Jump to content

The Financial Results Are In...


bjd

Recommended Posts

We have posted a financial loss of £65 million. Down from £74 million last time and £80 million the time before that. It seem £23 million of this loss was money owed to sacked bosess (Jose and Grunt)! Scolaris sacking will be included in next years appointment but he just had only just over a year left on his contract so there wont be as much of a loss in that respect. But still...the next appointment needs to be spot on, i think its pretty clear.

Kenyon has reitterated the clubs desire to break even for the 09/10 results. Which if you ask me is, laughable.

The 'big annoucment' (see the rumours section) is that Roman has turned some of the debt (now £710 million) into shares. Which i guess is good.

Kenyon also said that any Summer player purchases will be funded by player sales.

Looking at the value of many of the players in the squad, or at least the ones who we can estimate will be leaving , i reckon we wil have about £15-20 million to spend in the Summer. Max.

hmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Kenyon has reitterated the clubs desire to break even for the 09/10 results. Which if you ask me is, laughable.

The 'big annoucment' (see the rumours section) is that Roman has turned some of the debt (now £710 million) into shares. Which i guess is good.

Don't underestimate the importance or significance of Roman converting debt to equity. Essentially, our debt has been halved.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with aiming to put the club on a proper business footing. A loss of £42.6m before the managerial payoffs is a big improvement and there are two more years to get to break even. If it means that we have to reduce our overall wage bill by not carrying so many squad players on stupid money then all the better as it will give some of the younger players a chance to shine. And even if we don't manage it I don't see why we shouldn't at least be aiming for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't underestimate the importance or significance of Roman converting debt to equity. Essentially, our debt has been halved.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with aiming to put the club on a proper business footing. A loss of £42.6m before the managerial payoffs is a big improvement and there are two more years to get to break even. If it means that we have to reduce our overall wage bill by not carrying so many squad players on stupid money then all the better as it will give some of the younger players a chance to shine. And even if we don't manage it I don't see why we shouldn't at least be aiming for it.

That’s what scares me . We have obviously set our stall out to have a steady stream of youngsters playing for us in the first team . The trouble is by continued managerial changes we are not giving anyone a chance to come through . Let’s be honest you will not risk a 20 year old unproven player when you have a proven player in the squad . Look at poor old Kakuta to see how fragile this outlook is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with aiming to put the club on a proper business footing.

Is anyone doubting that ? I was just trying to point out that the club changing managers every 5 minutes is costing them off not just on the pitch but off it too. That is why we need to get the next appointment bang on. That £23 million couldve gone on players. In that respect we all wanted Robinho but the figures would be a lot worse if that money had been spent.

And even if we don't manage it I don't see why we shouldn't at least be aiming for it.

Without question - i would be alarmed if we were not!! I just wish Kenyon would shut up about breaking even by a certain date because if it doesnt happen we will look very silly (not as silly as he will though!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, it's the 'spend what we generate from selling' that worries me a bit, as most of the players on the way out are either old or crap, so that's not exactly going to add up to much. BJD's figure of 15-20 million sounds about right, which given we need quality attacking players, who tend to be the most expensive, won't get us much.

I am all for becoming a vaguely 'normal' club again, but we will have to accept that we can forget about the Benzemas and Agueros of this world if we do stay true to this policy. Let's hope whoever is manager next season is not only good at managing the players he does have, but also has a keen eye for a bargin and a good scouting network.

It does also mean that we will HAVE to place some faith in the kids and give them some decent game time, which I think we will all be happy with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone doubting that ? I was just trying to point out that the club changing managers every 5 minutes is costing them off not just on the pitch but off it too. That is why we need to get the next appointment bang on. That £23 million couldve gone on players. In that respect we all wanted Robinho but the figures would be a lot worse if that money had been spent.

Without question - i would be alarmed if we were not!! I just wish Kenyon would shut up about breaking even by a certain date because if it doesnt happen we will look very silly (not as silly as he will though!)

Sorry. I just read that you thought that the clubs desire to break even in 2010 was "laughable."

It will obviously help if we don't keep throwing money away on terminated managerial contracts and writing off players like we did with Veron/Crespo/Sheva etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sorry. I just read that you thought that the clubs desire to break even in 2010 was "laughable."

It will obviously help if we don't keep throwing money away on terminated managerial contracts and writing off players like we did with Veron/Crespo/Sheva etc.

Sorry i wasnt clear. I should really have stated that if the club keep sacking managers every 5 mins then the clubs desire to break even in 2010 was "laughable."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with aiming to put the club on a proper business footing.

But ethical, is he doing that ? Or is it all about number crunching ?

I'm not confident that its putting us on a proper business footing, especially when you consider we are giving money away by making basic errors like..

1. Employing a manager unproven at club level, on a massive contract.

2. Giving said manager £-insert- millions to spend on players.

Then we go and sell a top quality left back to raise funds because of points 1 & 2 above.

That doesnt sound like a good business footing to me mate, sounds like PK's number crunching propoganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But ethical, is he doing that ? Or is it all about number crunching ?

I'm not confident that its putting us on a proper business footing, especially when you consider we are giving money away by making basic errors like..

1. Employing a manager unproven at club level, on a massive contract.

2. Giving said manager £-insert- millions to spend on players.

Then we go and sell a top quality left back to raise funds because of points 1 & 2 above.

That doesnt sound like a good business footing to me mate, sounds like PK's number crunching propoganda.

number crunching? i dont understand that at all. and we sold a top quality left back for a massive profit and for way over what he was worth. simple economics say if your offered twice what something is worth and you can cover its sale then do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

number crunching? i dont understand that at all. and we sold a top quality left back for a massive profit and for way over what he was worth. simple economics say if your offered twice what something is worth and you can cover its sale then do it.

So what happens if Cole breaks his leg at Vicarge Rd ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

number crunching? i dont understand that at all. and we sold a top quality left back for a massive profit and for way over what he was worth. simple economics say if your offered twice what something is worth and you can cover its sale then do it.

He was worth more to us on the pitch and bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


So what happens if Cole breaks his leg at Vicarge Rd ?

ivanovich can play there, ferreira`s not a bad replacement, we have a blossoming talent in the ressies called van arnholt (arent you desperate to get young players through)... we got offered twice his value so would have been crazy to turn it down, and im sure the £100k a week waved in front of bridges face made him want to move, so if we had kept him we would have had an unhappy player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

number crunching? i dont understand that at all.

It means either way, PK will paint a pretty picture, and we all know he is full of s**t, so why do you expect anyone to believe him when it comes to the matter of money ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means either way, PK will paint a pretty picture, and we all know he is full of s**t, so why do you expect anyone to believe him when it comes to the matter of money ?

Looking at our squad, there are not many players with a decent market value or worth selling on, because the returns will be small, althought there are alot of big earners that'll be forced off the wage bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ivanovich can play there, ferreira`s not a bad replacement, we have a blossoming talent in the ressies called van arnholt (arent you desperate to get young players through)... we got offered twice his value so would have been crazy to turn it down, and im sure the £100k a week waved in front of bridges face made him want to move, so if we had kept him we would have had an unhappy player.

By the beginning of next season, if he continues to improve at his current rate, Ryan Bertrand should be next in line after Ashley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the payouts on managers look like total folly, but I guess the fact that the losses are shrinking is a good sign (trying to see positives. I didnt expect to see us incur another loss like that)

Also, in Kenyon's defense (cant believe I typed that) I will say that the Deloitte "money league" came out, and, though we were still well off the pace set by Real, ManU, Barca, etc, we were raking in estimated annual revenues of over 212 million euro. This was just ahead of Arsenal, and well ahead of the Scousers. I know its just an estimate, but we have climbed drastically on that table in the last few years, and that can only be a good sign.

I think 2010 might be possible, but I dont want to see the club trim spending on vital matters, such as the squad, just for the sake of attaining that goal. I thought selling Bridgey was good business, but I dont think any of us would ever want to see the product on the field hurt just for the sake of attaining numbers. I would be fine with running some financial losses until 2015 provided we were spending on the team, keeping it competitive and staying in the hunt for trophies. I doubt Roman would, though

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Roman still covers Chelsea losses

"Previously all the owner's £578m funding was in the form of an interest-free loan, which attracted questions, and also criticism from the Uefa president, Michel Platini, and the FA chairman, Lord Triesman, who both expressed concern about top Premier League clubs' levels of debt. Last year Abramovich converted half of his £679.6m contribution into Chelsea shares, leaving a reduced £339.8m as a loan. Putting the money in as shares is a genuine financial investment in Chelsea, not repayable, as loans are, unless he sells the club.

It is by far the largest equity contribution ever made to a football club."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up

Well, this is awkward!

Happy Tech GIF by Atlassian

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

Sure, let me in!