CHELSEA RELEASES LATEST FINANCIAL FIGURES

Posted on: Wed 30 Dec 2009

Chelsea FC plc today (Wednesday) announced that as of its year end 2009 virtually all outstanding debt has been converted into equity and the company is now effectively debt free.

The group results reveal that following previous conversions of half of the debt, the remainder of the interest-free loans from the parent company, whose ultimate controlling party is Roman Abramovich, have been converted into equity making the group effectively debt free.

so we are now effectively debt free as a club. lovely, nice xmas pressie Roman.

these are some more of the figures, the one that stands out for me is the drop in cash outflow.

The main figures:

- Group turnover was down from £213.1m to £206.4m

- Turnover was generally flat. The small year-on-year reduction reflects the front-loaded nature of certain sponsorship revenues

- Loss for the financial year reduced from £65.7m to £44.4m

- Remainder of shareholder debt of £340m was capitalised

- Net capital expenditure reduced from £85.1m to £4.2m following the completion of major capital projects such as the training centre at Cobham

- Cash outflow reduced from £107.4m to £16.9m

Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said: 'The club's debt load has been reduced almost to nil in order to provide more long-term stability for the club.

'The reduction will also enable the club to comply with any regulations on debt levels which are being discussed by the football community.'

Chelsea chief executive Ron Gourlay said: 'It is still our aim to be self-sufficient and we will achieve this by increasing our revenues as we continue to leverage off our brand. We are reducing our costs by controlling expenses, including salaries and wages.'

The results include exceptional items of £12.6m related to compensation payments to a first team manager and three coaching staff.

Ever stopped to ask yourself what will happen to your poxy club when Roman gets bored of his toy and walks away - enjoy financial ruin ... etc etc etc

Wow! Nice by Abramovich, clearing the debts.

Stands us in good stead under the rules that clubs will have to be self-sufficient to play in Europe.

Ever stopped to ask yourself what will happen to your poxy club when Roman gets bored of his toy and walks away - enjoy financial ruin ... etc etc etc

got this looking at the football365 forum where it was started by a spud who was trying to take the piss out of chelsea over the £44 mill loss. until someone pointed out that chelsea are now debt free and that figure was £20 mill better than last year. f**king idiots.

This is great news. Well done Roman.

Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said: 'The club's debt load has been reduced almost to nil in order to provide more long-term stability for the club.This is bullsh*t. A debt which is repayable one day to the owner is almost meaningless.

The reduction will also enable the club to comply with any regulations on debt levels which are being discussed by the football community.This is the real reason it is being done.

However, swapping debt for equity does change the balance sheet. The only way that RA is going to get his money back is either sell up or the club(company) buys back shares.

Chelsea chief executive Ron Gourlay said: 'It is still our aim to be self-sufficient and we will achieve this by increasing our revenues as we continue to leverage off our brand. We are reducing our costs by controlling expenses, including salaries and wages.'

"Our brand". Sorry, but it makes me want to puke.

CA is not spending in January because the money isn't going to be made available. The loss of games in the prem league is meaningless to the board as winning the league is not the target. The target is the w**k fest CL so that RA can show off to all his fellow european billionaires. The African players will be back by the time the CL starts.

I don't know what it is but everytime the board announce something it makes me feel sick.

I really wish some fans/supporters down in London would do a Chelsea version of FC United of Manchester.

Trading debt for equity does change the financial stability though - especially when you are running at a loss each year.

The loss of games in the prem league is meaningless to the board as winning the league is not the target.

If they truly want to enhance the image/brand/whatever of the club, the club needs to win the league and do it as often as possible.

Trading debt for equity does change the financial stability though - especially when you are running at a loss each year.

How?

The loan was owed to the billiionaire owner. We were/are financially stable, we keep making losses but they are reducing.

This has only been done to get around the debt issues being raised by FIFA dressed up to show how wonderful RA is as opposed to being a pragmatic and thoughtful way around the debt problem. I acknowledge that RA is the man who has helped Chelsea to become the best club in the land.

The debt issues being raised by FIFA are going to really screw up other clubs inc Mancs and liverpoo.

Edited December 30, 200916 yr by shedhead

If they truly want to enhance the image/brand/whatever of the club, the club needs to win the league and do it as often as possible.

Winning the league only enhances the "brand" in this country.

Winning the CL has a much broader/global appeal and no doubt will increase revenues following the heightened brand awareness.

IMO there are only two real competitions the PL(1st division) and the FA Cup. The CL w**k fest that it is should only be for Champions of each league. Unfortunately the lure of TV money now requires pointless stages.

I would love to win the CL if we were allowed to.

Edited December 30, 200916 yr by shedhead

We would be in profit by now if we had not of given Scholari a multi-million £ three year contract.

The next announcement I want to hear come out of the club, "We have come to an agreement with Athletico"..........

How?

Well in a standard arrangement a debt security requires interest payments whereas equity securities don't. However our situation is probably different in that Roman's loan was most probably interest free.

At the highest level the biggest benefit for us is that a debt security can be recalled pretty much on demand whereas equity can't be.

We would be in profit by now if we had not of given Scholari a multi-million £ three year contract.

The next announcement I want to hear come out of the club, "We have come to an agreement with Athletico..........They will part with Sergio Aguero, and 50 million pounds, and we give them Kalou."

That's what I want to hear too.

Well in a standard arrangement a debt security requires interest payments whereas equity securities don't. However our situation is probably different in that Roman's loan was most probably interest free.

At the highest level the biggest benefit for us is that a debt security can be recalled pretty much on demand whereas equity can't be.

Yes but since the loan was owed to the owner everyone including all suppliers would know that the debt would not be recalled such that the club could not pay its "trading" debts. It hasn't changed the clubs financial stability imo.

To repeat, the only reason this has been done is to deal with FIFA.

What worries me is that CA isn't being given the money, even if he wanted some, to spend hence his statement.

Edited December 30, 200916 yr by shedhead

Of course CA may enjoy running about naked and consider it an appropriate way for the team to bond i.e. everyone laughing with him as he jogs around Cobham.

Of course CA may enjoy running about naked and consider it an appropriate way for the team to bond i.e. everyone laughing with him as he jogs around Cobham.

as he jogs around with a WHAT on?

Winning the league only enhances the "brand" in this country.

The big European leagues are closely followed all over the world and Premier League is probably the most popular league as it's been marketed so well. The more times your captain is seen lifting a trophy, the more positive PR your brand/club/whatever gets.

We have learned from the Kakuta case in no uncertain terms. This is a million per cent open case of us playing FIFA at their own game.

Also no surprise this bolt from the blue has come out with a certain Peter Kenyon out of the way.

On the issue of loans and debts, did anyone see the stat about Manure's interest payments the other day? They've paid over £250m in interest since the Glazers took over. We have paid zero interest since RA took over.

We would be in profit by now if we had not of given Scholari a multi-million £ three year contract.

The next announcement I want to hear come out of the club, "We have come to an agreement with Athletico"..........

...to sign Diego Forlan"

On the issue of loans and debts, did anyone see the stat about Manure's interest payments the other day? They've paid over £250m in interest since the Glazers took over. We have paid zero interest since RA took over.

This is because Utd dont owe the money to the Glaziers( like us with Roman), the Glaziers and Utd owe the money to the bank.

Its basically a giant mortgage secured against Old Trafford which is what caused all the farore in the first place when they bought the club. Utd went from being 1 of the richest clubs in the world to a team which currently does'nt even own its own ground, a bit like the other rich team in Manchester.

Roman converting his loan into equity is great news for the club. We own our own stadium, state of art training complex and are debt free.

Stop wasting money on explayers/managers and be a little more prudent in the transfer market and it wont be long before we are running at a profit.

Especially with the youth team starting to produce some talent, even if that talent does'nt quite make our first team it could generate a tidy summ for the club with transfer's and sell on fee's etc.

I think this is great news for the new year, i bet our books look as good now as almost any in the footballing world.

I still think Chelsea need a bigger stadium....but unfortunately it would mean mass debt, and no-one wants to go back to that.

Love him or hate him he is really the best thing to happen to this club. Had he not taken over we would probably still be in midtable mediocraty, or worse.

And the trophy cabinet a hell of a lot lighter.

Edited December 31, 200916 yr by BlueDay

I like him. I wish I had enough awesome Australian money to buy Chelsea....but no...not yet....highly unlikely ever haha

The debt has been solved! If Roman had debt he could sell the club for a paltry figure and still be owed a monumental amount and demand repayment. So his financial interest and the club's ownership are two separate entities. Now they are similar and he can only get his money back if he can induce someone to buy the club for a phenomenal sum which is not going to happen Therefore, he's written the debt off and accepted the fact he'll never get it back. But that was always the most likely outcome!

That is my humble opinion. But then again I'm no economist!