask me who the "rebels" were attacking - the Togolese team or the Angolan security detail - I think I'll go with the security detail. Though, unsurprisingly, there is almost no information on their losses. It was reported earlier that the "terrorists" opened fire on the bus for about 20 mins and players survived by crouching low behind seats. What ridiculous reporting.

I would imagine FIFA and the African federation also approved this venue, and they too should be taken to task.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 983886.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rodrigues Mingas, Secretary General of the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (Flec), which claimed responsibility for Friday’s machinegun attack, said: "This attack was not aimed at the Togolese players but at the Angolan forces at the head of the convoy.

Yes, as far as I know Cabinda has always been unstable. The Togolese were warned not to go there by bus, but you're right, it was foolish to have a match there in the first place.

[Draftnik]

More furor at Anfield:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 982996.ece

Hicks & Gillett copied the Glazer model of loading the club with debt but they do not adhere to the Glazer cone of silence.

ManU is only slightly ahead of Liverpool in terms of finances, and will eventually fall into the same vicious cycle. If I understand the situation correctly, United posted a pre-tax profit of ~£40million including the £80million from the Ronaldo sale and that's with making it about as far in every competition as United could possibly go (and not spending much money), and thereby maximizing profits. So next year, not only with no Ronaldo to sell, but with likely a pressing need to buy players, and perhaps without a major championship; United are going to be in the red and it is going to get more and more difficult to strengthen the squad, which translates into lost profits, which makes it more difficult to strengthen the squad, etc., etc. This recession might be tough for many clubs right now, but it is a correction after all, and football will likely be better off for it in the long-run.

BTW Draft,how many United bonds are you queuing up to buy? Going to make a dent in the $800 million issue?

Not true at all. These club finances are deliberately constructed to be confusing, but United are light years ahead of Liverpool. United are the most valuable football team in the world because they generate the most operating profits, also known as EBITDA. United's EBITDA was actually £91M for the FY ended 6/30/09. That does not include one penny of the Ronaldo sale. The operating profit is essentially recurring revenues (matchday revenues, media revenues, commercial revenues) less recurring expenses (player and other staff salaries, travel, Old Trafford operating expenses, etc). Player sales and purchases are not taken into account for that figure.

The figures on this are fairly reliable since clubs post these figures to the press:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/34/soc ... _Rank.html

United are 185% the value of Liverpool. It basically comes down to revenues but mostly operating margins. United revenues are/were "only" 154% of Liverpool's revenues. United operating margins however are/were 320% of Liverpool's margins. That is essentially how sporting clubs are valued.

Liverpool have not posted their FY09 (ending 6/30/09) results yet as far as I know, but going back to FY08 for an apples to apples:

http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2010/01/ ... -large.jpg

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liv ... -23746629/

United had a total turnover of £257M. Liverpool only had £159M. That places United at 162% of Liverpool's revenues so the actuals are 8% to United's favor compared to the Forbes estimates.

The ownership structures of these clubs are very confusing.

Here is United's:

http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2010/01/ ... ancing.jpg

Liverpool FC also has at least 1 parent company:

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountan ... debts-pile

Liverpool can't pull off a bond issue like United will. If Liverpool could, they would have done it or would be trying it to refinance their debt. As it was, they had to use the Alonso proceeds to secure a short term refinancing of their debt last year. It should be coming up again soon since the term on that round was 6-12 months. The kicker is Liverpool will never come close to matching United's revenues without a new stadium (and theoretically being able to attract 35K more fans per match at United prices), but Liverpool have concerns as a going entity with their ability to service their current debt with their current revenues. There is no possible way any lender will give them more £££. The only way they can build a new stadium is with an infusion of fresh capital. That would dilute Hicks' & Gillett's equity, so that is why they refuse to accept new partners on reasonable terms.

United are basically refinancing so they can get out from the terms on the primary bank loans and have more latitude to service the secondary PIK notes which are not secured against the club:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 984328.ece

None of that is a good thing for United and the supporters, but it is a totally different thing that "concerns as a going entity." United have been able to comfortably service their secured debt. Liverpool have not.

On the other hand, Liverpool's perilous financial condition could make them more likely to be bought that United, so in a strange way it could work out better for Liverpool if a white knight comes along. It is probably more likely than United being saved.

This is pretty complex stuff. I spent a few hours today reviewing the debt offering prospectus. I used to be an accountant and a stock broker so I am interested in this kind of mind numbing reading from a past life. Here are some links that summarize as well as an actual place to register and download the prospectus:

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/01 ... d-edition/

The Glazers have taken a bit of £££ out of United:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog ... azers-debt

Operationally though United remain the at the top of the financial heap. Their losses are not the kind Platini is talking about when he threatens to ban teams from the Euro Cup. Clubs like Chelsea and citeh post massive operational losses in contrast to United's £91M operational profit. They would be banned, not United. Furthermore, neither have the stadium United has or the global brand to maximize commercial revenues. Chelsea are already near the end of a player cycle. They will require a massive infusion of capital or borrowing to replenish their aging squad. The transfer prices and wages paid by clubs like citeh, Chelsea, Madrid, etc are unsustainable because they don't have the revenues to support them.

I don't like the Glazers and it is sickening to think of the players (or a new stadium for a small club like Liverpool) they could have bought with the £225M to £300M in interest payments they've siphoned off the club the past several years, but I don't see an exit for them until they are finally faced with repaying the principal amount. This latest refinancing pushes that date back another 1.5 years to 7 total and they could always refinance before then, so who knows what will happen.

The only club in England with a better overall model and long term financial outlook than United is Arsenal IMO.

[Loaf31]

http://www.epltalk.com/fox-soccer-plus- ... 2010/14760" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fox Soccer Plus to launch March 1st in HD

[pfim]

http://www.epltalk.com/fox-soccer-plus- ... 2010/14760

Fox Soccer Plus to launch March 1st in HD

I'd settle for FSC in HD, my carrier isn't carrying it right now.

[pfim]

ManU's problem seems to be the notes with the hedge funds, that debt is junior to the bank debt and principle cannot be repaid on it. That debt will continue to grow until it matures, and the balance will be astounding. This is why the bond issue is very important. It will eliminate many of the restrictive covenants and allow the club to repay the high interest debt. It also gives them a fixed interest rate instead of the variable they currently have on the bank debt.

The club has too much debt, I don't think anyone can dispute that. However, unlike Liverpool, as Draftnik points out ManU has the revenue streams and profitability to refinance the debt in many ways, and that is what they're doing with the bond issue. Liverpool couldn't pull this off in their wildest dreams at the moment.

The downside for the Glazers is that they'll need to have more disclosure on their finances with the bond issue. I don't think it's something they really want to do, but need to. In that sense, I don't think everything is rosey at Old Trafford.

[Draftnik]

I agree 100% on the PIK notes with the hedge funds. I suspect the Glazers thought they would be out from under those notes by now but the collapse of the credit markets in 2008 torpedoed those plans. It isn't as desperate as United haters and the English press claim though.

United really do have the money in the bank from Ronaldo. I've read reports they received £80M in one lump sum from Madrid and also reports that they received £40M on 6/30/09 and will receive another £40M on 6/30/10. Either way, from the audited consolidated balance sheet data in the prospectus, United had £151M cash on hand as of 6/30/09 and £147M cash on hand as of 9/30/09.

United have to weather the citeh and Madrid transfer fee and wage inflationary storm. They weathered the Abramovich storm last decade. He invested £500M between his purchase and early transfer fees. Now his appetite for losses has dissipated. United lost Essien and Mikel to Chelsea but where does Chelsea go from here? Their wages are over 70% of their turnover. United's are 44%. Chelsea are still bleeding EBITDA. They would be banned from the Euro Cup under Platini's plan coming into effect in a few years. They have a small stadium and no realistic path to operational profitability. They also have an aging squad and they will require a £100M+ infusion on transfer fees to maintain their current standing. They also have to overpay everybody they sign including their own academy graduates like Terry. Nobody plays at Chelsea for the trophies or love of the badge. Their wage bill will never be manageable.

citeh are worse off than Chelsea. How long will their Abu Dubai owner fund their massive losses? They still need to spend significant funds on their back 4 to have a truly elite squad.

Madrid are on a path to another disaster. They had to sell their training ground to a friendly Spanish government to dig out from under their last era of Galactico profligacy. How will they buy their way out of this mess? They signed Ronaldo, Kaka, Benzema, and Alonso to deals with 25% salary escalation each year. By Ronaldo's 5th year he will be on ~ £557K per week. He was on £120K per week when he left United. United couldn't compete with this nonsensical £££. It isn't sustainable. If United had to give Ronaldo those kind of wages they would have to raise every other star player in the squad to a level commensurate with their status relative to Ronaldo. United's wage to turnover ratio would be over 100%.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Rooney's extension. His agent gets out of agent jail in the next month or 2. If Rooney signs a reasonable deal the natural order of things will be restored. If he wants a Madrid £500K+ per week deal, United will lose him for sure. I think that will be a tipping point though where Platini steps in and rams his plan through to stop clubs from building squads with unsustainable wage structures.