What the summer transfer window tells us about the financial situation at Leeds - The Athletic 6/9/22
By Phil Hay
The transfer window just gone will go down as one of Leeds
United’s longest.
From Brenden Aaronson’s move from Red Bull Salzburg shifting
into gear within hours of last season finishing to the announcement of Wilfried
Gnonto’s signing coming more than an hour after the deadline, the summer behind
Leeds rarely slept.
It came to a temporary standstill in terms of signings,
though, after the capture of Luis Sinisterra from Feyenoord in early July, and
failed attempts to land Cody Gakpo from PSV Eindhoven and Bamba Dieng from
Marseille on deadline day saw Gnonto’s arrival wrapped up hastily at the death.
Business for the club ran to five full-blown first-team signings: Aaronson,
Sinisterra, Rasmus Kristensen, Marc Roca and Tyler Adams. Gnonto, Darko Gyabi
and Sonny Perkins fell into the category of future prospects, while Joel Robles
provided insurance on the goalkeeping front.
But could Leeds have done more, or should they have done
more? And what does the summer tell us about the financial situation at Elland
Road? The second question has been asked repeatedly, particularly since Leeds
tried and failed with a £34million ($39.1m) offer for Charles De Ketelaere and
again in the aftermath of Jesse Marsch’s comments about Dan James on Saturday.
Here, The Athletic has compiled an explainer, looking at the way the club
manage their books:
What do we know about Leeds United’s finances?
The best or clearest guidance about how the wheels have been
turning at Elland Road come from the club’s most recent accounts for the
2020-21 year and their first season back in the Premier League.
The landscape has changed since then, not least because of
the return of crowds and proper matchday revenue after the COVID-19 pandemic,
but those accounts are as good a way as any of gauging the margins Leeds are
working within.
The club turned a £25m profit in 2020-21 — enough money in
theory to buy someone like Aaronson, but in reality, that figure did not
represent hard cash. It included £21.3m in waived shareholder loans, most
likely owed to Andrea Radrizzani, all of which were repayable in May 2021.
Adding that amount to the balance sheet significantly improved the bottom line.
Strictly speaking, Leeds made £4.6m overall on a total turnover of £171m. It
was a massive step forward from the losses they were used to posting in the
Championship but still a small gain in the grand scheme of Premier League
expenditure.
While they were active in the 2020 summer transfer window
and committed substantial amounts of money to signings, the core of their costs
was the wage bill — some £108m, or 63 per cent of turnover, just £2m less than
the £110m they received in central Premier League distributions. Total
administrative expenses were £151m, or 88 per cent of turnover. So while it is
true that Leeds had a lot of revenue coming in and vastly more than they ever
received in the EFL, plenty of it was flowing out again, too. They could not be
described as a cash-rich entity.
The 2020-21 accounts estimated that the cost to the club of
closing their stadium and conference facilities during the COVID-19 outbreak
was almost £23m, a burden they no longer have to bear. They were, however,
effective at maximising certain areas of the business, like a £20m haul from
the sale of merchandise. Between that and sponsorship deals enhanced in value
by promotion, Leeds could not have squeezed much more from their commercial
operation. Without selling players and without a full and redeveloped Elland
Road, which holds crowds well in excess of 36,000, avenues to a much higher
turnover are not easy to see.
How is the picture likely to have changed?
Elland Road was full throughout last season, and while the
size of the ground puts a firm cap on Leeds’ matchday income, they earn as well
as they can from attendances and corporate sales — primarily because the ground
is always full. Gate receipts in 2019-20 were £11.4m, even though the final
stages of that season were played behind closed doors, but in 2020-21 Leeds
hosted just one crowd on the final day.
They saw gate receipts drop to £1.9m, down by almost £10m.
When they arrive early next year, the accounts for 2021-22 will show a far
healthier injection of money from the core business of staging football
fixtures.
Recruitment last summer was at a lower level than in 2020,
but between Junior Firpo, Dan James and a permanent deal for Jack Harrison, the
combined fees involved went close to £50m, again without any of the cash offset
by significant income through player sales. The summer window, which closed on
Thursday, is the first since promotion in which Leeds have actively tried to
cover the cost of transfers through departures from their senior squad, namely
by selling Kalvin Phillips and Raphinha. The club’s 2021-22 accounts are
expected to show a further increase in the salary bill — following what Angus
Kinnear, their CEO, described in last Tuesday’s programme as “a huge additional
commitment in wages” following their return to the Premier League.
The struggle in the division last season, and the narrow
avoidance of relegation, incurred other financial consequences. Finishing 17th
as opposed to ninth in 2020-21 had a material impact on Premier League prize
money — a difference of around £3m per place.
Sacking Marcelo Bielsa in February meant pay-offs for him
and the sizeable backroom team around him. So even with matchday income
returning, Leeds’ financial position is unlikely to have changed too much — a
club with the money they need to live on but not a club who are left with large
amounts of surplus cash once the bills are met.
What has been the process of transfer expenditure this
summer?
One thing to say here is that Leeds rarely, if ever, pay for
a player in full up front. Most deals involve an initial fee and future
payments over the length of a player’s contract. This is not unusual in
football and many clubs operate in the same way, avoiding a big outlay in one
hit. What it means, though, is that every summer throws up payments for
footballers who were signed in previous windows.
That was what made the deals for Phillips and Raphinha fairly unusual. In both instances, Leeds were able to negotiate terms that committed Manchester City to paying £42m up front for Phillips, and Barcelona around £50m up front for Raphinha.
Much of Leeds’ transfer business during the window was made
easier by the fact they were certain of receiving large lump sums — a switch in
policy from two previous summers when income from player sales was either nil
or negligible.
But even if Leeds have avoided stumping up in full for new
signings — for example, the first instalment for Tyler Adams is understood to
be due to RB Leipzig next year — they have still allocated the earnings from
Phillips and Raphinha to the incoming deals they have done. Adams’ fee was
around £20m, as was Luis Sinisterra’s. Brenden Aaronson was closer to £25m and
both Marc Roca and Rasmus Kristensen came in at £10m. Add Darko Gyabi from
Manchester City for £5m and Wilfried Gnonto from FC Zurich for a similar fee
and the trade-off is pretty close: circa £90m raised through Phillips and
Raphinha, circa £90m-worth of players in.
What this did was free the club’s shareholders from any
pressure or obligation to fund Leeds’ business themselves. The price of their
various transfers were already covered and, heading into the last week of
August, it seemed unlikely any more deals were coming. But it was noted that in
July, Radrizzani revealed Leeds had bid £34m for Charles De Ketelaere. As the
deadline approached, there were enquiries for Hwang Hee-chan at Wolves and Cody
Gakpo at PSV. A fee was agreed for Bamba Dieng at Marseille before that deal
collapsed and, in the end, Gnonto was signed very late on.
If, as Marsch said a couple of weeks ago, they were short of
“a surplus of big amounts of money to go out and bring in a huge transfer”, how
were they able to look at players like De Ketelaere or Gakpo? How do the messages
join up?
Did Leeds have more money to spend – and how would they have
signed De Ketelaere?
Leeds, as Marsch pointed out, do not have lots of spare cash
sloshing about in the accounts at Elland Road — certainly not the £34m they
agreed to pay to Club Bruges for De Ketelaere, who chose instead to go to AC
Milan. But Radrizzani told The Athletic recently that the bid for De Ketelaere
was concrete and would have been financed had the forward wanted to come. “He
was our icing on the cake, our special player,” Radrizzani said.
The question, naturally, was how the funding had been
available for that transfer — and if the funding was available, what happened
to it in the weeks after De Ketelaere turned Leeds down?
In order to secure a signing like that, or any major deal
after Sinisterra came in from Feyenoord, Leeds would have had to find the
money, either through the sale of another player or through shareholder
investment or loans. The implication from Radrizzani seemed to be that Leeds
rated De Ketelaere so highly that they would have done what was necessary to
make it happen. But for other targets, or targets the club were less certain
about, the motivation to spend was much lower.
Something similar happened towards the end of last summer,
when Dan James was put up for sale by Manchester United at very short notice.
James’ asking price was £25m and, similarly, Leeds were not awash with spare
money to pay for him, but the cash was found and it is believed to have come
from Radrizzani directly, securing a player who Bielsa was dead-set on signing.
The scenario in the closing weeks of this window was not so
different. Leeds could have sold Jack Harrison to Newcastle United, a
possibility they ruled out long ago. They were willing to sacrifice Dan James
and let him move to Fulham on loan. Marsch painted that as a one-in, one-out
scenario when he spoke about it on Saturday — giving the impression that for
anyone to arrive, a player had to leave to balance the books — and that would
have been the case had Leeds managed to bring in Gakpo or Dieng last week.
Gnonto, however, was a very low-cost purchase by Premier
League standards and the likelihood is that James was allowed to go to Fulham
in the end because Marsch did not think it was fair or reasonable to tell the
winger he was expendable and then scupper a loan which was all but complete.
What is the state of play in the boardroom at Elland Road –
and is 49ers Enterprises about to up its stake again?
Radrizzani says not. According to this interview, Leeds’
chairman says “nothing is under discussion” about imminent change in the split
of shares at Elland Road. “At this moment we are super happy,” he said.
Radrizzani owns 56 per cent of Leeds and 49ers Enterprises
owns 44 per cent. 49ers Enterprises has invested in a substantial way twice
since the latter part of 2020, hiking its stake up to the brink of majority
control. Representatives of the American group were at Elland Road for last
Tuesday’s game against Everton and will doubtless have been involved in
discussions about what to do in the final days of the window.
As The Athletic reported last December, and as Radrizzani
confirmed himself, 49ers Enterprises holds an option to buy the Italian out and
become the majority owner of Leeds before a set date in 2024. And while there has
been no shift in the shareholding at Leeds since November 2021, it is
understood 49ers Enterprises is still positioning itself to activate the option
it negotiated and is discussing financing plans.
What is still unclear is the exact timescale it envisages — or how much a 49ers Enterprises model of ownership would differ from the existing framework at Leeds. Those are questions which remain unanswered.