Senin, 04 April 2011

Fiorentina - The Most Profitable Club in Serie A


Over the years, there have been many reasons for football fans to admire Fiorentina, not least the myriad midfield talents of such creative stars as Giancarlo Antognoni, Roberto Baggio and Manuel Rui Costa and the goalscoring prowess of the prolific Gabriel Batistuta. Others have been attracted to the romance of following a club from Florence, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, while fashion gurus have simply appreciated the distinctive purple of the team’s shirts, which inspired the club’s Viola nickname.

Whatever the supporters’ motives, the current season has so far not been one to remember, especially the disastrous start that left Fiorentina rock bottom of Serie A after seven games with just five points. Since those dark days, there has been a recovery of sorts and a run of 14 games with only one defeat means that the team has climbed into the top half of the table.

This should be the least of the Viola’s aspirations, as they managed to retain most of their key players last summer, despite overtures from many “larger” teams for their stars, like their Italian internationals, playmaker Riccardo Montolivo (Juventus) and striker Alberto Gilardino (Napoli), Peruvian winger Juan Manuel Vargas (Real Madrid) and veteran French Goalkeeper Sebastien Frey (Arsenal).

"Juan Manuel Vargas - El Loco"

In fairness, they have suffered from a lengthy injury list, including (among others) the exciting young Monetenegrin forward Stevan Jovetic, summer signings Gaetano D’Agostino and Felipe, the wonderful Montolivo and the penetrative Vargas. Recently, the curse also struck Valon Behrami just weeks after the Swiss midfielder was acquired from West Ham in the January transfer window.

Added to that was the long-term absence of Adrian Mutu, due to a nine-month ban under Italy’s anti-doping laws for taking an appetite suppressant. Although the Romanian’s appetite for (self) destruction apparently knows no bounds, Fiorentina have badly missed his goals, leaving them over-reliant on Gilardino.

However, perhaps the main reason for Fiorentina’s shaky start to the season was the departure of their widely admired, long-serving coach, Cesare Prandelli, to take charge of the Italian national team. He was replaced by Sinisa Mihajlovic, who has vast experience of Italy as a player, but relatively little as a coach, though he did pull off a minor miracle last season when he steered Catania to safety from relegation. Nevertheless, Prandelli was always going to be a hard act to follow, especially for such a young coach.

"Alberto Gilardino - scoring machine"

In the midst of all this upheaval, one fact has almost gone unnoticed, namely that Fiorentina are currently the most profitable club in Serie A, based on a survey published by La Gazzetta dello Sport a couple of weeks ago. This achievement is all the more remarkable, given the club’s recent turbulent financial history, which included Fiorentina falling into administration in 2002. This followed a period of serious mismanagement by the club’s owner, Vittorio Cecchi Gori, who had taken over from his father, Mario Cecchi Gori, in 1993, after the death of the famous film producer.

Mario was much loved by the Fiorentina tifosi, but his son was a different kettle of fish. He angered the fans by sacking the successful coach Gigi Radice, after the latter made some off-colour remarks about the owner’s actress wife, replacing him with Aldo Agroppi, whose short-lived reign turned out to be a complete disaster, culminating in the club’s relegation to Serie B. At this point, the scale of Fiorentina’s financial problems became all too clear, following years of lavish spending on transfers and salaries, which resulted in massive debts and the club failing to pay its players.

"Della Valle waves goodbye to the presidency"

As a result of the financial collapse, the football authorities relegated Fiorentina two more divisions to Serie C2, the fourth tier of Italian football, and even stripped the club of its name, so that the new club was called Florentia Viola. All of the team’s players were allowed to leave on free transfers, including stars like Enrico Chiesa and Nuno Gomes, an option that most of them understandably took with only Angelo Di Livio, the tireless midfielder, staying loyal to the club in the lower leagues.

Fiorentina were effectively saved from extinction in 2002 by the Della Valle family, whose wealth comes from the shoe and leather industry, with Diego becoming owner and president and his brother Andrea handling the day-to-day running of the club. Having steadied the ship, the Della Valle brothers guided the new Fiorentina back to Serie A in just two years, albeit with a little good fortune.

The Viola won Serie C2 at their first attempt, securing promotion to Serie C1, but were immediately handed a place in Serie B for “sporting merits”, following that division’s expansion from 20 to 24 teams. This has never really been fully explained, but it is true that Fiorentina have spent almost their entire history in the top tier, twice winning the scudetto (1955/56 and 1968/69) and the Coppa Italia on six occasions. That year, the Della Valles further enamoured themselves to the fans when they bought back the right to use the club’s traditional name and shirt colours for €2.5 million.

"Prandelli - see you in the national team"

Remarkably, the team gained promotion the very next season, though they had to do it the hard way, winning a play-off 2-1 against Perugia after finishing sixth in Serie B. So, now they were back where they belonged – and this time they were debt-free. Having consolidated their position among Italy’s leading clubs, they made two important signings off the pitch in the summer of 2005, recruiting Cesare Prandelli as coach and Pantaleo Corvino as sporting director.

The team flourished with powerful centre-forward Luca Toni scoring a remarkable 31 goals in 34 appearances to help take them to an unexpected fourth place, which was enough to qualify them for the Champions League. Except it wasn’t, as Fiorentina were subsequently implicated in the Calciopoli scandal of 2006, after police uncovered a series of telephone interceptions that showed a number of major teams (also including Juventus, Milan, Lazio and Reggina) attempting to rig results by selecting referees that would be favourable to them.

Fiorentina were initially relegated to Serie B (here we go again) with a 12 point deduction, but on appeal were reinstated to Serie A with a 19 point deduction, which was finally lowered to a 15 point penalty. Even so, it looked for all the world as if Fiorentina would struggle to avoid relegation the following season, but, as always, the Viola proved to be unpredictable and surged to sixth place, thus qualifying for the UEFA Cup.

There then followed a purple patch (if you’ll excuse the pun) in Fiorentina’s fable, as they reached the semi-finals of the UEFA Cup, before being unluckily eliminated by Rangers on penalties, and then qualified for the Champions League after many years absence by finishing fourth in 2007/08, a feat they repeated the following season.

"Melo - strengthens the midfield and balance sheet"

The foray into the 2008/09 Champions League was unspectacular, as they finished third in the group stage, but the following season’s campaign really caught the fans’ imagination, as they finished top of a strong group, memorably defeating Liverpool home and away, before crashing out to eventual finalists Bayern Munich on away goals – one of which was palpably offside.

Since then, the spirits have been dampened somewhat, as the strong management structure has suffered a few blows. First, Andrea Della Valle decided to stand down from his role as president in October 2009, as he began to come under fire for his stewardship, partly for failing to reinvest the money received from the sales of Felipe Melo to Juventus and Giampaolo Pazzini to Sampdoria.

Although he reiterated his love for the club and indeed remains the majority shareholder, in an open letter to fans he lamented that the “climate” in Florence had changed dramatically since the takeover in 2002, citing a lack of faith in the family’s “project”, though this was also a reference to the perceived lukewarm support of the local council for a new stadium.

Although the team did well in Europe, the 2009/10 season finished on a low note for Fiorentina, as they only came 11th in the league, thus failing to qualify for Europe for the first time in four seasons. The pain was exacerbated when Prandelli left to coach the national team, leaving only Corvino from the managerial triumvirate that had been so successful.

That said, they have been doing well off the pitch, so much so that last season they made more money than any other club in Serie A, though a couple of points need to be emphasised before people get too excited. First, the profit after tax was still fairly low at just €4.4 million; second, only four teams actually recorded a profit, the others being Catania €2.5 million, Livorno €1.8 million and Napoli €0.3 million, while the other 16 clubs all made losses.

The reality is that Italian football continues to be in a financial mess with clubs living well above their means, as they have been hit by falling crowds, accusations of corruption and occasional violence and racism, so being the most profitable club in Serie A is only really equivalent to being the tallest man in Lilliput. Despite the ever increasing revenue, largely driven by television money, which for the first time last season surpassed €1.7 billion, the combined losses of the 20 teams in Serie A amounted to €193.5 million and would have been even higher without the hefty €381.5 million profits on player sales, including the exceptional transfers of Ibrahimovic and Kaka to Spain.

Although it is true that Serie A losses have improved since the peak deficit of €536 million in 2002/03, last year’s figures are still nothing to write home about. In fact, the average loss over the last three seasons is almost exactly €200 million, which is nowhere near sustainable, especially in the era of UEFA Financial Fair Play. Reform is urgently needed, particularly in relation to the stadia, if Italian football is not to lose further ground financially against the other leading European leagues, though the return to collective selling of TV rights from this season is a step in the right direction.

Nevertheless, Fiorentina clearly deserve some praise for their efforts, especially as much of the improvement in their financial circumstances can be attributed to success on the pitch. In fact, Fiorentina’s revenue of €106.4 million is now the fifth highest in Italy, though it’s a fair way behind the traditional big four clubs.

The northern giants all generate more than twice as much revenue, mainly due to their very high individual television deals, though commercial income also plays a part, with Milan leading the way with €253.6 million, followed by their local rivals Inter €250.6 million and Juventus €226.6 million. On the other hand, Fiorentina’s revenue is in turn more than twice as much as competitors like Sampdoria, Udinese and Parma.

This has left Fiorentina just outside the top 20 of the Deloitte Money League, which ranks clubs in order of revenue, so they now sit happily in 21st position, a rise of five places over the previous season, ahead of clubs like Borussia Dortmund, Bordeaux, Sevilla, Valencia and Benfica. This is pretty good by most standards, but the league table also reveals the significant monetary advantage enjoyed by the leading teams with Real Madrid and Barcelona earning four times more income than a club like Fiorentina. To place the Viola’s recent achievements into context, when they narrowly lost to Bayern Munich in the Champions League last season, they were facing a team whose annual budget is three times as high.

Those of you that are particularly eagle-eyed will have noticed that the revenue figures used in the Deloitte Money League are lower than those used in the analysis reported by La Gazzetta. The reason for this discrepancy is that Italian accounts report gross revenue, while Deloitte only show the net income. In order to be consistent with other countries, I have adopted the Deloitte approach in my analysis, so have excluded the following: (a) gate receipts given to visiting clubs €1.7 million; (b) TV income given to visiting clubs €7.0 million. Subtracting this €8.7 million from the €106.4 million reported in Italy gives the €97.7 million in my analysis.

Hang on a minute – isn’t the figure that Deloitte uses for their report also €106 million? Well, yes, but this is simply a coincidence, as this is due to yet another complication, namely that Fiorentina’s accounts are based on a calendar year, unlike the vast majority of Italian clubs that close their books on 30 June to be in line with the football season. The adjustments made by Deloitte for this timing anomaly are enough to bring the revenue back up to €106 million. In any case, the themes and issues are very much the same, whichever revenue figure you take.

Last year’s profit was the first in the Della Valle era. Since they took over in 2002, the club’s accumulated losses had amounted to €62 million with the auditors noting that the deficit had to be covered each year by the owners. Still, any profit made by a football club is not to be sniffed at, so Fiorentina’s performance is not too shabby: €10.1 million profit before tax, falling to a net €4.4 million after tax.

However, this was a year when everything went well for Fiorentina from a financial perspective, so these results could be considered a best case scenario, as they benefited from two factors which are unlikely to repeat every year, namely Champions League revenue (€27 million) and very high profits from selling players (€28 million). Without these exceptional items, there is a €50 million hole in the accounts that needs to be covered by other means.

"Adrian Mutu - never a dull moment"

In other respects, last season’s profit and loss account is broadly similar to the previous year with revenue rising by €1 million, wages by €2 million, amortisation by €2 million and other expenses by €3 million. Indeed, if profit on player sales had been at the same level, the loss would actually have increased from €9 million to €14 million.

The largest loss in recent years of €19.5 million came in 2006, due to the special circumstances around Calciopoli, as bonuses agreed for reaching the Champions League still had to be paid, even though the football authorities rescinded the qualification. However, that was also a year when the club made a small loss from player transfers, which is a recurring theme for Fiorentina. In other words, when the club makes good money from selling players, this results in a profit (2009), if also accompanied by Champions League qualification, or a small loss (2007). In other years, when the books are not balanced by selling the family silver, the losses are larger.

In 2009, the net profit on sale was €27.6 million, which was made up of profitable sales (plusvalenze) of €33.6 million less loss-making sales (minusvalenze) of €6.1 million. On the plus side, there were three major sales: Melo to Juventus for €25 million (profit €17.7 million after deducting the net book value), Pazzini to Sampdoria for €9 million (profit 7.1 million) and Kuzmanovic to Stuttgart for €7.5 million (profit €5.7 million).

"Adem Ljajic - every man to his post"

Against that, the club made a loss of €3.3 million when they sold Manuel Da Costa to West Ham. The last big loss that Fiorentina made on layer trading was when they cancelled Japanese international Hidetoshi Nakata’s contract in 2006, which cost them €1.4 million. More happily, the club made good money the following year when they sold Toni to Bayern Munich €6.3 million, Reginaldo to Parma €3.8 million and Bojinov to Manchester City €2.1 million.

Clearly, Fiorentina are not the only club whose financial performance is heavily dependent on the vagaries of the transfer market, e.g. Palermo went from an €18 million profit in 2008/09 to a €17 million loss in 2009/10, almost entirely due to the profit on player sales falling from €50 million to just €1 million.

The other point worth noting, especially to those fans who are eager to see their club spend the money received from selling players, is that clubs rarely receive all of the cash upfront, especially in Italy where stage payments are the norm. For example, the €25 million fee for Melo was scheduled to be paid in three equal tranches of €8.5 million in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12.

In terms of their recurring business model, Fiorentina are much the same as other Italian clubs, earning the lion’s share (around two thirds) of their revenue from broadcasting with only 13% coming from gate receipts. In fact, due to their relatively low commercial income of around €20 million compared to the leading Italian clubs (Milan €63 million, Juventus €56 million, Inter €48 million and Roma €38 million), the reliance on TV money is even more pronounced.

Indeed, the Deloitte report lists Fiorentina as being the 13th highest club in Europe in terms of TV revenue with €69.7 million, which may surprise a few people, though this does include €22.4 million of money from UEFA’s Champions League distribution. Their domestic deal has quadrupled in value in the last five years from the €12 million in 2004 (in Serie B) to the €45 million earned last season. That’s impressive, but it’s still a long way short of the €90-100 million deals negotiated by Juventus, Inter and Milan.

That level of inequality makes it very difficult for other clubs to mount a realistic title challenge, which explains why Diego Da Valle was at the forefront of the campaign to change the system of clubs negotiating deals on an individual basis. He brought together a group of similarly unhappy club presidents, warning, “If Juve, Milan and Inter want to make a farce of Serie A, we can also play that game. We can send out boys' teams. We can make a nonsense of Italian football.”

That has helped bring about the replacement of this structure by a return to a centralised collective deal from the start of the current season. The total money guaranteed by exclusive media rights partner Infront Sports will be approximately 20% higher than before at over €1 billion a year, but it is still unclear what the impact will be on individual clubs’ revenue.

There is a complicated distribution formula, which will still favour the bigger clubs, though there is likely to be a reduction at the top end. Under the new regulations, 40% will be divided equally among the 20 Serie A clubs; 30% is based on number of fans (25%) and the population of the club’s city (5%); and 30% is based on past results (5% last season, 15% last 5 years, 10% from 1946 to the sixth season before last).

Fiorentina themselves have stated that there is “uncertainty” over how much they will receive, noting that this has caused them “considerable difficulty” in preparing their business plan, as there could be an “enormous impact” on their accounts. They are at pains to pointing out that they are one of the teams with the highest viewing figures on Sky, only behind the two Milan teams, the two Roman teams, Napoli and Juventus.

As we mentioned earlier, Champions League revenue has been vital to the club’s revenue growth, which can be very clearly seen in the above graph. Last year, this amounted to 28% of the club’s total revenue, largely due to the TV money €22 million, but also included gate receipts €3 million and sponsorship premiums €2 million. As the club’s own accounts say, participation in the Champions League is “important economically”. You can say that again. Next year’s turnover will be badly hurt by the absence from Europe’s premier competition, as almost all the money earned for the 2009/10 campaign has been booked in the 2009 accounts (including an estimate of the TV market pool).

It’s also worth noting that while the Europa League would help bridge the gap, it is nowhere near as lucrative as the Champions League. As an example, last season’s three Italian representatives (Roma, Lazio and Genoa) only earned around €2 million apiece compared to the average €29 million for the four teams in the Champions (Inter, Milan, Juventus and Fiorentina).

Like all Italian clubs, Fiorentina have struggled to grow match day revenue, which stands at only €12.8 million (net of €1.7 million given to away teams). In fact, the gross revenue actually dropped €2.3 million in 2009 from €16.8 million to €14.5 million, though there were valid reasons for the decrease: (a) the number of European home matches fell from 8 to 5; (b) more games against the top teams were played in the second half of the 2009/10 season; (c) more stringent restrictions to stadium access.

The average attendance fell from 31,509 to 27,248, though this is still the sixth highest crowd in Italy, behind Inter, Milan, Roma, Napoli and Lazio. Given the size of Florence compared to the metropolitan centres, this is really not too bad. In fact, Fiorentina’s gate receipts are not too far behind Juventus €17 million and Roma €19 million, though Inter and Milan are much higher with €39 million and €31 million respectively.

However, there is no doubt that Italian clubs need to find a way to improve their match day revenue, reducing their reliance on TV income, if they want to keep pace with their European peers. As an example, Real Madrid’s annual match day income of €129 million is almost exactly ten times as much as Fiorentina, while English clubs also earn considerably more, e.g. Manchester United €122 million and Arsenal €115 million.

Fiorentina have adopted a couple of new initiatives like building more “sky boxes”, launching family promotions and implementing a new ticketing system in partnership with TicketOne, but they really need a new stadium to make a step change to their revenue (and indeed their whole business model).

"Stadio Artemio Franchi with its tower of power"

The club has been playing at the Stadio Artemio Franchi since 1931, so there is a lot of history associated with the current stadium, which has a capacity of 47,282. However, built entirely from reinforced concrete, it is now outdated for modern football, even though it has been renovated on a number of occasions, including the 1990 World Cup when the running track was removed.

The need for a more “productive” stadium is why the owners launched the “Cittadella Viola” project in the Castello neighbourhood of Florence, including a new stadium, training centre, offices and retail outlets. Fiorentina described this as “a strategic priority and indispensable for the club’s development.” However, an announcement by Andrea Della Valle last October seemed to mark the end of the dream, due to lack of progress with the local authorities, “We’ve been fighting for the Cittadella since we first arrived, and we can’t anymore. My brother and I are tired and the city and the region just won’t accept our demands.” Never say never, but the club may have to look for alternative methods of increasing their revenue.

There is certainly scope for increasing the club’s commercial revenue, which actually slightly decreased in 2009 to €17.7 million. A new shirt sponsorship deal was signed with Mazda in January for almost €4 million a season, running for two and a half years until the end of season 2012/13. This effectively replaced the last paying sponsorship from another Japanese car manufacturer, Toyota, though in between Fiorentina had arranged a deal with the Save The Children charity along the same lines as Barcelona’s relationship with Unicef.

Despite the increase in revenue, other leading Italian clubs earn a fair bit more from shirt sponsorship: Milan – Emirates €12 million, Inter – Pirelli €9 million, Juventus – Betclic €8 million and Roma – Wind €7 million. They also receive higher sums from their kit suppliers than Fiorentina’s undisclosed agreement with Lotto Sports (Inter – Nike €18 million, Milan – Adidas €13 million, Juventus – Nike €12 million and Roma – Kappa €5 million). Although Fiorentina’s commercial revenue has been boosted in the last three years by premiums from their sponsors for qualifying for Europe (averaging €1.7 million), this is still a drop in the ocean.

As with every single football club, Fiorentina’s highest cost is the wage bill, which stands at €65.5 million. This has doubled since the return to Serie A (€32.4 million in 2005), though only increased by 3% last year. In fact, the important wages to turnover ratio is not too bad at 67% and has been maintained at this level for the last three years. According to La Gazzetta, many other clubs have much higher (worse) wages to turnover ratios, e.g. Bologna 94%, Inter 93%, Bari 88%, Sampdoria 85%.

This is evidence of tight management control and Andrea Della Valle has spoken in the past of an unofficial salary cap. Although he has said that this could be broken for a “special” player, rumour has it that this prevented the club from signing Alberto Aquilani from Liverpool last summer. Furthermore, Della Valle might even be looking to further cut the wage bill, as he warned that “the strategy of increasing costs to maintain a large squad to cope with participating in three competitions would not be repeated in future seasons.”

That said, Fiorentina’s wage budget of €65 million is the fifth highest in Italy, though none of its players are enormously paid (by today’s standards) with the highest earners being Frey, Mutu and Gilardino who are apparently all on around €2 million a year. However, this is still absolutely miles behind the “big boys”: Inter €234 million, Milan €172 million, Juventus €138 million and Roma €101 million.

Of course, a club’s total wage bill does not just comprise players’ salaries, though this was the largest element of Fiorentina’s 2009 costs at €40 million. In addition, there were €7 million for salaries of technical staff and €12 million bonuses, which were unusually high, due to the Viola’s European success. Interestingly, the accounts specifically note that part of the transfer funds received was allocated to cover higher salaries.

The other major player cost, namely amortisation, is again indicative of firm cost control. After a large jump in the first two years back in the top tier from €10 million to €24 million, it has risen very little in the last four years and now stands at €29 million in 2009. Again, this is on the low side compared to the Milan giants (Inter €65 million, Milan €41 million), but is around the same level as the other leading clubs (Juventus €34 million, Roma €24 million).

For the uninitiated, I should explain that amortisation is the annual cost of writing-down a player’s purchase price. For example, Alberto Gilardino was signed for €15.75 million on a five-year contract, but his transfer is only reflected in the profit and loss account via amortisation, which is booked evenly over the life of his contract, i.e. €3.15 million a year (€15.75 million divided by five years). Thus, the total cost of player purchases is not immediately reflected in the expenses, but increased transfer spend will ultimately result in higher amortisation.

Therefore, the fact that amortisation has not increased by much would imply that Fiorentina have not spent big in the transfer market and that is indeed the case, at least until recently, when there have been a few signs of higher expenditure, such as the relatively large money laid out on young forwards Adem Ljajic (€5.5 million) and Haris Seferovic (€2.1 million) . Following the club’s financial difficulties early in the millennium, Fiorentina were a selling club out of necssity, making good money on Rui Costa and Francesco Toldo, but splashed €93 million of cash in the three years after their promotion under the guidance of transfer guru Pantaleo Corvino. However, since then, the brakes have come on with net spend of only €34 million in the last four years.

This is one reason why the club’s debt position is so admirable. In fact, they have been debt-free for the last few years with net funds available rising from €5 million to €17 million last season. The Viola are much more stable financially than Milan or Inter, who have large bank debts of €164 million and €71 million respectively, which represents two thirds of the Serie A total of €352 million.

Of course, in Italy, you also have to look at the liabilities to other football clubs, as delayed payments on transfer fees are often used as a financing mechanism, but even here Fiorentina look pretty good. After many years of having net transfer fees payable (e.g. €26 million in 2008), they are now owed a net €2 million by other clubs.

As a matter of fact, Fiorentina have the strongest balance sheet in the whole of Serie A with net assets of €93 million, just ahead of Juventus, though it should be acknowledged that this is partly due to the owners’ support, as they have injected around €150 million of capital since the takeover in 2002, including €10 million in 2009 and €20 million in each of the previous two seasons.

Actually, most Italian clubs have made efforts to clean up their balance sheets with only four clubs (Milan, Bari, Roma and Inter) reporting net liabilities. Even though gross liabilities in Serie A amount to more than €2 billion, much of this is owed to others within the world of football through outstanding payments on transfer fees, while a lot is just incurred in the normal course of business, e.g. trade creditors, accruals, provisions, etc.

Fiorentina’s net assets would be even higher if a real value were to be applied to their players, who are shown at a net book value of €75 million in the accounts, but are worth considerably more on the transfer market – estimated at €181 million by Transfermarkt. Those players that have been developed by the club’s own academy actually have no value in the books, which is one reason why Fiorentina have devoted a fair amount of resource to improving their youth system. This is now beginning to pay dividends with the emergence of the likes of Michele Camporese and Federico Carraro, as shown by last week’s victory in the Primavera Coppa Italia, when they defeated Roma in the final.

Fiorentina are rightly proud of their financial results, which they say could lead to a genuinely self-sustaining club that is in line with the new UEFA Financial Fair Play rules, but the reality is that they still require the backing of their owners. A few years ago, Diego Della Valle explained this very simply, “We make money at Tod's (their business). In Fiorentina we lose money. It's our family's Sunday hobby.” In fact, his brother has said that the family would be willing to sell, if investors could be found that had Fiorentina’s best interests at heart and had the financial resources to take the club to the next level.

"Stevan Jovetic - the next big thing?"

So where does that leave us? At the minute, Fiorentina are indubitably the most profitable club in Serie A, but without the benefit of Champions League qualification and/or significant player sales, it is unlikely that they will retain this title for long. Although their fans will not want to hear it, that might mean selling one of the Viola’s prize assets like Jovetic, who was reportedly the subject of a €30 million bid last summer and interests the likes of the two Manchester clubs and Barcelona. Of course, that would almost certainly damage the club’s prospects of getting back into the Champions League, so it’s the usual dilemma: profits or performance?

That’s a difficult question to answer, as it’s almost impossible to have both, so maybe we should just congratulate Fiorentina on their successful rebirth, which somehow feels entirely appropriate for a team coming from a city famed for its Renaissance period.

Rabu, 23 Maret 2011

All Change At Leicester City


Leicester City’s home defeat against Portsmouth on Saturday might not have definitively ended their hopes of securing a Championship play-off place, but it has certainly put another nail in the coffin. The recruitment of Sven-Göran Eriksson initially looked like a masterstroke, as the Swede inspired a dramatic improvement in the team’s fortunes, including a run of seven wins and one draw after the turn of the year, but Leicester’s surge up the table has virtually ground to a halt in March. However, few leagues are more competitive than the Championship and while there’s life, there’s hope, particularly as the Foxes are still only five points away from featuring in the end-of-season play-offs.

Although Sven’s reputation has been somewhat tarnished in recent times, not least by the miserable experience as director of football at Notts County, the recruitment of a manager with such international pedigree (Benfica, Lazio, Manchester City among others) still represents something of a coup for the East Midlands club. The Swede’s reputation has helped tempt a number of familiar faces into joining Leicester’s promotion challenge, including former England international Darius Vassell and a veritable army of other players on loan, including Nigerian powerhouse Yakubu.

Of course, such an influx of new players can be a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it can improve the quality of the squad, but on the other hand too many changes are difficult to quickly absorb. Despite the fact that every politician now routinely places change at the forefront of his manifesto, it’s not that easy to put into practice, which might help explain Leicester’s current struggles.

"Yak attack"

At least the funding for the new players is an impressive show of commitment from the club’s new Thai owners, Vichai Raksriaksorn and his 25-year-old son Aiyawatt, known as Top, who lead the consortium that bought the club from Milan Mandaric last August. Vichai is estimated to be worth around £115 million, which apparently ranks him 27th on the Forbes list of the richest men in Thailand, but it is Aiyawatt who runs the club on a day-to-day basis. The source of the family’s wealth is the King Power duty free business, which has the monopoly on retail business at Bangkok Airport and signed a three-year shirt sponsorship deal with Leicester just a week before the takeover.

So far, so good, but many fans were uncomfortable with the lack of transparency around the deal, including minor details like how much money the club had been sold for, who exactly had bought the club and what had happened to the club’s debts. In fairness, many of the questions have now been answered with the accounts revealing that 100% of the club was sold to Asia Football Investments including the assignment of all shareholder loans, with the ultimate owner being Vichai through his company K Power Sports Limited (based in the British Virgin Isles). Moreover, the Football League finally ratified the change in ownership in October under their new (presumably more stringent) regulations.

However, the new owners’ objectives are still not crystal clear, at least to this observer. Indeed, in November, Leicester City revealed that there was, in fact, a second major shareholder, namely Cronus Sports Management, owned by Iman Arif, an Indonesian businessman who is prominent in the Asian mining industry and is also a member of the Indonesian Football Federation, which now has 20% of the club’s shares. The remaining 80% stake remains with Asia Football Investments. Of course, the amended ownership structure does not imply any Machiavellian manoeuvres, but it might encourage the detractors to raise a quizzical eyebrow. At least Leicester’s chief executive, Lee Hoos, is a believer, describing the new owners as “the real deal”, and, to be fair, they have certainly put their money where their mouth is to date.

"Meet the new bosses"

Doubts about the motives of the new investors may seem overly cynical, but when it comes to football clubs, the motto is surely, “once bitten, twice shy.” In particular, Leicester City fans don’t have to look too far for empty promises, as Milan Mandaric promised to “take the Foxes back to top flight football” when he came to the club in February 2007, but instead presided over Leicester’s first ever season in the third tier of English football, when they were relegated to League One in 2007/08.

Although Mandaric is clearly a very charismatic individual with an ability to inspire supporters with his ambition and visions of success, his achievements have not always matched up to the fine rhetoric. He often spoke of bringing financial stability to Leicester City, overlooking the inconvenient fact that the club recorded large losses in every single year of his tenure, while spending all of the turnover and more on the wage bill. To his credit, he personally covered Leicester’s funding and has underwritten the club’s losses, but it is difficult to get the specifics on exactly how much money he put into the club.

Certainly, when Mandaric first approached Leicester, his bid was deemed unsatisfactory by several shareholders with one claiming that it did not have “a hope in hell” of succeeding. The highly regarded David Conn of the Guardian suggested that he paid no more than £600,000 for his shares, though he pledged to invest a further £9 million into the club. Importantly, however, he did guarantee debts of around £20 million, including £17 million owed to the US finance company Teachers for the financing of the construction of the Walkers Stadium.

"Put your hands up for Milan"

The man himself said that he “will have failed”, if Leicester were not “in the Premiership in three years”, but being criticised for missing that optimistic target is perhaps a trifle harsh. It is however entirely reasonable to challenge his assertion that “when I leave, the club will be in far better shape than it is now.” Here, the report card is fairly damning: the club is still mid-table in the Championship, while the losses and debts have grown.

Chief executive Lee Hoos begs to differ, arguing that Mandaric should primarily be applauded for bringing new investors to the table. With its undertones of Macbeth, “Nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it”, this is faint praise indeed and raises the awful spectre of Mandaric’s departure from Portsmouth, where the new owners did not exactly work out too well for the south coast club.

At least the auditors have given Leicester’s accounts a clean bill of health for the last two years, which was not the case in 2007/08, when they included the dreaded “Emphasis of Matter” statement, ominously warning, “The financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis and the validity of this depends on the directors being able to obtain additional funds from the ultimate controlling party to enable the company to continue in business.” To put it simply, there was a risk that Leicester City would go bust, unless the owners stumped up the cash, so Mandaric’s commitment to “stand by the club” was important for its survival.

"No Turkish delight for Darius Vassell"

Long-suffering Foxes fans are no strangers to seeing their club hit financial difficulties, as the club entered administration in October 2002 following relegation from the Premier League, when they were hit by a perfect storm of debts arising from the construction of a new stadium, the collapse of ITV Digital and a high wage bill. The club only escaped from insolvency four months later when ex-player Gary Lineker and a group of local businessmen bought them for £5 million, but creditors received just 10p in the pound, including HM Revenue and Customs, who had to write-off more than £6 million of the outstanding tax bill.

Leicester’s cause has not been helped by the managerial merry-go-round taking place at the Walkers Stadium, despite the 2005 accounts stating, “The appointment of a manager is arguably the most important decision a football can make.” If that were indeed the case, you’d think that they would take a little more care when making such decisions. Incredibly, Eriksson is the fifteenth manager Leicester have had since 2004, though I may have lost count, and is the ninth appointment since Mandaric took the reins. Maybe the board thinks that practice makes perfect, but that has not prevented them appointing some real duds, such as Gary Megson (9 games) and Martin Allen (4 games).

The last two departures beggar belief. Nigel Pearson, the best manager Leicester have had since Martin O’Neill, guided the team back to the Championship and nearly got them promoted to the Premier League the very next season, but his reward for these magnificent efforts was to be effectively forced out of the club. His replacement, Paulo Sousa was sacked after just nine games in charge, the day after Mandaric insisted that his manager should be given more time. Richard Bevan, the chief executive of the League Managers’ Association, complained, “How can a chairman expect to deliver success at a football club when a talented manager is recruited and dismissed within two months?”

"Making plans for Nigel"

Apart from the unnecessary cost of paying compensation for all these managerial ch-ch-ch-ch-changes (© David Bowie), there is the additional expense of continually having to bring in new players that suit the incoming manager’s tactics, while the consequent lack of stability is hardly conducive to success on the pitch. It takes time to transform a team’s playing style, but Leicester have not been willing to grant their managers that luxury.

It’s not so long ago since Leicester enjoyed some success. After being promoted to the Premier League in 1996 under O’Neill, they finished in the top ten four years in succession and also won the League Cup twice, which meant qualification for Europe. However, things have gone downhill since the departure of the man from Northern Ireland. Peter Taylor’s ill-fated reign is remembered for some truly abysmal transfer purchases, including the dreadful striking partnership of Ade Akinbiyi (£5.5 million) and Trevor Benjamin (£1 million).

After the club was duly relegated in 2002, Micky Adams somehow managed to get the Foxes straight back up, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, as the club did not have the means to survive at the highest level, so they only lasted a solitary season before immediately dropping back down to the Championship in 2004.

"Andy King - Prince of Wales"

Thus, Leicester have been excluded from the riches of the Premier League for seven seasons, though it was a case of “so near, so far” last year, as they finished fifth in the Championship and only lost on penalties to Cardiff in the play-off semi-final. Having got so close, most people must have thought that this would have been the perfect time to build on the season’s efforts. Instead, Mandaric opted to drive Pearson away, before recruiting a completely different manager, Sousa, who decided that he would replace many of the stars with untried foreign players with predictably bad results, bringing us neatly to Sven’s turn to throw the dice.

Despite the fact that so many of the club’s actions are seemingly designed to undermine the team’s performance, the stated objective is still promotion to the Premier League. Last year, this was expressed in a more balanced fashion: “Returning the club to a position of financial and operational stability matched by a sustainable football model that will in turn springboard the club to Premiership status.”

Since then, the strategy would appear to have been modified in favour of gambling on attaining that elusive position in the Premier League, because “retaining a strong football squad to fight for a promotion place limited the amount of sensible cost reduction we could enforce.” Translation: we’re going to over-spend on wages in the hope that the (theoretically) better players will drag us over the finishing line. This has been exacerbated by the flood of loan players, though, to be fair, Leicester are far from alone in pursuing such a policy, as the size of the prize is so vast. It also paid off a couple of years ago when the club bounced back from League One, assisted by a relatively high wage bill (for that division).

Although Mandaric said that his aim was “to return Leicester City to a self-sustaining business”, the harsh reality is that the club’s current business model is almost certain to produce losses, unless they: (a) manage to sell a player for serious money; or (b) gain promotion to the Premier League. The last time that the club made a profit (£1.7 million) was in 2005/06, when its revenue was boosted by the final parachute payment of £6.5 million following relegation from the Premiership.

Since then, Leicester’s total losses for the last four years add up to a frightening £33 million, including the club’s record deficit of £14.2 million in 2007/08, though this was impacted by £4 million of exceptional charges (£3 million for goodwill impairment following the acquisition of the club in 2003 and £1 million for management restructuring).

Last year’s loss of £7.5 million was £1.3 million higher than the previous year, even though the revenue rose nearly 50% from £10.9 million to £16.2 million, as wages increased by £3.3 million to £14.5 million and the profit on player sales fell £2.5 million to £1.4 million. Once again, chief executive Lee Hoos re-iterated the strategy, “Coming on the back of a promotion-winning season in 2008/09, these figures reflect our attempts to capitalise on the momentum generated by our immediate return to the Championship.”

"Richie Wellens shows his battling spirit"

New vice-chairman Aiyawatt Raksriaksorn hinted at a new ethos, “Of course, we don’t want to write off losses every year. We will try to make it break even first. That is the target. Then we will look to make a profit.” Sounds good, but the chances are that the losses will get worse before they get better, as the club spends the additional funding provided by the Thais on bringing in new players, further driving up the wage bill.

To be fair to Leicester (and other clubs of their ilk), they have to spend to remain competitive in the Championship, especially as the revenue at clubs that are relegated from the Premier League is effectively boosted twice, first by the substantial funds they receive while in the top tier, second by the parachute payments. In this way, the Premier League really is the gift that keeps on giving – or at least for another four years, as teams receive a total of £48 million in parachute payments following relegation (£16 million in each of the first two years, £8 million in each of years three and four).

Let’s take Burnley, one of the sides competing with Leicester for a play-off place. Last season, the Clarets’ revenue of £45 million was significantly higher than Leicester’s £16 million, almost entirely due to the difference in broadcasting income (£34 million compared to £5 million), as the revenue from gate receipts and commercial activities was near enough the same. Following relegation to the Championship, Burnley’s projected revenue will still be much more than Leicester, purely due to the £16 million parachute payments. That’s hardly a level playing field, so begins to justify Leicester’s apparently suicidal financial strategy.

This is why people refer to the Championship play-off final as one of the most lucrative matches in world football with the value estimated at £90 million. Even if the promoted club came straight back down, it would receive £40 million TV income plus £48 million parachute payments plus additional gate receipts and commercial revenue. Of course, if it finished higher in the Premier League, the club would receive even more TV money and every season survived adds another £40 million to the coffers. It’s incredible to think that just one place in the football pyramid can make such a difference.

In truth, the financial gap between the Premier League and the Championship continues to grow, which is why clubs are so desperate to reach the promised land of the top division. Of course, it is still possible to do this without risking the financial health of the club, but it’s not easy and many are not willing to patiently wait for players to be developed and a successful team to be built.

The television money in the Championship is mainly sourced from the Football League central distribution of £2.5 million that is made to all clubs, which was increased last season, plus a £1 million solidarity payment from the Premier League. The latter funding was introduced in 2007/08, but it doesn’t really make any meaningful impression on the revenue gap between the two leagues.

Gate receipts increased from £4.5 million to £5.7 million last season, following the return to the Championship, which saw an 18% increase in the average attendance from 20,253 to 23,943, and additional income from reaching the play-offs. This is an impressive demonstration of the fans’ support for their club, especially attracting more than 20,000 in League One, and highlights Leicester’s potential. In fact, the average crowds last year were higher than five Premier League clubs (Fulham, Bolton, Burnley, Portsmouth and Wigan).

"Kyle Naughton - loan star"

This year, the attendances have held up, despite the tough economic environment, averaging 23,623 after 17 matches, which is the fourth highest in the Championship. This was partly due to an early bird scheme for season ticket renewals, which is being repeated this season with a small price increase of £1 per game. Not a huge amount, but I can’t help noting that the new owners had pledged not to raise ticket prices.

The club moved away from Filbert Street in 2002 to the Walkers Stadium, a spanking new 32,500 all-seater stadium. Former shirt sponsors Walkers, the Leicestershire based crisp manufacturers, signed a ten-year deal for naming rights that same year, and the agreement was renegotiated in 2007, when they again paid a “seven-figure sum” to extend the deal until 2017. The new owners have spoken of their desire to rename the ground as the King Power Stadium, but it is not yet clear whether Walkers would be willing to walk away. They have also talked about plans to increase the capacity by nearly a third to 42,000 if they secure promotion.

Arguably, the Walkers Stadium is already Premier League standard, but this is actually a burden at the moment. Lee Hoos explained the problem, “It is difficult in the Championship, because it is a very expensive infrastructure here at the Walkers Stadium and the training ground. It isn’t cheap to operate and what is an asset in the Premier League is a hindrance in the Championship.” Mandaric went further, “Anywhere but in the Premier League, this stadium is a liability financially, because we have a £17m debt that has to be serviced.”

"The theatre of crisps"

Back in 2005, the club announced in its accounts that it was “committed to further expanding its commercial activities”, but this has proved to be easier said than done: retail and merchandising revenue is effectively unchanged (£1.5 million in 2005 and £1.6 million in 2010), while sponsorship and advertising has hardly grown (from £2.5 million to £2.9 million). Income from conferences, banqueting and catering has actually decreased from £3.3 million to £0.9 million, though this is partly due to outsourcing catering to Compass in 2008.

As of this season, the shirts are sponsored by King Power, the owners’ company, in a deal running three years, though no financial details have been divulged. Similarly, there is a new three-year kit deal with Swiss firm BURRDA. Again, no news on revenue, but the club did describe it as “the biggest in Leicester City’s history.”

The new owners have outlined their vision of taking the club to a global market, building on their experience in retail marketing. In fact, one of Sven-Göran Eriksson’s first tasks as Leicester manager was to take the team to play a friendly in Bangkok against the Thai national side. However, it is far from certain that Leicester’s new Asian connections will automatically raise their profile in the Far East. A leading Thai journalist at the Bangkok Post, Wanchai Rujawongsanti, argued, “I don’t think they would be able to become a popular side in Asia. Fans in this part of the world are only crazy about top Premier League sides such as Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal.”

On the cost side, the wage bill is the key factor. Wages rose almost 30% last season from £11.2 million to £14.5 million, reflecting the promotion to the Championship. This was exactly the same as the wage bill the last time they were in that division two years ago in 2008 and is actually less than the £17 million they paid out in 2005, so it’s not as if their spending is out of control. The problem is that their revenue is low and has decreased after the loss of the parachute payment, so the important wages to turnover ratio is still of concern. Although this has come down from the high of 103%, it still stands at 89%, which is considerably above UEFA’s recommended maximum limit of 70%., and may well worsen this season, as a result of the new players recruited first by Sousa, then Eriksson.

Even though Leicester have spent relatively big on wages, the same accusation cannot really be leveled at the club with regard to the transfer market. In fact, in the last eight years their net spend has been only £3 million. Even this represents an increase on previous years, when the Foxes made good money from player sales, moving on the likes of Emil Heskey, Neil Lennon and Gary Rowett.

These days, the club’s sights have been lowered, so few big money purchases are made, but equally little money has been received when transferring players. The most expensive signing last summer was Martyn Waghorn from Sunderland at just £3 million, while Sven’s costliest acquisition to date is the uncompromising defender Sol Bamba from Hibernian for a fee of £250,000.

That said, Leicester’s net spend of £2 million over the last two seasons amazingly still leaves them among the highest spenders in the Championship with only seven clubs paying out more. There are three reasons for this apparent anomaly. The first two are fairly obvious: one is that the clubs in the Championship are strapped for cash; the second is that half the clubs in that league have simply sold more players than they have bought.

The other reason for the low spend is more interesting, namely that the use of the loan system has shot up in the Championship this season. Championship rules allow clubs to take up to six players on loan at a time and to include up to five of them in an 18-man match day squad. However, the main driver of the growth is the Premier League’s introduction of a 25-man limit in the size of the squad. Players aged 21 and under are not included in the cap, so logically clubs have taken on more quality young players.

They need playing time, so Premier League clubs are now more willing to loan players, even funding some of the wages during the loan period. This is particularly relevant for leading clubs, who have allowed many of their players to go out on loan to the Championship: Tottenham 9, Arsenal 7, Chelsea 7, Manchester City 7, Manchester United 5 and Liverpool 3.

Many clubs have taken advantage of this trend, few more so than Leicester who have taken an incredible 12 players on loan so far this season, only surpassed by Sheffield United. Some of the more experienced professionals like Roman Bednar, Curtis Davies and Chris Kirkland have failed to make an impact at the lower level, but promising youngsters like Kyle Naughton (from Spurs), Jeffrey Bruma (Chelsea) and Ben Mee (Manchester City) have cemented their places in Leicester’s defence.

However, it is the eye-opening loan signings of international strikers Yakubu (from Everton) and Diomansy Kamara (from Fulham) that really signals the intent of Leicester’s new Thai owners. Although they have not yet provided the funds for any major permanent signings, all these loan players have not come cheap. While some of the wages will no doubt be subsidised by their Premier League employers, this must be having a detrimental effect on Leicester’s wage bill, which the owners have to cover. Yes, some of the loan stars are youngsters, whose salaries are probably not that high, but the sheer quantity of loan players is likely to have greatly increased the club’s costs.

Indeed, the latest accounts specifically mention that since the books closed the new owners have injected a further £10.85 million of working capital into the business by way of parent company loans. This is on top of the £29.5 million net debt reported as at 31 May 2010, so the current borrowings probably amount to over £40 million – or a worrying 2.5 times the club’s annual turnover. In fairness, very little is owed to the banks, as £22 million of this comes from the owners.

The terms of the new loan from the Thais are unknown, but the previous parent company loans of £11 million which they took on are unsecured and non-interest bearing. They are repayable on demand, though Asia Football Investments confirmed that they would not seek repayment of these loans within 12 months of the date of signing the accounts if such payment would prejudice the ability of the club to settle its other obligations, so there is some comfort there.

The other substantial debt of £17 million is connected to the building of the stadium, which is the subject of a hire purchase contract. Interestingly, the repayment terms depend on which division of the football league the club plays in, so presumably promotion to the Premier League would imply higher annual charges. There are also £1.6 million other third party loans, which attract interest at 1.23%, and £0.4 million bank loans, secured on the club’s property, with interest payable at 1.75% above the bank base rate.

The chairman of the Football League, Greg Clarke, who ironically was chairman at Leicester City when the Foxes went into administration with large debts, has warned of the dangers facing clubs, “Debt's the biggest problem. If I had to list the 10 things about football that keep me awake at night, it would be debt one to 10. The level of debt is absolutely unsustainable. We are heading for the precipice and we will get there quicker than people think.” Sobering stuff from a man who has been there, seen the sights and bought the t-shirt.

"La Bamba"

Even so, Leicester’s balance sheet looks reasonably healthy at first glance with net assets of £5 million, but that is largely due to the £41 million value ascribed to the stadium, based on a revaluation performed in 2009. On closer inspection, for amounts falling due within one year, the net current liabilities stand at £21 million, excluding the £10.85 million loans made since the accounts were published.

Of course, the net book value of the players, considered as intangible assets in accounting circles, is significantly under-stated at £3 million, as they are worth significantly more in the real world with the directors’ market valuation of the squad being £16 million. The only problem is that in order to realise that value, the club would have to sell the players, which would leave a few gaps in Sven’s formation.

The fact is that Leicester continue to require funding from the owners to pay for their strategy, as can be seen from the cash flow statement. Large cash outflows have been financed by money from share capital payments and increased borrowing, which has amounted to £20 million in the last four years and is now up to £31 million with the addition of the latest £10.85 million loan.

The issue was neatly encapsulated in the latest accounts: “The directors have determined that whilst the business could continue to operate without obtaining significant additional monies, the achievement of the objective to secure a return to the premiership will require additional funding.” That’s fine from a financial perspective, so long as your wealthy owner continues to pump money in, but nobody has bottomless pockets and Vichai Raksriaksorn has already complained that the consortium has had to invest more than they thought when they bought the club.

The “sugar daddy” model is one that has come to be accepted by football fans everywhere, but it does carry risks if the benefactor one day decides to exit stage left, which could happen for a plethora of reasons. As a pertinent example, the last time a Thai took over an English football club it ended in tears, when Thaksin Shinawatra, the exiled former Thai prime minister, sold Manchester City only a year after he arrived, having fallen out with a certain Sven-Göran Eriksson.

Clearly, not all Thai investors are cut from the same cloth, but a reasonable question might be whether Leicester’s new owners have the wherewithal to fund their dream of getting the club into the Premier League. The £115 million that Raksriaksorn is reportedly worth might be a fortune to the likes of you and me, but it’s debatable whether it’s enough to cover many years of losses at a football club in an era when billionaires are the entrepreneur of choice.

"Diomansy - maybe not forever"

That might explain a growing trend whereby foreign businessmen are increasingly looking to invest in Championship clubs, as they can buy them more cheaply than Premier League clubs, hoping to secure a larger return by funding a promotion to the top flight.

Either way, it’s difficult to fully understand what the owners’ intentions are for Leicester’s future. Chief executive Lee Hoos is convinced that this is a long-term project, “They said they are not here for one year, two or three, they are here for the long run. This is about long-term sustainability for the club.”

On top of that, Mandaric proclaimed that the deal would “strengthen the squad and youth academy by bringing additional financial support and introducing a new global network of contacts and access to player talent”, but Vichai has admitted that the goal of his consortium is “to build Thailand as a football academy for Asia in the future.” A noble objective, for sure, but it’s not clear exactly what implications this might have for the Foxes.

Leicester City is clearly a club with a lot of potential, which is what has attracted the new owners and indeed Eriksson, who commented, “The target for this club is to reach the Premier League, hopefully this year. If not this year, then next year. I think the ambition of the club is fantastic. If they did not have that ambition, then I would not be interested.” And there lies the crux of the matter: what will happen if Leicester are not promoted in the next two years? Will Sven stick around? Will the Thais be happy to cover the inevitable losses if Leicester remain in the Championship?

"Yuki Abe - Leicester's turning Japanese"

As Mandaric once said, “There is no money in football unless you are in the Premier League”, which is why Leicester (and others) try to spend their way to the top. However, this is a risky strategy, as only three teams will be promoted each season. No club has a divine right to be in the top tier, though Leicester are undeniably better equipped than most, as Sven explained, “I think they have everything here: the stadium, the training ground and the fans. There is everything to be a Premier League club. It’s only the table which doesn’t look very good.”

And that’s the point – the team still needs to do the business on the pitch. While promotion might look like a long shot right now, there will be many twists and turns in the dog-eat-dog Championship before the play-off places are decided. If Leicester’s exciting new signings do manage to gel under Sven’s shrewd guidance, then they might just fulfill the dreams of the new owners – and indeed the legions of fans that have followed them through thick and thin.