Liverpool lift trophy; recapping a fun PL season
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
18 minutes ago
- New York Times
Why have Nottingham Forest taken out an £80m loan from Apollo Management?
Nottingham Forest have taken a loan of £80million ($108m) with Apollo Management, a global asset management company based in New York. It is the company's first venture into Premier League finance. The three-year loan, which was secured in December 2024, will operate with an interest rate of 8.75 per cent. Advertisement For Forest, £55million of the loan was used to refinance an existing debt with Rights and Media Funding Group (RMF) as a potential cost-saving exercise. It is secured against the entirety of the club and its assets, the most significant of which is the City Ground. It is not an unusual practice for clubs to secure finance in such a manner. In fact, it is a reasonably regular occurrence; fleeting star players aside, a club's most valuable asset tends to be its home, so that's what gets put up as security when large tranches of funding are obtained. But, when it involves a headline figure of such a high number, it might raise some questions among fans. Which The Athletic attempts to answer here… Apollo — or Apollo Global Management — is a global asset management company, headquartered in Midtown Manhattan. Founded in 1990, Apollo had, as of the end of 2024, assets under management of $751billion, ranking them as the 28th largest asset management firm in the world, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. Apollo was co-founded by Josh Harris, now a shareholder at Crystal Palace. Harris left Apollo in 2022, though retained a six per cent shareholding in the firm as of April this year. Naturally, the firm's business is widely diversified, with various companies in operation. Of the £80million loaned to Forest last December, £25m is owed to Apollo Debt Solutions (ADS) BDC (the latter standing for 'Business Development Company'), a subsidiary of the Apollo group. Based on filings by Forest's holding company, NF Football Investments, the remaining £55m is held by Apollo Investment Management Europe, a Luxembourg-based entity. While this is Apollo's first known direct foray into football, the Financial Times reported this week that the investment firm is in talks to buy a stake in Atletico Madrid. Advertisement Which isn't to say the firm is not already active in sport. ADS' loan book includes two term loans, totalling $172million, given to Endeavor, owners of World Wrestling Entertainment and the Ultimate Fighting Championship via their ownership of TKO Group. A further $52m was loaned to TKO earlier this year, while there's another $5m due from Delta 2, a Luxembourg-based company that holds debt for Formula One. There's an existing link to football too. Also on ADS' list of investments at the end of March was a £40m loan to Sports Invest Holdings Limited, a business set up last May by prominent football advisor, Kia Joorabchian. Rights and Media Funding Limited is a Macclesfield-based company that lends to the sports and entertainment industries. RMF loaned Forest £55million in two tranches. First, in August 2022, £45m repayable by July 30 2025, bearing interest at 7.5 per cent plus the Bank of England (BOE) base rate (then 1.75 per cent; now 4.25 per cent), then a further £10m in October 2023, again repayable by July 30 2025, this time bearing interest at 6.45 per cent plus the BOE base rate. Both loans have now been repaid in full and were filed as such on January 6 this year. Forest aren't the first club to have received funding from RMF, whose most high-profile lending was to Everton before the club's takeover by The Friedkin Group last December. At one stage, that debt sat at £225m, though it was all repaid following the takeover. As well as Everton, RMF has previously loaned money to West Ham (varying amounts between 2017 and 2020), and a cohort of 11 clubs in Spain. The lender provided €67million in December 2020 in a joint-financing venture that looked to shore up liquidity during the Covid-19 pandemic. In July 2021, RMF loaned Valencia €51m over five years, before organising a separate €20m, over four and a half years, to the Mestalla club in January 2024. Per RMF's balance sheet at the end of June 2024, the company was owed loans in the region of £288million, the vast majority of which looks to have been amounts due from Everton and Forest. Both clubs are now free of debt to RMF. The £80million loaned from Apollo to Forest is senior debt, meaning it takes priority when it comes to repayment; in the unlikely event Forest were heading out of business, Apollo would be at the front of the resultant queue. The loan has a three-year term, due for repayment on December 20 2027, though there is provision for that to be extended a further two years. It incurs 8.75 per cent interest annually or, based on the £80m balance, £7m per year. That was around half Forest's total matchday income in the 2023-24 season (the latest for which we have figures). Advertisement £55m of the Apollo loan has been used to repay the amounts due to RMF. Based on most recent interest rates, those RMF loans were incurring £6.4m in annual interest, so this refinancing — now a common occurrence in football — works out cheaper in a sense; applying the Apollo interest rate to £55m gives an annual charge of £4.8m. Of course, Forest have borrowed above and beyond their previous debt to RMF, taking out a further £25m this time around. It is unclear what the additional funding is to be used for. It is difficult to read too much into the timing of the loan, beyond the fact that the restructuring of the debt should ultimately reduce costs for the club. With those RMF loans due for repayment at the end of July, it makes sense that the club looked elsewhere — successfully — for cheaper financing. The club have declined to comment. Debt has long been a dirty word in football, but it need not be; the only way debt becomes overly problematic is if clubs are unable to service it, or it unduly impacts their ability to spend elsewhere. In that sense, Forest shouldn't have too much new to be concerned about in the immediate future. While their debt burden has increased by £25million, the more favourable rate — and a fixed one at that — means interest costs have only increased by around £0.6m annually. That is, however, simply relative to the club's previous position. £7m in annual interest isn't too bad for a club in the Premier League and the commensurate wealth that brings (The Athletic estimates Forest earned £157.5m in domestic prize money alone last season), but should a bad season result in relegation, interest quickly becomes a much bigger problem. An 8.75 per cent interest rate is hardly cheap, though it's also not as hefty as some other clubs are paying — including Forest's own recent payments to RMF. Rates are high generally and a potential drop into the Championship, deemed a possibility for all but a minority of clubs, makes it difficult to obtain low-rate lending. A positive is that Forest have now locked in the rate on this tranche of funding, so are no longer subject to interest rate swings and have certainty over upcoming payments — though, of course, that could turn to a negative if rates fall in the future. Advertisement Of greater concern is whether Forest have anything to show for it. If the money has only been used to cover ongoing costs, that's much less desirable than pouring it into infrastructure; for example, the imminent works at the City Ground. Debt just to fund existing operations always raises the question of how it will eventually be repaid. Eight Premier League clubs paid more in interest than Forest in 2023-24, some substantially so, but several of those did it to build new or improved facilities. There's also the important point that all of the club being used as security precludes Forest from putting its assets up against any other funding, such as whatever may be required to pay for those City Ground works. That money will, presumably, have to come from the pockets of owner Evangelos Marinakis. The repayment date for the Apollo loan isn't until December 2027, but could be extended to 2029, and it may be that Forest simply refinance again. In the immediate term, the lending doesn't look overly risky or expensive — at least relative to what went before. But finances at Forest, like most clubs outside a handful, will remain reliant on on-field success.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Liverpool transfer news as Federico Chiesa targeted for Roma move
Liverpool and Roma are in talks over a possible deal for Federico Chiesa to join the Serie A giant on loan, according to reports in Italy. Chiesa has frequently been linked with a return to Italy ever since he moved to England, and his omission from Liverpool's squad for the pre-season tour of Asia has heightened speculation surrounding his future. The 27-year-old barely figured for Liverpool last season, with the Italian being made to wait until after the title had been wrapped up to make his first Premier League start for the club. Chiesa was the most notable absentee from the 29-man Liverpool squad that jetted off to Asia on Sunday, but the suggestion from the club is that he did not travel due to a slight fitness issue. READ MORE: Liverpool agrees $106M fee with Frankfurt for transfer of Hugo Ekitike as add-ons explained READ MORE: Liverpool transfer news LIVE: Ekitike and Alexander Isak deals, Rodrygo talks, Luis Diaz exit Despite that explanation, Chiesa's absence from the squad has obviously prompted more questions surrounding his long-term future at Anfield. Just hours prior to Liverpool's flight to Hong Kong, the Italy international scored in the Reds' 5-0 behind-closed-doors victory over Stoke City at the AXA Training Center. Meanwhile, Liverpool youngster James McConnell is set to leave the club on a season-long loan — but he is expected to sign a long-term contract with the Reds before doing so. There is interest in McConnell from Championship clubs Ipswich, West Brom and Derby, while the Daily Mail says a loan move to the Bundesliga is also on the cards. McConnell was also absent from the group that flew to Hong Kong, but that is because he is currently nursing a minor injury. Another academy youngster, Owen Beck, is believed to be closing in on a move to Derby County, having been the subject of interest from Wrexham earlier on in the transfer window. As well as McConnell and Beck, Liverpool has decisions to make on several other youngsters. There could be money to be made with the sales of players like Ben Doak and Tyler Morton, with both players probably now at the stage of their careers when they should be looking to move on permanently. There are also calls to be made on Trey Nyoni and Rio Ngumoha. Ngumoha is still just 16 so his development is likely to continue in the Reds' academy, but Liverpool might consider whether to send Nyoni, 18, out on loan. Decisions could also be taken on Jayden Danns and Stefan Bajcetic, both of whom were not included in Slot's squad for the tour of Asia.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Premier League season tickets assessed: Most expensive? Cheapest? Do price rises affect transfer spend?
The Premier League returns next month and stadiums will be full for another season. Attendances continue to hold up, with waiting lists for season tickets across many clubs, while broadcasting revenues remain lucrative. But for regular matchgoing fans, the cost of watching their team will be difficult to stomach. Advertisement Prices for season tickets have increased markedly since the resumption of matches after the Covid-19 pandemic. This season, there has been a change in attitude, with seven clubs freezing prices for attending their 19 home league matches. However, all but one club — Crystal Palace — raised prices last term. Still, attending football remains an expensive hobby, with nine clubs charging more than £1,000 for their most expensive offerings and several others coming close to that mark. Clubs had previously expressed sympathy with fans and referenced the cost-of-living crisis while simultaneously increasing prices. This year, those reasons are less prominent, with the latest argument being that the increased cost of national insurance employer contributions has necessitated an increase in prices. Season tickets entitle fans to attend all of their club's 19 home fixtures. They are cheaper than purchasing individual match tickets, which in many cases have again been subject to price rises. Ten Premier League clubs have some form of minimum usage policy. Arsenal, Aston Villa, Brentford, Brighton & Hove Albion, Leeds United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Sunderland and Tottenham Hotspur require a certain number of games to either be attended, the ticket to be resold via a ticket exchange, or it be transferred. West Ham United monitor non-attendance. Here, The Athletic looks at clubs' prices. This is based on the cost for a new buyer, or, in the case of clubs where there are no new tickets available, the final renewal phase. For consistency, we have used non-hospitality season ticket pricing that can be purchased via the clubs' ticketing portal. The hefty outlay many fans will have to cope with continues to raise eyebrows. At Fulham, where season tickets have reached general sale and there remains availability, the most expensive season ticket will set you back £3,084 in the Riverside Stand — an increase of £84 from last year. Arsenal (£1,726), Bournemouth (£1,164), Brighton (£1,035), Chelsea (£1,095), Tottenham (£2,223), and West Ham (£1,720) all significantly breach the £1,000 mark. Advertisement Manchester City have a premium, but not hospitality, option at £1,600 in their 93:20 area, similar to Brentford, whose Dugout seating comes in at £815, more than elsewhere in the ground but still general admission. Chelsea's Westview prices come under their 'Club Chelsea' hospitality banner, but are similar to Fulham's Riverside in that it offers the best views and access to superior facilities. These are priced between £1,745 and £4,300 and are only available on a waiting list system. Fulham, again in the Riverside Stand, charge £2,570 for juniors, although their lowest-priced under-18 ticket in the stadium is £154. West Ham's £1,720 junior ticket is also eye-watering, but they have a much cheaper option at £109. There continues to be a blurring of the lines over general admission season tickets, with more premium options being offered by clubs with small added benefits as clubs seek to increase their revenue. Burnley's prices are notable and they have been frozen. Their most expensive adult season ticket costs £525, £70 less than Ipswich Town's equivalent last season. The under-22 age band has been changed to under-21 at Turf Moor, though. Brentford have frozen their prices and outside of their slightly more premium offering of the Dugout, which provides a padded seat and access to a bar and concourse, their highest-priced adult ticket is £605. The Dugout pricing is £815. Newly promoted Sunderland, who have sold all of their season tickets, top out at £780 for their priciest adult ticket, although they have increased prices for renewals by 9.5 per cent. For the cheapest adult tickets, West Ham charge £345, slightly below Burnley (£352), Newcastle United (£362) and Bournemouth (£423). Brentford offer the lowest-priced junior ticket at just £80, Newcastle provide £81 tickets for juniors, and Bournemouth's cheapest comes in at £86. Some clubs have restrictions on where juniors can sit and use a ratio of adults to juniors in their family stands. Last season, Palace were the only club to freeze their prices, but for the new campaign, seven clubs — Brentford, Burnley, Manchester City, Liverpool, Tottenham, West Ham and Wolverhampton Wanderers — have done so. At Everton, supporters have seen prices increase by up to 21 per cent, the highest increase, but with the club moving out of Goodison Park and into the Hill Dickinson Stadium, a rise in costs for supporters was to be expected. Palace's most expensive adult ticket has risen by 9.5 per cent. Chelsea's rises are between 6.9 per cent and 15 per cent, while Brighton have raised prices by between 2.5 and 7.3 per cent for adults. For 82.5 per cent of season ticket holders at Bournemouth, there will be a 6.5 per cent increase. Nottingham Forest's are up by seven per cent. Newcastle, Manchester United and Villa have risen by five per cent. Leeds have increased theirs by four per cent, but their cheapest adult ticket has risen by 14 per cent. Aston Villa, Manchester United, Newcastle and Forest froze junior concessions in all or part of the stadium. Brentford, Burnley, Liverpool, Manchester City, West Ham and Wolves froze prices across all categories. That depends, but outside of the top Premier League clubs, the total income from gate receipts is relatively small when compared with overall turnover. Excluding the promoted clubs, Arsenal's takings from ticketing account for the highest proportion of income at 21.4 per cent. Manchester United are second with 20.7 per cent, Tottenham's is 20.4 per cent, and Chelsea's is 17.1 per cent. Advertisement Unsurprisingly, clubs with smaller stadiums have a lower proportion of their overall income made up by ticket sales. Bournemouth's is just four per cent, Brentford 6.8 per cent, Palace 7.2 per cent, Forest 7.6 per cent, while Wolves (9.1 per cent) are the final non-newly promoted club whose matchday income accounts for less than 10 per cent of their overall turnover. 'Matchday income is still a core revenue function,' Dr Dan Plumley, senior lecturer in sport finance at Sheffield Hallam University, told The Athletic last year. 'If you drop down a little bit into the lower tier of the Premier League, you'll find that broadcasting money makes up probably 60 to 70 per cent of some clubs' income. 'If you're looking at how you can generate a little bit more revenue, then moving the age brackets around, offering fewer concessions and making more people fall into what we might term a 'general bracket' — which is normally the highest priced tickets, depending on where you sit in the stadium — is one way of doing that.' Increasingly, clubs are implementing minimum usage policies for season tickets. This is done by mandating that supporters attend a certain number of games, or if they cannot attend, then sell on a ticket exchange platform. It is a policy first introduced in the Premier League by Brentford for the 2023-24 season and has now been further adopted. The rules and ramifications vary between clubs, with Manchester City's being the strictest. They require season ticket holders to personally attend at least 10 Premier League matches — something their supporters are challenging under the Equality Act. Bournemouth, Burnley, Chelsea, Palace, Everton, Fulham, Forest and Wolves have no such monitoring in place this season. Advertisement At Leeds, existing season-ticket holders were only able to renew online if they met the 80 per cent attendance threshold — 18 or more home league games in the 2024-25 season, having played in the Championship, in which you play 23 home games in a season. Spurs have reduced the senior discount by 5 per cent and the qualifying age was raised to 66, which meant a 10 per cent rise for those affected. Arsenal have introduced a 19-game Premier League season ticket to sit alongside their 23-game option, which automatically includes their four guaranteed home European matches in the Champions League, marking a change from previous years where it was opt-out only. Season-ticket holders at the Emirates who post their tickets on the ticket exchange on the day of the match will only receive their credit if the ticket is sold, but if they do so before the day of the game, they will receive their credit regardless of whether it sells. West Ham, who last year removed concession tickets from bands one to four — those seats closest to the pitch — have now reinstated those options after facing significant fan discontent. Every club is required to offer fans the chance to spread the cost of their ticket over a period of time. Half of the 20 Premier League clubs still partner with external firm V12 Retail Finance, whereas the other 10 have taken this process in-house. Generally, those using this option will end up paying more for their ticket, either by being excluded from early renewal phases or by paying interest on what is effectively a loan. Arsenal, who use V12, offer four or 10 payments with an interest rate of 4.65 per cent and 6.31 per cent; Chelsea's eight-month plan with the same company is at 6.64 per cent; Everton's in-house option for 10 or 12 months has a £55 'facility fee'; Fulham have plans between four and 10 months with an interest rate of between 4.46 per cent and 7.32 per cent. Advertisement Leeds' offering for six or 10 payments with V12 is charged at 5.36 per cent and 7.32 per cent. Liverpool's 10-month plan has a 7.32 per cent interest rate, while Manchester United's is 6.31 per cent — both via V12. Forest's four and 10-month plans with V12 have a 9.80 per cent rate. At West Ham, the same options have a fee of 4.46 per cent and 7.32 per cent. Palace offer a 10 equal payment plan with no administration fees or interest. However, those supporters are only eligible to renew from phase two, where prices are approximately 7.5 per cent higher. But this is not a price hike for those who buy for the first time, as they are only eligible after renewals close. All other Premier League clubs do not charge a fee for their payment plan options. Most clubs have moved to a digital-first or digital-only approach. This is the direction of travel, initiated by the Premier League, which stipulated that it will be mandatory — 70 per cent of all tickets must be delivered digitally — by the start of the 2026-27 season. Newly promoted clubs will have two years to implement its use. Clubs must provide reasonable adjustments for fans who, through disability, are unable to use digital ticketing, meaning a small subset of supporters will still use physical or e-tickets, but many face the hurdle of an application process. Environmental concerns are occasionally cited, but more prominently, the Premier League and its clubs argue the shift to digital ticketing is to better determine who is in the ground and reduce touting. When approached by The Athletic, the Premier League offered no hard evidence that touting has been reduced by digital ticketing. However, it says it is reviewing support for clubs' anti-touting operations. It says physical tickets are easy to sell on, while print-at-home tickets with barcodes can be printed multiple times and sold to people who then can't access a stadium. The Premier League points out rotating or hidden barcodes mean digital tickets can't be screenshotted and sold multiple times, as they must be refreshed before going into the stadium. The direction of travel with season tickets is clear. Clubs continue to find ways to maximise revenue at the cost of matchgoing supporters. Changes to pricing structures this year have been minimal and far less controversial, but more clubs have introduced minimum attendance rules and sought to make their offerings more attractive without pricing supporters out completely. For a small but important section of season ticket holders, digital ticketing is a major concern. Supporters will question whether there is a genuine need to increase prices, but clubs seem destined to keep finding ways to raise more income from match-going supporters.
