ekimozturk Posted January 1, 2011 Posted January 1, 2011 I have read in the press recently (couple of weeks ago) that CFC is likely to announce a loss of £40m. If this is true how are we ever going to be financially self sufficient and be able to buy big names without Roman's cash? It is worrying to still make a loss when we hardly spend any money on transfers nowadays! Any comments?
ColeMan Posted January 1, 2011 Posted January 1, 2011 I have read in the press recently (couple of weeks ago) that CFC is likely to announce a loss of £40m. If this is true how are we ever going to be financially self sufficient and be able to buy big names without Roman's cash? It is worrying to still make a loss when we hardly spend any money on transfers nowadays! Any comments? most likely last seasons debt, but still very worrying
TT Posted January 1, 2011 Posted January 1, 2011 I believe that is doesn't include the millions we have saved in salaries, when we let Joe and co go.
Tea Bar Boy Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 We are always in debt can't think of a time when we haven't been ? The below is from 2002 Chelsea Village ...... http://www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~858085,00.html That said although £40 million is not to be sniffed at we have seen a big reduction in losses from 2006 2006 - £80 Million 2007 - £75 Million 2008 - £63 Million 2009 - £44 Million 2010 - £40 Million
big blue Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Nearly every big club in europe is in debt, the only way to operate at a profit is to have a top notch academy and to become a selling club. not really worried about it, when teams like barca and real are unable to play in Europe, the cl will lose money and then uefa will change their tune again. barca have fallen behind on salarys this year so I think were not in as bad a position as you would think. Let's face it, if roman was to sell the club, we wouldn't short on potential buyers.
clubhappy Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 This also leads me to the issue of R.Abram walking out , an issue that a lot of Chelsea bashers constantly speak about . 'Chelsea sre finished when Roman Abramovic gets bored and walk away ' Im not very well up on the finincial aspects of football clubs , so im interested in opinions and thoughts . Will we face finincial ruin ? Will R.Abramovic not have to sell the club rather than just walk away ? Sorry if ive hijacked the thread by the way .
Hutch Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 I remember reading that Abramovich wasn't the only one interested in buying the club. That was back then, when the club were on the verge of going out of business. Several years down the line, it should be that much easier to find a buyer. In one of the rumours threads I joked about waking up one morning to find that the club had been sold to the Qatari Royal Family.. a couple of days later, rumours began to emerge that they were interested in buying a Premier League club.
Tea Bar Boy Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 This also leads me to the issue of R.Abram walking out , an issue that a lot of Chelsea bashers constantly speak about . 'Chelsea sre finished when Roman Abramovic gets bored and walk away ' Im not very well up on the finincial aspects of football clubs , so im interested in opinions and thoughts . Will we face finincial ruin ? Will R.Abramovic not have to sell the club rather than just walk away ? Sorry if ive hijacked the thread by the way . From what I have read he can't walk away when he gets bored well he could but unless he writes off all the debt he would have to wait almost 2 years . The debt he has converted into a loan has an 18 month repayment cycle once/if he calls the loan in for full repayment. When Chelsea published their accounts for 2008-09 earlier this year, the club announced that its owner, the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, had written off his mammoth £726m loan to the club, and converted it into shares. But is not quite as clear-cut as that. Abramovich channelled his loans to the club, since taking it over in 2003 and wanting to spend its way to trophies, via a holding company, Chelsea Limited. He loaned money to Chelsea Limited, who then loaned it on to Chelsea FC plc, which runs the club. • Premier League accounts: interactive club-by-club guide • Questions raised over clubs' financial health It is true that the loans from the holding company to Chelsea FC plc were fully converted to shares last year. However Abramovich's loan to Chelsea Limited, the holding company which owns Chelsea FC plc, was not. That loan remains owing; in fact it increased from £701m, because Abramovich loaned another £25m in a year when Chelsea's extravagant spending, and the dismissal of Luiz Felipe Scolari and his coaching team, produced losses of £47m. The accounts of Chelsea Limited (whose name was changed during the year to Fordstam Limited), show that loan still outstanding: £726m, owed to Abramovich. A spokesman for the club confirmed that yesterday: "Recapitalisation of loans happened at the level of Chelsea FC plc, not the holding company (Fordstam), therefore making the football club debt free." That is true. But Fordstam owns the football club company, and owes Abramovich £726m. The loan is interest free, but it is repayable if Abramovich gives 18 months' notice. The Russian could still demand the money back some day, either if the club is making a profit, or if he were to sell it. He has not, in fact, written off the huge loans he has made on his Chelsea adventure. Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/19/roman-abramovich-chelsea-loan-debt
Zola Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Nearly every big club in europe is in debt, the only way to operate at a profit is to have a top notch academy and to become a selling club. not really worried about it, when teams like barca and real are unable to play in Europe, the cl will lose money and then uefa will change their tune again. barca have fallen behind on salarys this year so I think were not in as bad a position as you would think. Let's face it, if roman was to sell the club, we wouldn't short on potential buyers. How very true!
TheWestwayWonder Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 I will add to that (mostly on what Hutch said) if you look at the values of European clubs for the last 5-10 years, we have shot up the rankings since RA came. Before the Financial crisis hit we were about 8th, above the likes of Liverpool, Inter, Juve and others. That was a financial estimate of the clubs assets, commercial value, potential and playing staff, etc. I think if there ever did come a day that Roman wanted to sell, like Hutch said, plenty of interested parties would line up to buy. They might not be as generous as Roman, though, and that might come with even more financial handcuffs than we are seeing right now. But I think in a few years time the financial landscape of football will look different. Roman clearly knows something that City dont about these financial rules upcoming.
Star Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 I wouldn't be worried a bit in the slightest if Roman sold up now, providing like Ken Bates he handed over the club to a suitor with all the best intentions in the world and the ambition to make us the dominant force in both domestic and European football. I know Roman wouldn't like to leave before we won the Champions League, but after all the missed opportunities I guess reality will kick in that the likes of Terry, Drogba and Lampard for all their passion and commitment to the cause are destined never to win it with our beloved blues. Roman would leave us with great memories and a training ground and academy right up there with the best in England if not Europe. I sometimes wonder what more Roman can do for us, with the Workd Cup being in Russia and Putin wanting his cash input combined with our self efficient failings to be sufficient if the truth is known - We cannot deny in any shape or form that there are things going on behind the scenes that are out of our managers control, then again under Romans reign that could be said of every manager we have had. I was suspicious of Romans intent when he arrived, he quickly removed that from my thoughts, however the way people like Jose, Butch and countless others have been treated, together with the lack of squad refreshment in the close season, means in my mind the time is as good as any for an ownership change.
Tea Bar Boy Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 But I think in a few years time the financial landscape of football will look different. Roman clearly knows something that City dont about these financial rules upcoming. Interesting point. All depends on how the big clubs follow the UEFA Champions League proposed rules and punishments . Read somewhere that RA had sounded out interest in a possible breakaway European format if UEFA started getting a bit to pushy with the exception of Real Madrid it got a lot of mileage from other clubs in Italy / Spain / France . UEFA being UEFA I can’t see them doing jack about it to be honest and it is all a big smokescreen just to appease certain European government elements.
Zola Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Dread to think what would happen to us if Roman walked right now. To entertain the thought is madness IMO
abramovich Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 I wouldn't be worried a bit in the slightest if Roman sold up now, providing like Ken Bates he handed over the club to a suitor with all the best intentions in the world and the ambition to make us the dominant force in both domestic and European football. I know Roman wouldn't like to leave before we won the Champions League, but after all the missed opportunities I guess reality will kick in that the likes of Terry, Drogba and Lampard for all their passion and commitment to the cause are destined never to win it with our beloved blues. Roman would leave us with great memories and a training ground and academy right up there with the best in England if not Europe. I sometimes wonder what more Roman can do for us, with the Workd Cup being in Russia and Putin wanting his cash input combined with our self efficient failings to be sufficient if the truth is known - We cannot deny in any shape or form that there are things going on behind the scenes that are out of our managers control, then again under Romans reign that could be said of every manager we have had. I was suspicious of Romans intent when he arrived, he quickly removed that from my thoughts, however the way people like Jose, Butch and countless others have been treated, together with the lack of squad refreshment in the close season, means in my mind the time is as good as any for an ownership change. I don't understand why you're bringing up the subject of Roman leaving in every other post. On one hand, you give the man credit and wonder "what more Roman can do for us", and yet you constantly making a point of putting him down by making comments on how he should either keep spending or sell the club. Have we Chelsea supporters been spoiled by the wonderful ride of the last 5-6 years so much that we come to think of any setback as unacceptable because we're somehow entitled to being the success? I don't need to talk about everything RA has done for the club, it's been said many times over. He's made his share of mistakes which are also well documented. The good though so far outweighs the bad, anyone with the grain of objectivity could clearly see it. What I wonder is, why are you so desperate to see the club sold to someone else? What makes you think Chelsea would be better off with another owner? Who do you have in mind? Hicks and Gilette? Glazers? Or you expect another City like sheik to come and spend a few hundred to buy another squad? I mean it would be nice but let's get back to planet Earth for reality check. The club in their current state, with the struggling team and little prospects of winning anything and an uphill battle to finish in the top four still has got the highest wage bill in the country and continues to lose money every year. With the new UEFA regulations coming into effect this summer our situation will hardly get any easier. We do need to improve the squad (if not rebuild it, considering the age) but for aforementioned reasons there are no quick solutions available for us anymore and we'll have to be creative about it since we can hardly afford to make mistakes in the transfer market that'll set us back financially without improving things on the pitch. Like you, I also want Roman to spend, but I hope it's for the right player at the right price and it's not an easy equation to achieve. Some sacrifices in terms of trimming the squad will also have to be made and last summer was one of the steps in that direction. As far as I can tell, we could have improved the squad by targeting the areas where we lacking and spending the same money but on a different type of players( Adam Johnson + Van der Vaart instead of Ramires?) but that's a different story. We got lucky with Roman. There's a very little chance the next owner whoever he may be, will be anywhere near as beneficial to the club and I wouldn't want to take a chance to find out.
dkw Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) We cannot deny in any shape or form that there are things going on behind the scenes that are out of our managers control, then again under Romans reign that could be said of every manager we have had. I was suspicious of Romans intent when he arrived, he quickly removed that from my thoughts, however the way people like Jose, Butch and countless others have been treated, together with the lack of squad refreshment in the close season, means in my mind the time is as good as any for an ownership change. Cant agree with any of that at all, surely better the devil you know and all that. The owners of the club since I have known it werent exactly even handed and fair at all times, Bates threw away half our history and players at one time only for Roman to reassert all that. At least we know Romans intentions are good and in the main all for the good of a club he now obviously has deep feelings for. Sorry Abramovich, I posted almost at exactly the same time as you and you covered pretty much everything I did but much more succinctly. As you say, why on earth anyone would want to swap Roman for another unknown owner with god knows what intentions I will never know. Yet Star has been angling for it quite a lot lately, cant think why. Edited January 4, 2011 by dkw
Tim W Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Isn't there some sort of fund in place should RA depart suddenly not sure whether this covers his own chosen departure or not.
Hutch Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 I didn't think anyone was suggesting that Roman should sell-up. I took it as a hypothetical what-if question, or maybe a worst case scenario.
dkw Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 I didn't think anyone was suggesting that Roman should sell-up. I took it as a hypothetical what-if question, or maybe a worst case scenario. Star is.
Hutch Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Star is. I was mostly referring to the original question and my response, but point taken.
dkw Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 I was mostly referring to the original question and my response, but point taken. Keep your bloody hands of my points....
Tim W Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Seeing some toys he's got in his box in the corner I sometimes wonder why he bothers with a football team
Star Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 In responce to Abramovich and dkw, Guys, please don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying I would welcome a Man Utd or Liverpool style "Roman Out" cry from the Shed End or indeed a yank or Arab style takeover. Like any Club it moves in cycles. Between 1980 and 1982 I never missed a Chelsea game home or away, even pre-season, even as fans when we were banned. When Ken Bates came in and tarnished all our fans with the same hooligan brush, then dismantled my Chelsea team to that of relative unknowns I took my one and only step of boycotting Stamford Bridge for the start of the 83-84 season. As Pat Nevin, Kerry Dixon, Nigel Spackman, Joe McClauglin etc arrived - I just couldn't face the season ahead without 'My Chelsea' Alas, my self exile didn't last long, I was back in the shed to watch an exciting Chelsea team play some of the best football I've seen in my life. There are a lot of comparisons that could be made to that of Roman's arrival here team wise, the difference was the cost of players, cheap gems as they were and the fact that Clive Walker had saved us the previous season from the 3rd Division at Bolton whilst Jesper Gronkjaer put us in the Champions League before Roman's arrival. Love or loath Ken Bates and I have plenty of reasons to loath him "Bates threw away half our history and players at one time only for Roman to re-assert ..." has got to be one of the most controversial and challenging statement of this particular thread ! Blimey, the bloke fought tooth and nail by himself to secure Stamford Bridge and keep it away from the developing sharks, we would be playing in eye brook common park now if it wasn't for him !! John Neal probably along with Jose the best appointment of a manager since I started supporting Chelsea, but for a heart attack and continued ill
Star Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Oops hit wrong key - damn I phone ....... ill health, would have won us the league long before the arrival of Roman ! The fact that Stamford Bridge was developed along with Chelsea Village and we were in the Champions League, was the catalyst behind that view over the ground that swerved Roman away from White Hart Lane !! The lead of the thread is "Chelsea Debt' Ken's only crime was exactly that. Roman then dismantled that Chelsea team in the same way as Ken did ! Jose however, didn't suffer ill health just interference and Carlo is now getting the same !! And we like others still have debt !! What I'm saying is that this cycle, given Romans interests in the next 7 years with Russia and the world cup, maybe if he can be as selective as Ken, the baton could be handed over to someone to build on the fantastic training facilities and youth academy Roman has developed - whilst giving Carlo the opportunity to pick his own backroom team and have the vision to release money to tweak a squad to perfection before the season starts ! It has to be said - that man could have been Matthew Harding (RIP)
alan'82 Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Ken's electric fence was right load of bullocks though,the good old days (thank f**k there long gone).
abramovich Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Star I never doubted that you're true supporter who wants what he feels is best for the club. I wouldn't even have bothered to reply in the first place if it was for yet another "expert" who hasn't been heard or seen on this board until he/she decided to register couple of weeks ago and share their infinite wisdom on how to run Chelsea with the CSR forum members who they look down on as uneducated plebs in need of being lectured. I know you speak from the heart, I just feel it's unrealistic to expect another generous billionaire to take over from Roman(he has to be that because RA still foots the bill to keep us going year after year), let alone another Matthew Harding, who was one of a kind. That's why I said, for all his faults, we got lucky with Roman, because let's be honest, there isn't much fans can do about who owns the club and how they run it, there are plenty of examples with mancs resenting Glazers burdening the club with their debt, scousers cursing the day H&G bought them, magpies vs Ashley, etc etc. I'm not saying I'd stick with Abramovich no matter what. If we could have a guarantee that a new owner would continue n the same vein when it comes to financial support and yet will have no interference in the team matters, I'd support that all the way. But how realistic is that? You're basically saying you'd want to keep all the good things and none of the bad. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world mate so I'd rather stick with what I know and what works.
Recommended Posts