text:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Arsenal - The Song Remains The Same
113 comments:
Thank you, I really think there are a lot of gems in this analysis, and although I am not a financial expert, this analysis is an interesting read and really explains some of the behaviours of Arsenal in the transfer market.
Gazidis pull your finger out commercially(again!)
Players wages look high, given all the transfers out
FFP is not a robust strategy, it will not propel us the league or have an impact on other clubsAnother excellent post. Particularly appreciated the general discussion on wages as it answered a question I had been kicking around since last week: how can the wages be going up so much when the best players are being shipped out?
Forgive me, but I do have a general accounting question. What is the purpose of reporting EBITDA? While it is a common practice, it has always struck me that if a company can reasonably anticipate payments on taxes, interest, etc. then what is the point of reporting earnings that do not reflected the actual revenues and profit?RepliesEBITDA can be a useful measure for cash profits, but I agree that it can be dangerous to look at it in isolation. As the great investor Warren Buffet once cautioned, "References to EBITDA make us shudder. It makes sense only if you think that capital expenditure is funded by the tooth fairy."
DeleteYour reference to the two billionaires not "making any investment" !? creates the impression that you do believe tooth fairy funding.
- AnonymousOctober 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM
I imagine you are going to get slaughtered with questions :-) but here goes my two cent..
1. Would you say selling top players or generating profits from players sales has been club's policy (or a need) for the last 3-4 years..
2. Do you feel it's club's policy to do the minimum for the 4th and CL thus limiting investment in the squad
Judging from your articles the last few years I would say both yes...
Do you think the wage bill structure, along with slow growth in revenue, is the biggest obstacle in having a squad that will compete for trophies...
Why do you think such conservative handling of the money? As you said even if don't make a profit it's not like we are going to instantly go broke...
and great analysis.. as usual I might add..RepliesI think selling players has been partly a policy to compensate for low commercial revenue and interest payments, but has also partly been driven by players wanting to leave, due to lack of success (winning trophies) and the (relatively) low wages for top talent.
The wage bill structure is certainly a major issue, as it prevents the recruitment/retention of the absolutely top talent.
I can only guess that the club is holding the excess cash as a buffer against not qualifying for the Champions League.
- Ivan CzOctober 2, 2012 at 6:21 PM
Great post again.
Just a suggestion, what about writing about top clubs in smaller leagues (not top 4), would be great Portugal, the Netherlands or another league. An ideal start point would be the EC's report about the investing in youth academies (Sporting Club, Ajax, RC Lens, Feyenoord or even Dinamo Zagreb would be pretty interesting!).. again, just a suggestion.RepliesI have occasionally written about clubs from smaller leagues, e.g. Ajax, PSV, Porto, Lille, but it is not always easy to get hold of enough information to write a detailed analysis.
You can see a list of all the clubs that I have analysed on the right side of the blog.- SantoriOctober 5, 2012 at 8:41 PM
There is also a disparity in terms of what teams in the top financial bracket can pay in terms of salary which is gorwing exponentially against the other teams making it harder for unwanted players to be off loaded.
We have seen it this summer in concert with the FFP rulings and the softening of the market due to financial weakness on the continent.
Thereby, we have been less able to ween off our excess players and free up the wage bill.
Would love to see an indepth on this situation and how FFP may/may not help at all.
- AnonymousOctober 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM
Wow, that is pretty amazing and exhaustive analysis. As a Liverpool fan I am happy to see that we are starting to play the attractive football that I've admired Arsenal for. Any chance you could do that type of analysis for Liverpool so I can know if FSG really has them headed in the right direction?
ReplyDelete - AnonymousOctober 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM
Any way you can send this to Gazidis? Perhaps he thinks these minimal rises in commercial revenue are respectable gains and hasn't been made aware of how the opposition are blowing us out of the water on the commercial front? Considering Wenger knows quite a bit about business and economics then it could be assumed that this puts a lot of pressure on his shoulders and he finds a share of responsibility for balancing the books when that really shouldn't be his job. Still, if it means buying players like Cazorla for £12 million then it has the odd benefit.
ReplyDelete awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Could you do FC BARCELONA one day???? That'd be amazing if you couldRepliesThanks. I've looked at Barcelona a couple of times in the past, though admittedly not for a while. You can find the last pieces here:
- AnonymousOctober 2, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Great article as always Swiss.
Lets hope Wenger has realised this equality wage structure is bollix I know its a balancing act but the fact we couldnt sell Alumnia, Squllaci, Denilson, Chamakh, Arshivan, Bendther and Park should drive home its seriously flawed it is.
No point of watching the pennies and blowing money on very bad contracts on very average players and although I dont want players to be paid 200K a week etc we cant compete with that.... the top players should be on alot more money than reserve players. It's a no brainer for me.
We also have alot of playing staff thats contibuting to the wages cost again linked to better managment of player contracts.
Lastly really wish I could click my figures until these commerical deals are up, they are disgracfully. I know at the time they made sense but didnt someone in our managment team have the cope on to try and insert break clauses or uplifts based on other PL teams future deals????
Someone needs a kick in the hole most likely the person who allowed V Persie and Theo contract to run into the last 12 months. It shouldnt happen and this its not the first time Flamini and Wiltord being other examples.
IMO that happens once if a first team player who has two years left and wont sign on then its bye bye and he is sold to the highest bidder end of. Good post as ever Kieron, a question on the sponsorship deal section if you don't mind. As you note these are getting bigger and bigger and they are leaving Arsenal behind at the minute, but won't Arsenal's new deals immediately catch them up?
That is to say that when the shirt sponsor and supplier deals are negotiated for 2014 onwards the amounts agreed will reflect the going rate at the time (which will surely be in the mid 40m's or even perhaps the low 50's which would outstrip the recent pool/spurs figures if these deals continue to get more and more lucrative), it's not as though they'll be negotiating for 2010 prices.
I realise that the 2014 deals will likely end later than Liverpool's ones with Warrior/Standard charter will expire/be renegotiated for more lucrative terms but perhaps for those years before that happens Arsenal could actually be in the more advantages position and as these things only seem to go up and up it's likely that, unless a peak is reached, Arsenal's deals after the next one might surpass Liverpool's next deal. And that will just keep happening as football doesn't have a centralised kit deal like the NFL and sponsorship contracts come up for renewels on different years.
And even so there's no need for the club to enter into the sort of long term guarunteed money contracts they did when moving to the grove that have seen them left in the dust, whatever happens with them going forward will likely be at a pace in keeping with what all other clubs are doing.
All that being said there is obviously an issue of concern with the commercial side of the club, and for me that's the area of secondary contracts and partnerships. Why aren't our players doing humilating ads that expose their lack of acting talent for all sorts of shit on the telly like United players are??RepliesYes, that's a fair point. As I said in the article, the bar keeps getting raised higher and higher with sponsorship deals, so it's difficult to estimate what the new deals will be worth in 2014. Fingers crossed that this is when the famous five-year plan delivers.
Your last paragraph made me LOL!- AnonymousOctober 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Problem is all the top clubs are £20/25m and United are £50m so arsenal will be lucky to get £25m tops
Delete - DuduspaceOctober 11, 2012 at 2:45 AM
The flip side of that same problem is that United have now locked their main income stream for the next 7 years from 2014. That is a long time for others to catch up. Kudos to them for being commercial trailblazers though.
- AnonymousOctober 2, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Really loved this. Thanks for all the trouble and time you put in. It has really opened a whole new world for me. Good job.
As an AFC fan it is sad, however to see black on white that we are not spending anywhere near what we could. We really are much further behind the really "big clubs" than we let on, are we not? Every Arsenal fan who posits that the club has money and refuses to spend it ought to take time out and get an education out of this piece. One thing is certain, we desperately need FFP to have any hope of closing the gap between us and the likes of City. There just doesn't seem to be any other way so long as the self-financing model is the option the club insists on.
Nice piece, once again @swissramble. It was well worth the waitReplies- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM
"Every Arsenal fan who posits that the club has money and refuses to spend it ought to take time out and get an education out of this piece."
Really? Did you actually read that post? "The last five years have been particularly impressive, at least financially, with Arsenal accumulating staggering profits of £190 million, an average of £38 million a year."
You might want to revise that statement. Yes, but mostly due to player sales, which is what most fans gripe about. Plus there's the buffer he alludes to for the risk of non-qualification to the CL, which is prudent. As well, the opaque nature of cash flows, timing and the availability for player acquisitions.
What is evident is that the club are actually well positioned should they meet revenue objectives. Short term laggard but potentially medium to long-term competitive. Remember, you don;t have to be the highest earning club to win title, just somewhere near it.
- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 12:26 AM
Great article.
It reminded me of something I've been wondering about recently: Bayern, Barca and Madrid all have huge commercial revenues, a fair bit higher than Man Utd's, yet Utd seem to have higher (or comparable) shirt sponsorship & kit deals to the other 3 clubs. Utd also have the £10m DHL training kit deal and a seemingly endless list of "secondary" sponsors. So how are Bayern, Barca & Madrid generating much more than Utd in commercial revenue?RepliesUnited's new sponsorship deals were not included in the latest Deloitte Money League comparison, which was based on 2010/11 accounts. The DHL deal started in 2011/12, while the Chevrolet sponsorship only starts (in full) in 2014/15.
For a reasonably detailed analysis of Bayern's commercial strength, you could look at this old piece http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2012/02/bayern-munich-opportunities-lets-make.html- AnonymousOctober 4, 2012 at 9:28 PM
Thanks. Interesting to see how the host of "premium" and "classic" sponsors has boosted Bayern's commercial income. It reflects badly on the management at Arsenal looking at their relative lack of secondary sponsors.
- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 2:17 AM
Out of curiosity, was the payment for naming rights to the Emirates a lump sum, or is there any chance of them being renegotiated early?
ReplyDelete - Mr Parker's DogbiteOctober 3, 2012 at 3:12 AM
For me it seems disingenuous to call Arsenal's model 'self-sustaining' when it seems that they only remain largely positive in cash terms due to the yearly subsidy they receive through player sales to benefactor backed clubs like Manchester City and financial powerhouses like Manchester United and Barcelona. Maybe they will get away with it because of increased revenue from elsewhere but I do wonder what impact FFP might have on the Arsenal 'self sustaining' financial model if these other clubs are no longer willing or able to spend big on whichever above average player Arsenal have been made available each summer?
ReplyDeleteReplies- AnonymousOctober 5, 2012 at 12:02 AM
My guess would be that we would see wages return to more sensible (if you could call it that) levels. The benefactor backed clubs have exponentially driven up wages in football as a whole which has affect Arsenal massively. If salaries were lower, other revenues would be more than enough to carry Arsenal through a financial year.
Great blog as always! I have a couple of requests and it would require a scenario where you would be, say the CEO of Arsenal and the ideal situation we could compete in:
1. If all Commercial Deals were renewed, what would our Shit/Kit sponsorship be like or acceptable amount be in 1-2 years (in terms of pounds/season)? (Ignore Stadium naming as it is a fair while away)
2. Any other avenues of increase in commercial revenue contribute to the yearly cashflow?
3. In the 25 man squad, how many marquee players (say over 100k pounds per season), starting players (80-100k) and squad players (30-80k) players can we afford in this ideal situation financially?
It would involve a lot of assumptions in terms of current player salaries and getting a few players off the books etc. But the only way we can compete with Man U, City, Chelsea in terms of attracting players is by paying the money to the players and achieving success on the pitch. We need to be winning trophies whilst paying high wages, because most players CAN do that with United/City/Chelsea.
Such a shame we have not managed our finances and commercial revenue better. All this profits is such smoke and mirrors and as an avid Arsenal fan, you cannot help but feel deceived.- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 4:40 AM
Do you know how wages are reflected in the accounts? If player x signs a 4 year deal for $16 million, but the actual salary is broken down as follows: Year 1 - $3million
Year 2 - $3million
Year 3 - $5million
Year 4 - $5million
Is the salary reflected in wages on a straight-line basis, or recognised on a cash basis in the accounts to match what is actually paid?
If it is a cash basis accounting treatment, how prevalient are backloaded contracts in the premier league? Arsenal?RepliesIt would be accounted for on a cash basis. I don't know how many back-loaded contracts exist, but my guess is that it's relatively few.
Delete- AnonymousOctober 10, 2012 at 12:45 AM
Maybe not full on backloading, but would contracts not include an annual step up for inflation/COLA? While I have zero knowledge of player contracts, I would imagine this wouldn't be unusual and for example an average cost of living adjustment across the squad of 5% would go some of the way of explaining why wages are consistently increasing year on year. Do you think this is the case?
- North Bank NedOctober 3, 2012 at 6:41 AM
Excellent and lucid read, as ever. The main themes, commercial revenue shortfalls compared to rival clubs because of covering the stadium financing, and the importance of net transfer spend to the bottom line are consistent with your previous analyses. The decline in operating profit seems a new twist, and disturbing if it heralds a trend. Cash in the bank also seems to have peaked, although that should be noted with the usual caveat about not drawing too firm conclusions from one six-months of figures. The inability of the club to increase commercial revenue more than it has does seem surprising in the light of the management resources being devoted to it. Is this simply because the shirt sponsorship and stadium naming rights are the big nuts, and they can't be renegotiated yet, or is there more to it?
ReplyDeleteRepliesClearly, a large part of the disappointing commercial revenue is due to the restrictions around the main sponsorship deals, but IMO they should really have done more with the secondary deals.
Delete- SantoriOctober 5, 2012 at 8:38 PM
I would think it is easier to position for a better deal retrospectively which is what United have done for the Aon years rather than before the fact.
Might be a bit tricky for us because of existing agreements in place.
- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Do you think it is possible that Stan/Usmanov buy out the Arsenal debt and charge interest free loan repayments? Wouldn't that be much better for the club. Furthermore it would also endear the fans much more to the owners.
Alas. - AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM
As always you make the numbers plain for all to see for all this is a great education for all gooners wish they would all spend 10 minutes to read it will as always share the link on the hope they will thanks
ReplyDelete - AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM
I got a question regarding the annual report published by Arsenal last week.(link below)
In the balancesheet there is a post "Creditors: amounts falling due within one year" on (145,159).
Could anyone here point out what this post actually is?
I'm thinking this probably is some interest-bearing short term debt related to season tickets, club shop, running cost, etc. And liabilities related to different real estate projects.
Am i far off in my suggestions.
Thanx for any answers.
http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/documents/sep_12/gun__1348755692_ARSENAL_HOLDINGS_PLC_year_end_.pdfRepliesPage 53 of the Annual Report (in your link above) gives a break-down of the main liabilities included in short-term creditors, though not enough detail to fully answer your question.
You might find a piece that I wrote about debt helpful: http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2012/04/truth-about-debt-at-barcelona-and-real.html
This is an incredible blog post. I have only read a couple of your posts before but this one is fantastic. I hope a news outlet signs you up! The style of writing was great and the information was first class. Good job!
If the FFP rules do come in, this could be bad for smaller clubs as the large clubs with the biggest revenues will expand at a faster rate leaving smaller clubs in the dust. Arsenal are by no means a small club in that regard but we are not top 3. How many businesses operate with 5 top companies? Smartphones are made by Samsung and Apple, with HTC falling behind in 3rd and that is a massive growth market.
Perhaps an unforeseen consequence of FFP could be a widening of the gap between the top clubs and the lower clubs, which for me isn't a good thing. The premier league is the best league because of this competition. However I do appreciate that no business can continue if clubs are losing £30 million a season... It's a tough one. Football is perhaps the only business where money can be lost every season because there will always be some millionaire philanthropist throwing his cash in an effort to play a real life championship manager.
Personally I feel a wage cap is needed for the continued growth of football, as well as a transfer cap. Anyway great post and I shall follow this blog now :)- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Excellent article. As an Arsenal fanatic for over 60 years it hurts now just to be a revenue stream but it is still worth it!!!
ReplyDelete - AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Great blog as always but other than a one-off flutter of £50 or £60m to in an attempt to usurp Abramovich/Mansour which is almost certainly doomed to failure there aren't any proposals for alternative strategies are there.
Compare commercial growth to the highest figure (£48m in 2009)in the last 5 years (which I think was attributed to a none off boost) doesn't paint an entirely accurate picture of commercial growth. Take an average of the previous 5 years and last years growth of 17% reflects a little better on the clubs commercial development. The bigger sponsorship numbers are still a couple of seasons away but that they're there is clear for all to see.RepliesThere are quite a few alternatives, which I did not explore here, but have looked at in previous posts on Arsenal.
Two points on commercial growth:
1. I deliberately chose 2009 as the starting point, as this is the closest to Tom Fox's start date (September 2009).
2. I added comparisons against other leading clubs to provide some context, namely while Arsenal's commercial growth has been virtually non-existant, others have made great gains.
Clearly, much of this is down to the restrictions on the main sponsorship deals, but that should not have prevented more progress on secondary sponsors.
- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM
Thank you for your dedication to Arsenal and the time you spend to enlighten us about what's going on "behind the scenes" at Arsenal. I do really appreciate your articles, I've read them all (12 !) and I've learnt so much. But considering I'm not an Englishman (neither an accountant) I sometime struggle to fully understand financial vocabulary.
I couldn't understand the part about "Where has all the money gone ?" (part 3 in this article)
I have a few questions and I hope you -or someone else- can answer me (with simple words, so I can get it):
_ What does "Operating Activities" mean ? What does the £376m of operating activities since 2007 refer to ?
_ What does "Interest Payments", "Capital Expenditure" and "Debt Repayments" mean and/or refer to ?
In your previous article (Arsenal's Mystery Dance, 28 February 2012), to the question "Where has all the moeny gone ?", you wrote this :
Unsurprisingly, it's all about the new stadium, property and other infrastructure (e.g. the new medical centre at London Colney) with £180 million going on capital expenditure and £111 million on loan interest. Since these loans peaked in 2008, another £156 million (net) has been used to repay debt. And of course the cash balances continue to rise…
I couldn't understand how loan interest could be so heavy ? I tought the interest rate on the Stadium Debt was at a 5.5% rate ? And where does the £156m you're talking about come from ?
To put it simply, I just would like to understand where has all the money gone , and what "money" do you refer to when you talk about "all the money" ? Sorry if I sound stupid, I know that's exactly what you're explaining, but because of my poor English, I think I missed the point, or just misunderstood something.
_ am I right if I understand that "Net Cash Inflow" of £88.5m from 2006 to 2011 (Arsenal's Mystery Dance) means all the profits the club has made since 2006 that haven't been re-invested ? It means those £88.5m went into the Cash Balance, right ? It would explain how the cash Balance rose so much in the last few years, right ?
Arsenal had serious cash problems in the early 2000s. The club reported a huge loss in 2002, and according to Peter Hill-Wood, at the time the club survived on Cash Balance. Maybe it could explain why Arsenal has become so cautious, keeping so much "powder dry" and saving cash for a "rainy day" ?
Well, I hope someone can give me some ansewers about those questions, it would be a really huge help ! Thanks a a lot. Even though I try very hard to explain the finances in layman's terms, I appreciate that it's not always totally straightforward, so I'll try to clarify a little.
If you look at the Cash Flow table (the first in that section), you will see the first line is Operating Profit/(Loss), which is simply recurring revenue (i.e. excluding player sales) less expenses. You can see that in the detailed Profit and Loss account table towards the beginning of the piece (it's the lowest blue line). This was a loss of (16.3)m in 2012.
However, that operating loss includes some non-cash expenses, such as depreciation, player amortisation and player impairment (total of 53.7m), so these have to be added back to get a pure cash profit. You then have to make some working capital adjustments (9.7)) for things like paying creditors earlier or later than booked in the P&L, which will give you the "clean" cash flow from operating activities.
That cash flow is then available to spend on various items. In Arsenal's case, almost all of it has been spent on paying for the new stadium and other infrastructure. So, capital expenditure is the investment into those assets, interest payments are on the loans/bonds taken out to fund that investment, while debt repayments are exactly that (also including some for property development). The final figure in the cash flow statement is simply the increase in cash balances.- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM
Thanks for the thorough and in-depth review of AFC's accounts, I don't believe that there is another blog (let alone "paid for" publication) out there that does this to the same quality.
I won't be surprised to see your article being paid the "greatest compliment" in various Newspapers over the coming days.
As an Arsenal fan and Season Ticket holder, I and many others find ourselves having to ask the question as to whether the continuous sale of world class players and their replacement with capable but bargain basement replacements or young prospects for the future, is a de-facto long term club policy or a short term fix to boost competiveness whilst tied to long term (but uncompetitive) commercial deals.
This article and previous ones provide some hope that there is light at the end of the Tunnel. Nonetheless all Arsenal Fans (and fans of almost all other clubs) need to accept that we'll (they'll) never match ManUre, Arcelona or Real in the spending race, let alone Chelski, PSG or Citeh with their petrodollar funded losses.
I like attending and watching football matches and I'm an optimist in matters AFC, but unless there is a level playing field to allow true competition, then you'd have to question the wisdom of forking out so much dosh each year on a seaon ticket simply to watch AFC hopefully reach fourth place in the league, even though we're told it is as just like winning a trophy.
To that extent, FFP is the only hope that a club outside the ones mentioned above will have a realistic chance of challenging for and maybe occasionally winning the Premier League and Champions League on a regular basis.
In my darker moments I find myself asking whether every club running at a loss are mad short termists and AFC are the lone voice of reason, or whether there is another game afoot that Club Owners want to be in on (European / World Super League anyone ?), think of the TV rights packages that could be sold.
Kind Regards
Gotang - AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 3:40 PM
Top, top analysis mate.
Have you ever compared how Arsenal spend their wage bill compared to the others?
There's obviously a fair bit more than players in the wage bill but how does what we have add up to £143m?
Man City £174 million
Chelsea £168 million (2011)
Manchester United £162 million
How do these guys end up spending double what we will on a case by case basis and yet only add up to £20m-£30m more? Who is getting more at Arsenal than their equivalent at each of these clubs - clearly not the big names? Good stuff as ever Swiss but I would take issue with your 'buy Falcao or Cavani' point. Not only would they cost £40M+ in transfer fee but their wages would be over £200K a week - a commitment of £90M over five years. Plus it would fuel internal wage inflation heading us in the direction of Chelsea and City (who must be pushing the £200M pa when this year's numbers appear).
ReplyDeleteRepliesThanks. Let me explain my thinking about a big money striker:
1. Napoli and Atletico Madrid manage to have Cavani and Falcao, even though their wage bills are about a third of Arsenal's £143m, so we have a significantly higher spending capacity overall. Napoli's is £42m (€52m), while Atleti's is £51m (€64m).
2. I'm not sure that they would command £200k a week. For example, Cavani's annual salary (per a survey published by La Gazzetta dello Sport) is €4.5m, which is equivalent to £3.6m (or £69k a week). Sure, he would expect a big increase for his next move, but doubling it to £140k might be sufficient.
3. Much, if not all, of his salary could be funded by removing some of our current forwards from the wage bill, e.g. Chamakh, Park and Bendtner, who are reportedly all earning at least £50k a week.
4. If we had better players, then the chances of success should improve, which would mean more prize money and better sponsorship deals. Obviously no guarantee, but it does improve the odds.- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 7:22 PM
very true. The current list of players that need to be moved are : Bendtner, Arshavin, Chamak, park, Squallachi, Denilson, Rosicky, one of the keepers (Vito/Fab) and maybe Diaby.
This will probably free up potentially around 500K per week. so even if we get 3-4 players in the wage bracket of 100K I think we would be in saving around 5-10 million every year (Does arsenal pay the players even when the season is not in progress?) - SantoriOctober 5, 2012 at 8:35 PM
...that is IF you can move the rejects (Bendtner, Arsharvin, Chamakh etc) in the current soft market and with the disparity between wages that are paid by certain clubs (including ouselves) increasing against those that used to be able to be paid for by 'second tier' clubs (financially)
+ Once you increase on a big player, you are also likely to feel some pressure from other 'less significant' players who believe they should be on a higher pay scale (like say Song). Your overall pay scale would have to go up again BEFORE 2013-2014 kicks in.
I'm sure Wenger may have considered loading on another striker BUT with the inability to shed of some of the current excess players, there may have been some hesitancy in piling on the wage bill before an improvement in the sponsorship/commercial issues.
IMHO - AnonymousOctober 5, 2012 at 11:32 PM
But the problem with thinking like this is surely if we are going to achieve the best commercial deals we need to be successful on the pitch, which means having top players, so in the long run it might make more sense to spend on another 2-3 top players in order to compete for the top prizes so we can acheive 'mega' commercial deals rather than run of the mill ones.
Certainly Wenger's and/or the boards strategy on wages has backfired on them and we must stop paying average players big money, if they leave so be it, they don't seem to have helped us win anything anyway.
- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM
The lack of growth of commercial revenue v. Man U is only partly explained by the shirt and training kit sponsor deals. To what extent do you think it is explained by sales of marque players (being fabregas, nasri and van persi)?
ReplyDeleteRepliesGood point. It's impossible to quantify, but I'm sure that it has made a difference. Star players have certainly contributed to the commercial success at Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich.
Delete- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM
Infact RealMadrid had supposedly recouped the entire Ronaldo Trnafer fees in the first two years thru shirt sales. I think Arsenal now do not have a marquee player who is identified strongly with Arsenal brand and selling quality for commercial products.
Unless Arsenal win something and one of the players Santi/Alex/Giroud/Jack have an outstanding season, I don't see things moving up next year either. They are the players with the best potential to market.
- AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 7:38 PM
I am not what you call a numbers person. But I have been diligently reading up on your articles on arsenal finances as I truly want to understand whether the Board is trying to pull one over the fan base. This is the first time the article makes enough sense to my rather limited financial intellect. Truly appreciate the breakdown and explanation.
I think the biggest question mark is on the wage bill and Commercial revenue. I think Arsenal have to be more transparent. If you can clarify some of the questions, it would be really helpful.
1) how much is the board is payed as salaries and is it comparable to other top clubs?
2) How big is the Commercial team and how much are they paid? How big is ManU's and what is the earnings to cost ratio of ManU team as compared to Arsenal? - I am taking ManU as a touchstone.
3) Can Arsenal buy back the kit/Shirt deal and sell on this year itself? I read Chelsea have done so. Or is the Arsenal's reputation as gentleman dealers going to play a part of decision making process?
3) - AnonymousOctober 3, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Great article, l wonder if you have a bit more information on the wage bill, my understanding is that Arsenal include everyone in this not just the players, which may not be the case with other clubs?
ReplyDelete - Jakob Ravn HansenOctober 4, 2012 at 12:22 AM
Fantastic article though there is a point to be made about the huge wage bill.
Because Arsenal have purchased so many new players recently, a lot of them is in the start of their contract. This means there will be very few contract renegotiations in the next 2 years for all the important players, whist both Squillaci and Arshavins contracts will end next summer. Futhermore Podolski, Cazorla, Arteta, Mertesacker and Sagna will be in their 30's at the end of their contracts which may very well be their last for the club .
To sum up, the wage bill has indeed grown very rapidly in recent years, but is unlikely to continue its meteoric rise in the coming years due to the current contract situations amongst the key members of the squad. - AnonymousOctober 4, 2012 at 3:21 AM
Can you please just answer me one question that nobody has yet been able to answer. If we made a £30+m profit over the last year then why is our cash balance at the end of the year still around £150m like it was at the start of the year? Surely it should be up at around £180m?
ReplyDeleteRepliesBecause cash is also used for items not included in the profit and loss account, such as investment in the stadium and repayment of debt. In addition, the purchases of players are only reflected in the P&L via amortisation, not the full purchase price.
Here's an answer that I gave to a similar, earlier question that might help your understanding:
"If you look at the Cash Flow table (the first in the section on Where's the Money Gone?), you will see the first line is Operating Profit/(Loss), which is simply recurring revenue (i.e. excluding player sales) less expenses. You can see that in the detailed Profit and Loss account table towards the beginning of the piece (it's the lowest blue line). This was a loss of (16.3)m in 2012.
However, that operating loss includes some non-cash expenses, such as depreciation, player amortisation and player impairment (total of 53.7m), so these have to be added back to get a pure cash profit. You then have to make some working capital adjustments (9.7)) for things like paying creditors earlier or later than booked in the P&L, which will give you the "clean" cash flow from operating activities.
That cash flow is then available to spend on various items. In Arsenal's case, almost all of it has been spent on paying for the new stadium and other infrastructure. So, capital expenditure is the investment into those assets, interest payments are on the loans/bonds taken out to fund that investment, while debt repayments are exactly that (also including some for property development). The final figure in the cash flow statement is simply the increase in cash balances."
- AnonymousOctober 4, 2012 at 1:04 PM
West Upper
Excellent analysis as usual - thanks for taking the trouble to prepare this.
Key take outs for me:
1. Be prepared to reward merit NOT mediocrity - this applies to back office staff as well as the players.
2. Intense focus is required on driving Commercial revenue up - heads should roll if this is not accomplished.
3. On the field success is key - 7 years without a trophy and counting. The board should demand that Wenger discloses and agrees his strategy for addressing this. As you say we have been close at times in the past few seasons but an unnecessarily miserly approach has meant we have drawn a blank. Great article, love reading your stuff and look forward to the next one. I remember reading ages ago in a world soccer article that as part of a deal with the local council to build the new stadium, Arsenal had to invest money in improving the local London underground stations but this got scrapped due to problems which I can't remember. How much worse would had this been for Arsenal if they were also forced to do this.
ReplyDelete- AnonymousOctober 4, 2012 at 5:25 PM
Many people comment on wages... It is not only the problem of Arsenal and football in general. I suggest everyone to analyse the wages and contracts in the NHL ice-hockey to understand the massive problems they have. For example, Rick DiPietro signed years ago a 15-year-contract, but has basically been injured all the time. There are many long-term contracts to cheat the salary cap, but basically the clubs pay for the potential. Just like in football! The only difference is that the ice-hockey players don't whine and moan a new contract every two years like in football.
ReplyDelete I find it incredible that Arsenal's wage bill is £143.4 million. If you take off Wenger's (£6 million) and Gazidas (£2 million) and say another £25 million for the various backroom staff, directors, other employees, and non-first team footballers (does that sound about right?), that leaves £110 million to distribute to the 25 Premier League players.
Or put another way, the 25 players earn an average of £84,615 a week. If I increase 'other wages' to £40million (surely too high), they earn an average of £73,077 a week.
Given half of those 25 players aren't even in the first team and some can't be on particularly high wages (I can't see the Ox/Wilshere/Scquillaci etc. negotiating their way to those salaries before establishing themselves) who is getting that amount of money?! Maybe Podolski/ Santi/ Vermaelen/ Waclott/ Arsharvin, but who else is there? For a club that can't keep hold of players like Nasri/possibly Theo/Adebayor/Toure etc. partly due to wages, Arsenal is sure spending a lot of money on them. I know football clubs don't like to reveal their players' wages, but I can't get my head around where Arsenal is spending this amount on wages. Any ideas?Replies- SantoriOctober 5, 2012 at 8:49 PM
There are a number of players whose futures are uncertain at the club but who are still on the fringe that we are unable to shed at the moment and that may weigh into the thinking I believe with regard overstretching in terms of wages when bringing in new players at the moment.
Sadly, that has as always left us one or two players short of the full puzzle and reliant on certain younger players in upping their game.
Mind you, I still don't understand the thinking with regard Song (vis-a-vis Walcott's situation)
Song has 3 seasons left on contract. If rumours were true (which they never are of course)< he was angling for an increase from 55K per week (obscene money for most of us as is) to 80K. That's not a huge amount in context with things and considering he covers an area which we are quite obviously short on (hence the pursuit of Sahin) and ependant on return of injury prone (Diaby) or injured players (Jack or young players (Coquelin)
Meanwhile, Walcott is perfectly replaceable in the market (Affelay was hankering for a move, or Konoplyanka)
I would have called Song's bluff, extended him by a season to the sum he was looking for, had him for cover and bought time for our injured mids/younger prospects, to bed in, then sold him next summer if attitude remained.
The extra 25K per week could have been easily covered or more than made up for with an early sale of Walcott when Victor Moses, Adam JOhnson, Jack Rodwell etc were hitting the market (we would have gotten a better price then)
Baffling to me.
- AnonymousOctober 4, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Stan Kroenke must be taking money out of the club what does it show up as in the accounts.
ReplyDelete Hi Swiss,
Brilliant as always. Considering Dortmund's remarkable growth in the past two years thanks to their two titles and forays into CL consequently, can we have an analysis of Dortmund again? Keeping in mind that the last time you wrote about them, you were almost prescient when you predicted that they looked ready to step up and duly they did so!! Also that would give us an insight on your take on the new BL TV deal. Thanks!This is yet another fascinating and insightful entry. Anyone who's interested in strategy and corporate finance but lacks a background in those areas would benefit from reading your work. That goes even for those who aren't interested in sports or football. The clarity, flow, and depth are almost perfect.
On to the particulars.... The post and many of the comments are unsparing in their criticisms of the Arsenal's commercial revenue. Those points are on the money, so to speak. I'd suggest that Gazidis's job depends on at least doubling the commercial revenue figures in the next two years. If he and his team don't do that, they are leaving the club little choice but to be net sellers in the annual transfer market.
You've also made me think hard about the cash balance and its potential impact in the transfer market. Let's assume the club isn't doing something wacky with the 52MM in one-year investments/debt it now owns, so that at least half of it can go toward to planned acquisitions. That'd take the available pool to about 180MM. As you point out, existing debt covenants require the club to keep 35MM in reserve, which reduces the amount to 145MM. Set another 30MM aside as insurance against missing the Champions League, and we're looking at 115MM.
This seems like a big pot, and it is by the standards of modern football clubs. Perhaps it would go further in the transfer market than I had assumed. Let's say Cavani would require a 35MM transfer fee and a 140k weekly wage over a four-year contract. That's a 70MM total commitment, or 17.5MM annually assuming a straight line amortization.
The nagging question is about confidence in future cash flows, because 17.5MM is a small percentage of the available 105MM, but it's half of the EBITDA figure from the last reporting period. Sure, we can say that selling Park, Bendtner, and Chamakh would free up the cash for Cavani; you know the effort was behind that this summer, and nothing happened. Unless those three contracts expire or Arsenal is willing to subsidize at least part of their wages, we can't expect much of the future cash flow to be liberated. So maybe an acquisition like Cavani is just too big a risk.
As I hope you can tell, your work is appreciated and thought-provoking. I'm hoping for similar effects from my own relatively new blog, 900 Foot Gooner.- AnonymousOctober 6, 2012 at 9:26 AM
As someone who enjoys following the business aspect of football alongwith the sporting ones (Arsenal supporter for a decade now :) ) . I enjoy reading this column. Clearly you are a Gooner ,the quip about like a new signing !
This article quantifies my concerns about Gazidis and co selling FFP as our saviour, when we ourselves haven't pushed ourselves to really grow as a club (to the stature of Man Utd,Real , Barca and Bayern both financially and from a sporting aspect).
The big challenges for the club look to be
1. Switching away from the equitable wage structure model
The idea was noble but clearly hasn't worked. It will be another two seasons hopefully one until we are freed from Squillaci , Arshavin, Bendtner ,Denilson,Chamakh,Park and maybe even Diaby,Djourou (all 40-60k/week with Arshavin probably higher at 80k) for good. With the exception of Andre Santos all the new signings look good value for their wages the last two seasons, Mertesacker,Arteta,Cazorla Podolski,Giroud and most are internationals as well. People complaining about us not paying Walcott 100k a week should realize that this is exactly the kind of deal we should not buckle down.
2. Commercial revenue
I am sure the club can squeeze atleast 40m more per year from the Shirt and Kit sponsorship deals in 2014. And surely commercial revenue should be pushing 100m once those deals run out in 2 years.
My only concern is how long would fans be willing to pay one of the highest season ticket prices for a team that looks set up to finish in the top 4 not actually win the title.Like you said , always two players short of having a winning squad. Having said that I'm actually pretty optimistic about this season. If we sort out our calamity defending at times (Go Mert!) we should be pushing the top 3 all the way. Great Read. I have been onto your blog before and I found the analyses somewhat complex, but I must say you've done a stirling job of explaining in in layman's terms. I think it does a lot to help undertsand the real financial situation at our beloved AFC. I must challenge you on the available 50M to spend. If EBIDTA or cash balance as you say is 36M where did the other 14M come from ? Property sales ?
Other than that I prviously thought the stadium naming rights were ending in 2013 so it's quite horrific to learn the very poor deal lasts until 2030 or so. Commercial revenue is a disaster as you say, but I have to point out the wage bill is the other part of flushing moneyed millions down the drain, namely poor players (no need to mention their names) on fairly good wages paid to sit on a bench or in the stands, woudn't that be an instant profit if notthe case, and for that the manager must surely take some responsibilty.RepliesEBITDA is not the same thing as cash balances. As explained in section 4, the cash balance is £154m. I have reduced this for various factors to get to the £50-60m estimate of money available to spend.
DeleteOk Swiss, thanks, forgot my university economics from 20 yrs ago, that the key operational distinction between EBITDA and CFO/OCF is the change in Net Working Capital, or something like that. Great post again, re-read part 4.
- AnonymousOctober 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM
Thank you again for a detailed and interesting piece.
I have enjoyed reading your posts about Arsenal for several years now.
Excellent work! - AnonymousOctober 7, 2012 at 8:15 PM
It maybe worth exploring a couple of other hypotheses that are pretty crucial moving forward, that is the boards acknowledgment of failed wage structure, which they say they will address over the next few seasons. This includes removing the likes of NB, SS, Almunia, Denilson, Park, Chamack, Arshavin, Vela, and Benayoun, who would have eaten up at least £425k a week or £25m while trying to get a fee where possible. The new signings this season should have been mainly offset by the departing wages keeping the coming season rise a lot flatter.
Couple this with the fact that between now and 2014 it is not unthinkable that our base commercial revenue could have increased to around £70m based on similar growths seen this season. I would also hypothesize that Arsenal can attract higher deals than those seen at Liverpool, after all that is the reason for the Far East trips adding £30m to £40m extra to the coffers. This would put com revenues at over £100m matching match day revenue. Then include broadcasting revenue assuming CL.
This puts Arsenal's revenue at close to £320m, or a growth of around £100m I dont see Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs or City getting anything close to this level of growth. If we can add wage stability that could deliver a £125m swing, ok this is all rose garden stuff but even if thy only deliver 60% of this takes then even if we sold no players this season we would have still delivered a £35m profit.
Add to that if FFP holds any water, that puts Arsenal in a far more competitive position, they still might not win but it gives them a better chance. It is also worthwhile noting that the club have a track record of developing player who have great resale value unlike most other big clubs, as well as bringing player through Wilshere, Schz, Gibbs, Jenkinson, Frimpong, Mannone, Conquelin, and Diaby all starting 11 contenders with a combine fee of less than £4m but a resale of probably £50m to £70m.
All in all there is a very sound underlying position, where as you look at the supposed big clubs with the exception of Man U and the picture is a lot less rosy.
Start with Chelsea, they need to build a new stadium if they want to increase revenue but they cant get the fans to move, their com revenue is similar to Arsenal and they recent squad investment is likely to drive losses even higher. How do they comply with FFP?
Liverpool, look even further away from the top 4 than they ever have. They have went through a cost reduction exercise causing them to have a very thin squad, this might deliver margin profits however there is not many avenues left for them to deliver large growth especially if they continue to fall outside the top 4. Couple this for the need for a new stadium leaves them in a difficult position as their owners dont want to put money in.
Spurs have built a strong squad however it again has ben thinned to keep costs controlled, how will this fair across the full season? There is a need for a new stadium, where is the funds coming from as they are not making profits?How does that effect future spending? Can they grow their commercial revenue? Thy have a lot to do to establish themselves as one of the big boys.
City have fast tracked success however if this seasons buying is to go buy they are trying to reduce their spend but will it be enough to comply with FFP? With their stadium deal can they grow revenue to cover their massive wage bill? Where are their future stars coming from? - AnonymousOctober 7, 2012 at 8:57 PM
Do you have any insight in to why or where the wage hike has come from?
As looking at transfers I would estimate around £50k to £100k maximum difference between leavers versus incoming, so lets say £75k plus the £90k to cover Benayoun that is only around £10m.
Would sign on fees be in there, inflating the figure?
Does that mean we might only see a wage bill this year closer to £130m?
Less sign on fees, no one of costs, more loans out, reduction in squad numbers etc as if last season included sign on fees and Benayoun then it is possible that there was over £17m that would not be in this years accounts. Great piece again! Love reading your work :) I have a question though that has been bugging me for a long time about the takeover of the club by Silent Stan.
Initially, I remember that the board was against Stan's takeover because they believed that he (or any individual for that matter) would try become an Abramovic and start using the club as his toy. They believed that the club was in a healthy position and giving any one person absolute power would be a threat to their 'sustainability' model.
Suddenly in 2011 they changed their stance completely and started encouraging shareholders to sell to Stan, trying to convince them that Stan had Arsenal's best interests in mind. After the takeover, they were very vocal, praising Stan Kroenke for being the kind of person who would not interfere in the club's daily matters and let the club run in its sustainable way.
My question simply and finally is - then what was the point of the takeover? If Arsenal was running sustainably before Stan, and he in no way is influencing club affairs by making executive decisions or even by putting in some of his own money, then what was the need for a takeover at all?
The more I think about it, the more I realize who the majority shareholders of the club were prior to Stan. Most of them were on the board of directors or were ex-members of the board. They made ridiculous sums of money by selling their shares to Stan, which they could not really have done randomly without a takeover bid, or else the fans would have jumped on them.
Stan's really living the good life right now. He's having to put NOTHING into the club and even if he sells his stake today, he'll make hundreds of millions of pounds more than what he spent because of the increase in the club's value.
So who really profited? To a big extent, people related to the board and Stan himself. Maybe they were in this together to make a quick buck at the expense of the club? Sounds very controversial I agree, but if the club was doing perfectly fine earlier, there was no reason to sell the club at all. If the board is agreeing to get a new majority shareholder in, you want him to be affecting the club positively and being involved in making it more successful. But Stan just seems content on sitting silent.
Is there a even a little bit of sense in my argument or am I being too naive? Do you think that there's some knowledge that I seem to lack that would support the takeover?Replies- AnonymousOctober 8, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Sounds like nail on the head stuff to me, they made money selling their shares and because they were generally ignorant old toffs they sold to the wrong man.
Delete - AnonymousOctober 29, 2012 at 4:01 PM
The board sold their shares to preempt the tragic and untimely death of Danny Fiszman. Due to Danny being the largest single shareholder in the club except Kroenke and Usmanov, the board had to make the decision between the two as to who would be the best future custodian of the club. They believed, as do I, that we were in much more danger of becoming a billionaire's plaything, losing the core values and ideals of the club, if Usmanov gained control than Kroenke. Add to that the fact that Stan had, by that time, been on the board since 2008 and the decision becomes clearer to understand. Kroenke's purchase of Fiszman's shares took his holding in the club to over 30%, thus requiring him to present a formal offer to the remaining share holders for their shares at the highest value that they had been sold for in the previous 5 years. A lot of them sold up, making significant profits but retaining their places on the board. The decision to sell the Kroenke can't have been taken lightly or been an easy one - Danny Fiszman was a beloved and respected member of Arsenal FC and a legend of the club - but it was better than the only other alternative - a bun fight between the 2 biggest shareholders as to who gets to own the club. Overall, the board did the right thing, even if it seems that they were only in it to line their pockets.
- AnonymousOctober 8, 2012 at 5:09 PM
I think there has been a small miscalculation of the Distribution of European funds. Arsenal have also gained €2.1 million by participating in the 2011/12 Chmapions League play-off. As I understand from every UEFA financial report on that matter, UEFA contributes €42 million in favour of all the 20 clubs involved Champions League play-off (€2.1 million per club) irrespective of the tie results - not only for the losing sides.
ReplyDelete - AnonymousOctober 9, 2012 at 5:28 PM
The property development is a bit funny. Over the years, the venture has created about GBP40M profit before tax. I am pretty sure highbury stadium was fully paid up so although the profit is a positive things but it seems too little. I mean, imagine selling highbury stadium as it is (without any development), I believe the club would have gotten much more.
Recently the Battersea Power station was sold for almost GBP500M. I estimate Highbury was a third in size. OK, Highbury was developed several years before - but I think for all the effort and stress, GBP40M is too little. Don't you think? It looks like there are a lot of things up in the air that could go either way, and, cause Arsenal to start making massive losses, small losses, break even, make a small profit, or, a massive profit. The main example of this is the commercial side of things.
I don't understand the point of signing such crap deals to enable us to build the new stadium judging by the way Manchester City got so much more money than we did. I know the Manchester City deal was partly to do with it was a family agreement, but, that wouldn't be the only cause of the deal being so much more than ours. I'm inclined to think that all the clubs that need a new stadium will never do what Arsenal did again because we got such a bad deal out of it.
Are the new commercial deals that we sign after the current ones finish going to make a massive difference? I'm inclined to think they are either going to make no difference or very little.
What does everyone else think?Really salient points about the transfer market and the opaque nature of the cash flows, and what's available to spend. Thanks for illuminating us.
".. the reality is that very little has been spent on bringing in new players with net player registrations of just £4 million in the last six years."
This point is a little misleading in isolation, as it focuses on the price vs rather than the value of the transactions. That is, there are more able bodies in the squad now than at any time in the past 4 or 5 years, as they have been brought in at lower prices than those players being sold (sometimes two for one, even - Grioud/Pod vs RvP). Sure the squad cap is 25, but there have been ample players out on loan - a problem of sorts in itself that needs remedying - but I suggest the average quality of squad quality has improved, even if there aren't as many top, top players. All done at very sound prices too (e.g. cazorla).
From a playing perspective I think this makes it easier to close the gap with the other top 4 clubs, particularly once the new commercial contracts are signed and accruing, and the Board gets the chutzpah to release the funds on a big player such as Goetze, Falcao etc., which general and often warranted cynicism aside, I believe is that the club is working towards affording.
Thanks again for writing this.
@TheTravails- DuduspaceOctober 11, 2012 at 4:08 AM
Your figures are factually correct but I detect a lot of negativity in your elaborations on some of the figures, this might be because you genuinely do not believe in the way Arsenal have gone about managing the change that has engulfed the club, the PL and football globally or more likely an expression of 'journalistic license' to either keep your audience interested or take digs at a club you do not support.
I think you are a bit disingeneous with your elaborations on Arsenal's wage structure in particular, the fact remains that in the past two seasons, Arsenal came 4th in the league with the 5th highest wage bill, you couldn't resist making a dig about Tottenham running Arsenal close but Tottenham have
1. Not finished above Arsenal for a long while (even while Arsenal were managing the cost of building the Emirates)
2. Not been forced to sell their players the way Arsenal has (Luka Modric aside) partly because they've not developed high calibre of players or bought young top class talent with good resale value (apart from Modric perhaps) whom by the very nature of their talent also command adequate remuneration (hence the high wage bill).
3. Are struggling to get a stadium upgrade off the ground when Arsenal according to you have virtually fully paid back the cost of a 450m stadium.
What I think you also fail to see is that there is a correlation between Arsenal's 'moderately' high wage bill (which is still and has consistently been about 20m lower than the least wage bill of the 3 other clubs Arsenal is seen as competing against i.e. United, City and chelsea) and the fact that the club is able to consistently turn a profit from player trading. The logic is simple and goes thus.
1. Arsenal cannot compete with the highest paying clubs while bogged down with the low Commercial income and paying off the cost of building their stadium.
2. Because of 1, Arsenal looks to obtain exceptional talent while they are young and, adequately pay them and nurture their talent while ensuring their contracts do not wind down
3. Push this youngsters to the very limits of their ability and try to win silverware with them.
4. When the said players mature and some of them begin to demand excessive pay (in line with their talent and going rates (which have been grossly inflated by the big benefactor backed spenders) but which the club due to its financial constraints cannot meet) sell them for profit.
Even you must admit this model has served Arsenal well (from the financial information you've supplied about the amount Arsenal have made from player trading) while competitively keeping in touch with the games elite in europe.
Please Note that I'm not saying that every youngster invested in has been a success story, I'm only saying that if you thoroughly examine this model, it has served Arsenal extremely well through the period from the building of the Emirates till now.
I'm also not advocating that Arsenal should continue with this model in its current form (nor do I imagine that they will do so when the commercial income stream improves) and do agree that the model needs to be consistently fine tuned with emerging realities in the game.RepliesIt' a balanced piece that praises Arsenal for the elements that they have managed well and criticises them for those that they have not. They have consistently performed well over the past few years, but the question is whether they should have done better.
As your final paragraph suggests, a club's model "needs to be consistently fine tuned with emerging realities in the game". I'm not sure that the Arsenal board has fully achieved this.
By the way, when you say "the fact remains that in the past two seasons, Arsenal came 4th in the league with the 5th highest wage bill", then you are incorrect, as Arsenal in fact finished third last season, a point that I happily acknowledged in my second paragraph.- DuduspaceOctober 11, 2012 at 8:27 PM
You make a lot of sense Rambler, a lot more than people who just pull figures out of the air and you do a lot to explain the account and help accounting lay men understand them but I question some of your assertions particularly about Arsenal's wage bill and potential Commercial growth.
To summarise, I believe you get the accounting right but missed out on the economics. The idea of limited means having alternative uses. The alternatives and examples you've suggested and explored didn't stand up to my scrutiny as I sort of get the idea that you're suggesting that Arsenal's restructuring of their wage bill and spending more to buy top players would guarantee silverware when in the alternative it could lead to a totally out of control wage bill without any guarantee of success. You're guilt of extrapolating from what I've actually written to an assumption about what that actually implies here.
Clearly, buying top players is no guarantee of success, though all the academic studies show that this improves the chances of winning. At no stage have I suggested that the wage bill should be allowed to run wild. Instead, I have suggested that Arsenal could make better use of their resources, such as the second highest revenue and largest cash pile in England. There is a happy medium between spending like a lottery winner and saving for a rainy day.
In particular, my belief is that the wage bill could be better allocated. Indeed, Arsenal appear to be quietly moving in that direction recently. Of course, if the performance on the commercial side (excluding the main sponsorship deals) had not been so abysmal, then the club could have safely increased the wage bill in line with the revenue growth.
- DuduspaceOctober 11, 2012 at 4:10 AM
Out of interest, if you were the one faced with the same challenges Arsenal faced then and still face to a lesser degree, I'd like to see you propose a solution (which does not include spending 1 billion pounds in 3 seasons as City have done).
I'm a bit amazed that someone of your highly respected financial acumen (and I sincerely do respect your financial acumen) cannot see this. I can only imagine that this is because of some other subjective considerations having little to do with Finance and Management.
Arsenal is currently undergoing another transition, lets see the full results for the current year and the impact of the new commercial team on the new kit and shirt naming deals come 2014, I'd imagine they will have a massive impact on the turnover to wages ratio and will give the club more than enough room to maintain and more likely improve their standing among the game's elite particularly if FFP has the desired impact its supposed to have on the game.
I do think that United deserve a lot of commendation for the growth in their commercial income, I term them 'Commercial income trailblazers' in the PL Ah, those mysterious "subjective considerations".
I'd happily give you my solution to Arsenal's challenges. Pay me £2m a year and they're all yours.Replies- DuduspaceOctober 11, 2012 at 8:04 PM
I don't doubt you would though its much harder to walk the talk. You must be a genius of some sort though as I do not see any other club doing it in the PL or anywhere else. Even your example of Napoli and Cavani is not valid as there is no inflow of 'crazy money' into Italian football yet as we've seen in the PL and Napoli do not have an history of making the UCL in the past 15 seasons.
- AnonymousOctober 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM
Great blogging Swiss, you're a legend in your own lunchtime. Presumably you must be fairly clued up on Tax efficient salary vehicles living in the 10 cantons as you do !
Do you think the Board and Manager are too wedded to the idea of financial prudence to ever make a marquee signing again, as we did in the days when we signed the legend that was/is Bergkamp ?
To my mind I can't see us ever spending any of the cash pile we've built up buying a proven world class international who is sitting on a long term contact at their current club> We'll most likely continue to deal astutely by grabbing players in the last year of their contract or buying players from clubs in financial difficulty.
I think in that sense AFC is now truly a business rather than a football club, the people running the club are not Arsenal Fans and therefore will never the display the passion (madness) that being a fan would demand. Hence we can forget about signing any player that is linked to City, ManU or Chelsea or as you suggest someone of the calibre of Cavani, the Board simply don't have the balls to compete financially, I believe they'd see it as pissing money up the wall needlessly. - AnonymousOctober 14, 2012 at 4:56 AM
Another outstanding analysis as always!
I have a couple of questions for you Swiss in relation to the shirt sponsorships;
1) Quoted from the above article - "8 years of shirt sponsorship (£48 million)" By my calculation this should be £6m per year not the £5.5m everyone has quoted. Should we be alerting the police to some rather ballsy embezzlement?
2) On a more serious note, if a new shirt deal had been agreed this season for say £20m (considering 15 years of champs league and being near the top tier of worldwide shirt sellers this seems < market rate) that would bring in £40m during the current deal. Less the £11m the current deal will earn that's £29m in extra revenue. Even with horrendous break penalties there is still room for plenty of profit. The same applies to the kit deal with Nike. That's upwards of £50m extra revenue. After all its not exactly unprecedented in shirt sponsorship deals, however I have no idea about the terms of the contract. Do you have any thoughts as to why this approach has not been taken? It seems a real missed opportunity?
As for everyone complaining about how restrictive the current deals are, please bear in mind this was record-breaking at the time, even outstripping the mighty Man U for a while!Replies- AnonymousNovember 7, 2012 at 10:28 PM
1) i think there was a lump-sum in advance + backloaded annual payment... so arsenal recieved less than £5.5M annually during the earlier years of the deal - but not 100% sure
2) i remember Hill-Wood (a couple of years ago) saying that arsenal wont break the nike / emirates deals, and that arsenal are above such things and are cultivating good relations, yada, yada etc... which seems pretty crazy to me considering the damage they do to the club financially when compared arsenals peers. i suspect that there are horrendous break penalties that outweigh the obvious benefits
however much everyone hates the manure yanks, their ability to pull in unbelievable commercial deals is truly astounding. Kroenke, Gazedis and co should be taking notes
Great post Rambler.
There is just one thing I have been thinking about that I would like to get your opinion on.
Through the comments we have seen a lot of talk about the commercial revenues. We all agree that Arsenal should increase their commercial revenues a lot when the old contracts expire in 2014. But could the lack of success in secondary sponsors be a direct result of the problematic deals they have with their primary sponsors?
I mean if we compare with Man United: how should Arsenal be able get anyone to pay a reasonable sum of money for the training shirt, for example, while Emirates pays almost nothing to be seen on the main shirt.
I just think that Arsenal must have a pretty good brand, don't they? A bit like Barcelona - playing creative "fun to watch" football, they have a great stadium, solid finances: a role model in almost every way in football. So I can't imagine that the idea of being associated with Arsenal should be extremely hard to sell to companies. Which means that either the marketing team are a bunch of buffoons, or there must be some other explanation.
I also wonder if you know why the kit deal was extended with Nike for such a small amount a couple of years ago.Best blog on tinterweb, keep up the good work. :)
Putting aside the commercial revenues, I'd be really interested to know the difference in earnings between Arsenal & their two main rivals Man Utd & Chelsea since they last won a trophy? Talking in terms of prize money from progression in domestic & European competition & finishing positions in the league.
That would give a good indication whether extra expenditure on marquee signings during that time could potentially have been negated by achieving a better league position or progressing further in the cups.hey great-blog.i will have to re-read it a lot of times since there is a lot of stuff here.But since i see u patiently answering so many questions i want to ask you some more.1. Do u think ffp will have any effect on club spending (or they will just walk around it )?2. do u think clubs like manchester city and chelsea have made wise decisions ( they have really smart people and people with lots of money to invest) in investing so heavily , and that they will eventually make loads of profits? 3. do u think that most clubs will eventually drive each other to bank ruptcy ( like football bubble ) or they are too big to fail .also do u think arsenal owners have been selfish enough by not investing enough , and thereby slowing down the growth of the market value (as well as the team) and thereby having the complete share of the pie when arsenal starts making loads of profit. just wanted your expert comments on it. also what do you think about the possibilty of making a mathematical model of these clubs. If its possible it will certainly lead to the possibilty of making a much more robust policy(than ffp) and could possible save us from global extinction of football and sports as we know it (last part just to give a dramatic effect )
big fan here since u make me think.(please forgive for any grammatical mistakes)Gooner here. Love your analysis.
Not sure if this has been asked. If so please refer me to relevant section.
As I see it investment in playing = net transfer spend + increase in wages
This is because players like chamakh arrive on 'free transfers' but the fee is effectively hidden in the exorbitant wages.
Could you provide some analysis on who invests most on investment in playing squad in recent years?- AnonymousDecember 31, 2012 at 3:18 AM
Was this article updated after Arsenal announced a new deal with Emirates?
ReplyDelete - AnonymousFebruary 5, 2013 at 7:40 PM
So going by this cause we are tied in with the emirates we will have trouble growing our comercial revenue, will this be a problem for a while? You saying the stadium is actually costing us money cause we cant grow commericial revenue, would you go as far in saying it would of been better not to have got tied in with the emirates. Also if we keep failing to win anything will it lose us money in deals in the near future?
ReplyDelete One factor Arsenal doesn't factor by increasingly saving for future and not spending today, is the loss of new fans..
How many new fans would have started supporting Arsenal these last few years? I beat not less than 10% of number of new fans of Man City or Man Utd or Chelsea..
That is the bread and butter for a football business.. The fans.. The money comes to the club indirectly from fans through commercial revenue, tv rights, etc.. So though it is good to cut down on certain silly expenses, the player wages and transfer spend should be increased, so that team starts winning, new fans come and consequently more revenue can be made to match those expenditure..
Being too conservative doesn't help anyone including the business..


text:
Introduction to Judges
The Book of Judges is the history of the failure of Israel. Joshua sets before us the energy of God acting in the midst of the people, though there may be failure. In Judges we see the miserable state of the nation, now become unfaithful; and, at the same time, the intervention of the God of mercy in the circumstances into which their unfaithfulness had brought them. These interventions correspond with what are called revivals in the history of the church of God.
In this book we no longer see blessing and power marking the establishment of the people of God. Neither does it contain the fulfilment of God's purposes, after the people had manifested their inability to retain the blessing they had received, that indeed is yet to come for them, and for the assembly; nor the forms and government which, in spite of the evil and internal unfaithfulness of the people, could maintain their external unity, until God judged them in their leaders. God was still the only leader acknowledged in Israel; so that the people themselves always bore the penalty of their sin.
The misery into which their unfaithfulness brought them moving the compassion of God, His mighty grace raised up deliverers by His Spirit in the midst of the fallen and wretched people. "For his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel." "And Jehovah raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them." "And when Jehovah raised them up judges, then Jehovah was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hands of their enemies, all the days of the judge; for it repented Jehovah because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them." But Israel was unchanged. "And yet they would not hearken unto their judges." "And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn ways." This is the sorrowful history of the people of God; but it is also the history of the grace of God, and of His compassions towards His people.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I have experimented with adding curry to quick breads in the past and really enjoyed the results in the form of this curried chocolate chip banana bread and this curried mango bread . The curry adds an amazing aroma and flavour and a nice touch of warmth to the quick breads. A while ago I came across this recipe for a Thai pineapple curry banana bread with coconut on Clever Monkey Studio and I knew immediately that I would have to try it. Recently the the grocery stores have been full of pineapple and I recalled this recipe and set about making it. I had been looking forward to trying this bread because it called for a lot more curry powder than I had used in either of my loaves and I was interested to see how it would work. This tropical quick bread was just as easy to make as any other quick bread, which is to say that it was just a matter of mixing all of the ingredients and then baking until the loaf is perfectly golden brown. Of course the baking of the loaf filled my apartment with an amazing aroma and I was eagerly anticipating the results. The curried pineapple banana bread turned out great! The curry flavour worked really well with the pineapple and coconut though I think I might use a bit more coconut the next time that I make this bread. The increased amount of curry powder in the loaf also worked well. The curry flavour came more to the foreground and there much more heat which I really enjoyed. I am looking forward to breakfasts this week!
Curried Pineapple Banana Bread (Siamese Loaf)
- 1 cup flour
- 1/2 cup whole wheat flour
- 1 teaspoon baking soda
- 1/4 teaspoon salt
- 3 tablespoons curry powder
- 3 ripe bananas (mashed)
- 1/2 cup butter (melted)
- 1/2 cup sugar
- 1/2 cup brown sugar
- 1 egg
- 1 tablespoon lime juice
- 1 cup pineapple (cut into bite sized pieces)
- 2 tablespoons unsweetened coconut flakes
- Mix the flour, baking soda, salt and curry powder in a bowl.
- Mix the bananas, butter, sugars, egg and lime juice in another bowl.
- Mix the dry ingredients into the wet.
- Mix in the pineapple and coconut.
- Pour the batter into a greased 9×5 inch loaf pan.
- Bake in a preheated 350F/180C oven until a tooth pick pushed into the center comes out clean, about 60 minutes.


text:
New York's lights and windows are my Holiday gift to you
Here's the annual Rockefeller Center BIG tree overlooking the skating rink.
A bottle green Xmas tree at Botticelli shoes
You can buy this Swarovski crystal cut glass tree at Rock Center... It's all of 5" inches high.
This is no reindeer, but a New York pup braving the cold while window shopping captured byYNYTimes venerable photographer, Bill Cunningham.
Happy Hols Everyone!


text:
Medical Library
Loading...Please Wait
BPPV and Physical Therapy
Epley Maneuver is Helpful for Vertigo
Vertigo, in particular "benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV)", is a common disorder in which the patient complains of spinning and dizziness with rapid changes in head positions. BPPV is typically idiopathic (of unknown cause) in nature. Other reported causes are head trauma, vestibular neuritis (inflamed vestibulo-cochlear nerve), vertebrobasilar ischemia (inadequate blood flow to the brain), and inner ear infection.
It is hypothesized that small particles, (called otoconia) in the semi-circular canals, over-stimulate the sense organs (hair cells and cupula). This results in patient complaints of dizziness and the observation of nystagmus in the direction of head rotation. The dizziness may last anywhere from a few seconds to a minute and there may be associated nausea.
Brandt-Daroff and canalith repositioning movements (Epley Maneuver) are the most common therapeutic interventions. The goal of these treatments is to move the small particles within the semicircular canal to the utricle where they no longer are able to stimulate the sense organs within the canal.
Hi-quality research studies show significant numbers of patients that experience a resolution of symptoms and negative diagnostic tests for BPPV after treatment intervention as compared to the control groups.
While BPPV is a common diagnosis for those suffering from dizziness, there are other causes of vertigo (both central and peripheral). It is important to consult your doctor and physical therapist regarding proper diagnosis and treatment of vertigo.
The information in this medical library is intended for informational and educational purposes only and in no way should be taken to be the provision or practice of physical therapy, medical, or professional healthcare advice or services. The information should not be considered complete or exhaustive and should not be used for diagnostic or treatment purposes without first consulting with your physical therapist, occupational therapist, physician or other healthcare provider. The owners of this mls accept no responsibility for the misuse of information contained within this website.


text:
U.S. government fines Toyota record $17.4M, says automaker slow to report safety troubles
December 19, 2012
By Tom Krisher
The U.S. government has hit Toyota Motor Corp. with a record $17.4 million fine for failing once again to quickly report problems to federal regulators and for delaying a safety recall.
The fine against the world's biggest automaker from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency that monitors vehicle safety, is the maximum allowed by law. It's the fourth fine levied against Toyota in the past two years for similar infractions, and it's the largest single fine ever assessed against a car company over safety defects. In 2010, Toyota paid a total of $48.8 million in fines for three violations.
The latest infraction raises questions about whether the fines are big enough to deter automakers that withhold information from NHTSA, and whether the government agency can do enough to stop repeat offences. The fine, announced Tuesday, is a tiny fraction of Toyota's earnings. The company posted a $3.2 billion profit in the third quarter alone.
Toyota said it agreed to pay the penalty without admitting any violation of the law. It also pledged to strengthen data collection and evaluation to make sure it takes action more quickly.
"We agreed to this settlement in order to avoid a time-consuming dispute and to focus fully on our shared commitment with NHTSA to keep drivers safe," Ray Tanguay, the company's chief quality officer, said in a statement. A spokesman at the Toyota's U.S. offices did not answer further questions.
The latest fine stems from a June recall of SUVs from Toyota's Lexus luxury brand. About 154,000 of the 2010 Lexus Rx 350s and RX 450h models were recalled because the driver's-side floor mats can trap the gas pedal and cause the vehicles to speed up without warning. The problem was similar to troubles from 2010 that prompted a series of embarrassing safety recalls by the company.
Toyota has recalled more than 14 million vehicles globally to fix sticky gas pedals and floor mats. The recalls tarnished the company's sterling reputation for reliability and cut into sales. Recently its sales have rebounded as it appeared to put the safety problems in the rear-view mirror.
But NHTSA said Tuesday that Toyota failed to report acceleration problems in the Lexus SUVs within five business days of discovering them, as required by U.S. law. The agency said it began investigating the SUVs early this year after receiving complaints from consumers. In May, the agency contacted Toyota about the problem, and it took the company a month to report 63 incidents of floor mats trapping gas pedals, NHTSA said.
"With today's announcement, I expect Toyota to rigorously reinforce its commitment to adhering to United States safety regulations," U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in the statement.
Next year, the maximum fine NHTSA can assess will double to $35 million
Toyota, NHTSA said, agreed in a settlement to make internal changes to comply with U.S. laws.
In an August interview, Jim Lentz, Toyota's highest-ranking U.S. executive, told The Associated Press that the company was obeying the law in giving information to NHTSA.
In 2010, Toyota paid two $16.4 million fines and one $16 million fine, all for reporting violations. NHTSA said at the time that the company didn't report problems with sticking gas pedals in a timely manner, nor did it report problems with floor mats trapping gas pedals. Toyota also told NHTSA that a recall of commercial trucks in Japan for a steering problem did not affect U.S. vehicles. But a year later, the company recalled similar vehicles in the U.S.
— The Associated Press
- Middle East manufacturing activity boost demand for distributed control: Study
- Canada's food industry an "innovation laggard," study finds


text:
Owning a home or building with a low sloped roof can be very problematic for many real-estate investors. Locating a roof leak on a flat roof can Roofing Company Organizational Chart be a big challenge because the water can stream underneath the roofing membrane a long ways before finding an area to enter the structure.
Because of ponding water a flat roof can wear much faster than steep sloped roof. Most asphalt low sloped applications require some kind of reflective UV protection to preserve the asphalt and keep it from deteriorating. An aluminum coating maintenance system is necessary for all smooth surface asphalt applications with no gravel. Membrane systems such as smooth surface roll roofing, smooth torch down and hot tar BUR systems with no gravel require a heavy coat of aluminum every three to five years. If an aluminum coating maintenance plan is not conducted on these types of roof systems it will deteriorate much faster from the sun and they will be compromised prematurely.
Also many asphalt application are installed using a ballast gravel system. The gravel helps reflect the harmful UV rays from the sun and helps anchor down the membrane. Many EPDM and TPO roofs are also applied using a ballast system. Using a ballast rock system will make the job less expensive in most cases because the labor is done much faster and it saves on adhesive products and other chemicals. Adhesives like TPO glue can cost up to one hundred and fifty dollars per five gallon bucket. You only get about three hundred square feet of coverage out of each five gallon bucket.
A fully chemically adhered low sloped roofing system is the best application standard but it also is the most expensive. A fully adhered roofing system can withstand extreme high wind gusts from any storm if installed properly. A fully adhered roof system also is a very light weight roofing system which is better for the roof structure.
Proper drainage is also essential for a low sloped roof because water can puddle causing a roof to collapse. Also ponding water is bad for the roof membrane and can cause algae growth and mold to form. If the water accumulates too high it can flood a home or building because it can overflow overtop of flashing Rubber Slate Roofing curbs or wall flashing. Just about every popular roof system in the industry is not designed to have large amounts of ponding water. All drains and scuppers should be inspected and cleaned on a regular basis. Snow and Ice removal maybe require each winter on low sloped roofs in some northern areas.


text:
Available Options
This solar powered system includes a mini LED spot light which is ideal for many different outdoor applications. This kit is designed to provide dusk to dawn illumination for most of the year. Choose white, warm white, or RGB.
This system is supplied with a compact mini spotlight containing three powerful 1W LEDs providing an approximate 60 degree beam spread. The light fitting is available with a white, warm white or RGB (multi-colour) LED. The RGB version is supplied with a remote control and offers 16 different static colours, colour changing modes and a dimmer. Supplied as standard, the lights will typically illuminate dusk to dawn for most of the year, and up to 8 hours in the winter months. If dusk to dawn illumination is required throughout the year, a higher powered solar panel and/or larger capacity batteries will be required. The kit is supplied with the light fitting, a weather proof battery box, a programmable MPPT charge controller, a 20 Watt solar panel, and a 12 Volt rechargeable battery. The battery box is supplied with sockets for the solar panel and light fitting to plug in to. When the system is connected, the lamp will turn on automatically at sunset and will stay illuminated until the set amount of time. The charge controller can be programmed to illuminate from dusk to dawn, turn off after a certain amount of hours, or it can use a dual timer option. The dual timer allows the light to activate at dusk and illuminate for X hours, switch off, and then turn back on for X hours prior to sunrise. The solar panel and light fitting are both supplied with several metres of cable, so they can be mounted away from the battery box if needed. Colour of light fitting is black. Colour of other parts of the system are grey. Colour of light output is white, warm white, or RGB.
Perfect for use where electricity is unavailable or where it is too expensive to install. This system can also be used for numerous applications. Suitable for garden and landscape lighting, up-lighting, etc.
Manufactured in an ISO9001:2008 'Quality Assured' facility.
One mini spotlight is included in this system.
Illumination time is typically dusk to dawn for most of the year, and up to 8 hours in the winter.
If dusk to dawn illumination is required year-round, a higher powered solar panel and a larger capacity battery will be required.
Up to 3 days of autonomy subject to length of night time illumination, and battery capacity selected.
The spot light is fitted with three powerful 1W SMD/LEDs.
Light output is 300 Lumens (equal to approx. 50W of incandescent lighting).
LED beam angle is approx. 60 degrees.
Choice of white, warm white or RGB (multi-colour LED).
White LED colour temperature is approx. 6000-6500K.
Warm white LED colour temperature is approx. 3000-3500k.
RGB LED provides 16 different colours, dimmable feature and colour changing option.
RGB model comes complete with a IR remote control.
The lamp is fitted with approximately 5.5 metres (18') of pre-plugged cable ready for easy connection to the battery box.
Additional extension cable is available (upon request) as an option.
The light fitting is weather rated to I.P 65.
Light fitting dimensions approx. 8cm long x 8cm diameter (3" long x 3" diameter).
One high capacity 12 Volt 12 Amp-Hr sealed lead acid battery is supplied.
Larger capacity battery options may be available. For help determining whether a larger battery is necessary, please contact our customer service department.
Battery type is AGM. Gel battery is available by special order.
Battery Box
A plastic weatherproof battery box is supplied to accommodate the battery.
The battery box has a removable front which is lockable (padlock not included).
The battery box also houses the charge controller.
The battery box is approx. 27cm x 20cm x 12cm (10.5" x 8" x 4.5") LxWxD.
Solar Panel
Aluminium framed 20 Watt solar panel is included.
Supplied with 3 metres (10') of cable/cord. Additional cord is available as an optional extra.
Additional cable or extension cords are available as an option.
The solar panel cord connects directly to the battery box.
The solar panel support is supplied with a fold-out 'U' shape bracket which can be used to mount it to a suitable surface.
The 20W solar panel dimensions approx. 57cm x 36cm x 3cm (22.5" x 14" x 1") LxWxD.
Control Module
Supplied with a MPPT charge controller which automatically controls the solar panel power, battery charging and lighting function and operation.
Ultra fast Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT).
The MPPT charge controller is typically 30% more efficient than standard PWM controllers and 10% more efficient to most other MPPT controllers.
Additional efficiency for cloudy weather and during times of reduced sun radiation.
This controller features the very latest smart technology.
Provides extended battery life and extra protection against excessive battery discharge and overcharge.
Battery life algorithm operates 24/7.
Low voltage detection for automatic disconnect.
Continuous environment, input and output power management.
The controller is sized to the system specifications with 10A and 15A versions available (subject to solar panel wattage and battery capacity).
Pre-programmed software for load output, dusk to dawn lighting, single timed lighting, dual timed lighting, dimming option and the ability of interfacing with motion detection, where required.
This MPPT charge controller is programmed by Solar Illuminations as per your requirements and system ability.
Lighting control features illumination from dusk to dawn (where applicable), or on at dusk for X amount of hours then off, or on at dusk for X amount of hours, then off, then back on again for X amount of hours before dawn.
Dimming option (where applicable) allows the lighting to dim at any time during the illumination time.
The dimming option or any other illumination mode can be used in conjunction with motion activation (where applicable).
Dimming may be at any percentage from 1-99%.
Supports real time data monitoring (iPhone, Andriod, Mac or PC) with optional interface and/or Bluetooth dongle.
Battery voltage 12/24V dc auto select.
Rated charge current 10A/15A.
Maximum PV power (12V dc) is 135W at 10A and 200W at 15A.
Maximum PV power (24V dc) is 270W at 10A and 400W at 15A.
Maximum PV open circuit is 75V dc.
Peak efficiency is 98%.
Charge voltage (absorption) is 14.4V dc.
Charge voltage (float) is 18.8V dc.
Multi stage adaptive charge algorithm.
Automatic temperature compensation.
Low voltage load disconnect at 11.1V dc to 11.8V dc (12v dc system) or 22.2V dc to 23.6V dc (24V dc system) or battery life algorithm.
Low voltage load reconnect at 13.1V dc to 14V dc (12V dc system) or 26.2V dc to 28V dc (24V dc system).
Protection feature includes battery reverse polarity (fuse), output short circuit and over temperature.
Operating temperature is -30 deg. C (-22 deg. F) to +60 deg. C (140 deg. F).
Humidity up to 95%, non condensing.
Power terminals are AWG 10 (6mm2).
Protection rating IP22 (connection terminal area).
Weight is 500g (1.1 Lbs).
Dimensions are approx. 10cm x 10cm x 4cm (4" x 4" x1.5").
Please note: Upon installation and power-up the controller goes into a 7 day evaluation mode where smart monitoring and configurations commence. Additional evaluation with self-managing adjustments may continue for up to 7 more days. This is all part of the smart feature that enables this intelligent controller to understand its use, the application, the surrounding environment and the current conditions. During this time some of its programmed features may differ temporarily. This is a perfectly normal process and must be accepted during that time. During this time the controller will adjust to the current condition and charge status of the batteries. It is therefore recommended that all batteries are 100% fully charged before connection using an appropriate battery charger. This may significantly reduce the evaluation mode time of 7+7 days to much less. The solar panel(s) should be connected to the MPPT charge controller first, followed by the fully charged batteries.
Easy to install.
All connections are simple plug & play.
The mounting bracket has pre-drilled holes to allow fixing using screws or bolts (not included).
This mini spotlight comes complete with a ground spike (for optional use).
Mount the solar panel facing south, away from shade or other obstructions.
Ideal solar panel installation angle is 15 degrees + installation latitude.
Please Note: This product is a special order and is non-returnable except in the event of a fault (during its warranty period) when the product, once returned will be repaired or replaced.
The solar panel must be installed in a location where it can receive full direct sunshine (when available) and set facing South at about a 45-60 degree angle (where adjustment options allow). The solar panel must not be installed in a shaded or part shaded location and never indoors. The standard specifications of the system (particularly the solar panel Wattage and battery capacity) may need to be adjusted. These components are determined by your geographic location, power consumption (LED Wattage) and the total amount of hours of illumination time required. Such changes to the standard specifications may increase or decrease the cost shown. Please contact us for more information or assistance. The illumination time is estimated and subject to various factors including (but not limited to) geographic location, seasons, temperature, weather conditions & location of product etc. The illumination time of most solar lights can reduce during winter months when the weather is poor and the days are shorter. During this time insolation hours decrease accordingly. Shorter illumination time due to one or more of the above factors does not define the product as being 'defective' or 'not as described'. All solar lights must be used in a completely dark location at night time otherwise they may not illuminate. Nearby strong lighting sources or ambient lighting may affect the operation of a solar light. This does not define the product as being 'defective' or 'not as described'. Please note, if you do not install or use this product for several months the battery may discharge naturally on its own. By allowing a battery to deep discharge it may cause irreversible damage as the battery may then lose the ability to recharge or hold a full charge. Although unlikely, we reserve the right to supply this product with any minor alterations or minor changes to the specifications (shown above by text description or by photographs) due to different supplies or product batches received, incorporating such product changes made by the manufacturer, without further notice. Descriptions, specifications and photographs are updated regularly but may not be current when minor changes to a product have only recently been made.
* View our Terms, Conditions and Polices (including our Returns Policy) for further information.
Solar Lights Data | |
Price | From £299.99. |
Lumen Output | 300 Lumens. |
Equivalent Incandescent Wattage | Approx. 50 Watts. |
Approximate Illumination Time | Typically dusk to dawn for most of the year, up to 8 hours in the winter. |
Approximate Illumination Area | Up to 3m x 3m. |
Solar Panel Wattage | From 20 Watts. |
Battery Included | Yes. |
Programable Controller | Yes. |


text:
Dr. Grumpy: "Let's go out in the hallway, and let me watch you walk."
Mr. Ataxic goes out in the hallway, and I follow him. Stepping out from behind my desk, I discover (too late) that my shoelace is caught in one of the chair's rollers. As I walk the chair comes with me. I lose my balance and fall, just barely missing Ed. Then the whole chair crashes down on top of me. As the chair flies up it pulls my shoe off and sends it flying under the desk.
Mr. Ataxic: "Yeah, doc, kind of like that, but not as spectacular. Holy shit, are you okay?"