Just read we have announced a loss of 49.4m for this year. What do we all make of this?

a good time to announce bad news? be nice for us to start limiting losses and, dare i say it, even turn a profit. im assuming the self-sustainability mentioned by Kenyon when he arrived is being pushed back year on year. apparently its still in line with FFP though, so nothing to worry about overly at the moment.

Not too worrying.

The loss is because we didn't progress past the group stages of the CL, and the fact we bought some young players in. The financial hit now will serve us well for future seasons as not only do I imagine we'll continue to progress in the CL, the squad should only see minor changes.

Yeah Coxy definitely a good time to bury bad news.

We definitely should be turning a profit soon given the revenue of the club and it is certainly doable.

I am sure we can all think of about £25 million/ a year on our wage bill which is completely unnecessary, not to mention the annual pay off we have to give a manager each year; I've read somewhere that we are still paying RDM. Also one of Willian/Schurrle was an unnecessary signing in my opinion so knock of £20-£30 mil off plus the £3-5 mil a year they would be getting in wages.

I personally think Football clubs should run like charities. All profits should be put towards either future investments (though I am sure this is already part of our expenditure) or to be reinvested into the local or international community. I would hate us to become an Arsenal continually fleecing the fans, but making a loss each year doesn't sit very well either given how much money we bring in each year.

EDIT:

 

Not too worrying.

The loss is because we didn't progress past the group stages of the CL, and the fact we bought some young players in. The financial hit now will serve us well for future seasons as not only do I imagine we'll continue to progress in the CL, the squad should only see minor changes.

 

Splish, I forgot about the non-CL progress and that is a very good point. That probably cost us around £15-£20 mil.

If we used our squad better and let some our youth players fill the gaps instead of high earners, we would be in a much better position. This is something Man United have done excellently down the years with the likes of David May, Nicky Butt, John O'Shea, Wes Brown, Darren Gibson and Darren Fletcher.

Edited December 31, 201312 yr by mactheknife

Not too worrying.

The loss is because we didn't progress past the group stages of the CL, and the fact we bought some young players in. The financial hit now will serve us well for future seasons as not only do I imagine we'll continue to progress in the CL, the squad should only see minor changes.

 

Winning the Europa league made up for group stage exit, we ended up netting more revenue than Arsenal and Man U who got knocked out in last 16.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/chelsea-reveal-50m-loss-185416625.html

 

"The results for the year ending June 30, 2013, show a record £255.8m turnover - the fourth successive year it has increased - despite the club's elimination from the Champions League at the group stage last season.

Chelsea enjoyed a 19 per cent rise in commercial income from £67m to £79.6m as they won the Europa League, although a reduction in income from the success of winning the previous year's Champions League contributed to the £49.4m loss.

Despite that, Jose Mourinho's side will satisfy FFP regulations as the two-year monitoring period includes the £1.4m profit made in the 2011/12 season.

The Blues also see around £15m knocked off their overall loss in add backs, which includes infrastructure costs, youth development costs and charitable donations amongst other outgoings.

That brings Chelsea's losses for the period to approximately £34m, falling under the FFP threshold of £37.5m."

 

Not all bad. If we had that £41m/year extra matchday revenue with a new stadium we'd be flying.

Just reading the details being a bean counter myself it is my comfort zone .... I would say there is very little to worry about. Nicely just within FFP rules, an excellent squad and by far best manager in the world I would say we are In a sound position.

And fair play (no pun) to the board they have (whether luck or judgement) stuck to the original plan when Roman arrived which wad initial investment them push on with the big boys

Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules, which say clubs must break even over three years, come into full effect in 2013-14.

 

So we need to make a steady profit of £25M odd in the next two seasons?

Edited December 31, 201312 yr by JoeyN

Means bugger all really

Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules, which say clubs must break even over three years, come into full effect in 2013-14.

 

So we need to make a steady profit of £25M odd in the next two seasons?

not sure i can see that happening tbh. however, i cant really see UEFA following through with this FFP idea. its all well and good saying it, but when push comes to shove do they actually have the balls to prevent big clubs such as ourselves, United, Barca, Madrid etc from competing in the Champs League? it will impact UEFA as much as the individual club. can they really tell sponsors that the 2015 champions league wont have Chelsea in it for example? how would sponsors react? i suspect UEFA would refrain from serious action based on FFP if it would affect their own finances. in other words, ill believe this FFP bollocks when i see it in action

not sure i can see that happening tbh. however, i cant really see UEFA following through with this FFP idea. its all well and good saying it, but when push comes to shove do they actually have the balls to prevent big clubs such as ourselves, United, Barca, Madrid etc from competing in the Champs League? it will impact UEFA as much as the individual club. can they really tell sponsors that the 2015 champions league wont have Chelsea in it for example? how would sponsors react? i suspect UEFA would refrain from serious action based on FFP if it would affect their own finances. in other words, ill believe this FFP bollocks when i see it in action

La Liga's tv deals will save Barca and RM I don't know enough about Man U's situation if it has improved or not

Financial fair play is a joke. Until UEFA actually sanction a club for basic free market practices I don't see a reason to kowtow to them. I can't imagine telling an organization how to spend their money. More spending is good for the sport anyway. Besides, Chelsea doesn't get huge state subsidies like Bayern and Barcelona/Madrid get from their governments. You think the British government will pay for Chelsea's new stadium like the Germans paid for Bayern's Allianz Arena? Not a chance. FFP is a scam and goes against basic economic law. Communism failed for a reason.

Nothing to do with us not making the knock out stages of the Champions League, as someone has said already we made more tv money than any other UK team last season.

These results were to be expected - last season there was a one-off financial boost that came when BSkyB agreed to cancel its shares in a joint digital media venture with the club. That skewed the results more than anything and was the biggest reason for the profit, more so than the CL win.

Ultimately what yesterday's results tell us is what we already know - we are doing ok but we need to move to a new stadium within a decade or face the prospect of being left behind a little.

Edited January 1, 201412 yr by bjd

Financial fair play is a joke. Until UEFA actually sanction a club for basic free market practices I don't see a reason to kowtow to them. I can't imagine telling an organization how to spend their money. More spending is good for the sport anyway. Besides, Chelsea doesn't get huge state subsidies like Bayern and Barcelona/Madrid get from their governments. You think the British government will pay for Chelsea's new stadium like the Germans paid for Bayern's Allianz Arena? Not a chance. FFP is a scam and goes against basic economic law. Communism failed for a reason.

well the taxpayer here will effectively fund West Hams new stadium, and Tottenham will receive taxpayer money towards the regen . of the area if their stadium gets the go ahead.

Add in the fact that top players have a variety of methods to dodge tax on their incomes and I think its not all about basic economic law.

And that's before you start to look at Romans wealth, you don't even want to go there!

I think though, that this announcement will seriously limit the money Jose has at his disposal in the summer, can see a few leaving, including Mata to fund purchases.

If 'basic economic law' was applied to football clubs, we would be out of business by now, and the Bridge would be full of houses.

Thing is, football is not like any other business model, its a world of its own, trying to impose sensible economic rules to it is hopeless. Players wages are ridiculously high, ordinary workers have pay freezes and reductions imposed on them if their company is in the red, but players live in a cosseted bubble, becoming millionaires every couple of months while the clubs they play for sink into the red, it crazy, but that's football !

Are the hotels etc. still on our books. I remember in the early days they used to have to be supported by the clubs income, not sure what the position is today though ?

Financial fair play is a joke. Until UEFA actually sanction a club for basic free market practices I don't see a reason to kowtow to them. I can't imagine telling an organization how to spend their money. More spending is good for the sport anyway. Besides, Chelsea doesn't get huge state subsidies like Bayern and Barcelona/Madrid get from their governments. You think the British government will pay for Chelsea's new stadium like the Germans paid for Bayern's Allianz Arena? Not a chance. FFP is a scam and goes against basic economic law. Communism failed for a reason.

LOL!!!! Bayern getting subsidies from the government!? You should read up on Bayern's history and you will see why your comment is pretty damn funny! :lol:

Bayern took major loans(which they are still paying to this day)to build the Allianz Arena, and sold 2% of the clubs shares to Adidas to finance the stadium costs. Also it was Bayern and 1860 Munich who split the cost of building the stadium that is why they also play their home games their but Bayern were able to buy the full ownership of the stadium from 1860 a couple years ago.

I agree FFP at the moment is a joke though to maintain the status quo....

Nothing to do with us not making the knock out stages of the Champions League, as someone has said already we made more tv money than any other UK team last season.

These results were to be expected - last season there was a one-off financial boost that came when BSkyB agreed to cancel its shares in a joint digital media venture with the club. That skewed the results more than anything and was the biggest reason for the profit, more so than the CL win.

Ultimately what yesterday's results tell us is what we already know - we are doing ok but we need to move to a new stadium within a decade or face the prospect of being left behind a little.

 

This seems the grim truth at the moment. All the worse as Battersea would have been perfect for it.

Also don't forget , 10 year kit deal being signed this year worth £300m plus. That's £30m a year !!

This seems the grim truth at the moment. All the worse as Battersea would have been perfect for it.

yes Battersea was the perfect solution. I think the Earls Ct. development has also gone, but the Lille Road railway yard was still a possibility ?..like to know where we are with it all, couldn't stand a move further away tbh.

FFP is a joke but the club must appear to be towing the line. 

 

The truth is that we are in a fairly comfortable place. Do i think we're going to make £25m profit for the next 3 years? In my opinion, No. Although I will admit that my knowledge of business matters clearly isnt as great as some on this forum.

 

Chances are we will continue to spend heavily on 1 or 2 players and whilst making a bit back through players sales. We've got a fairly good kit deal with Adidas, Samsung sponsorship is good (there are better out there) and I'm totally against gaining fund through renaming the Bridge.

 

I agree with a previous poster that we will have to move in the next decade but for now the club are doing fairly well.

Also don't forget , 10 year kit deal being signed this year worth £300m plus. That's £30m a year !!

yeah, the players will all want a rise for that deal,seems the more that comes in the richer the players get.

I'm not sure that the club are doing well, considering the loans that Roman has given the club, and then converted into shares via a holding company. Last report it was about £800 million, and in theory have not been written off.

We are only where we are because of a Russian millionaire, that's fine as long as he stays interested, thank God he Spurs couldn't be arsed to meet him before he met Batesy !!

I read somewhere than owner investment counts as turnover up until around about the £45 million mark? I may be wrong but I'm sure I've seen that somewhere. I'll have a little look around see if I can find anything concrete. If so then I'm guessing this is how the big spending teams will go about not hitting that limit.

 

Edit: Found this online, a little bit more complicated then imagined and it doesn't really apply to us;

 

 

''The table shows that the acceptable deviations (i.e. losses) vary quite considerably. From the first 2013/14 monitoring period, an owner can invest up to €45m over two seasons in exchange for more shares in the club. It means an owner can after the 2013-14 season on average only exchange €15m worth of cash for shares each year to spend on transfers and wages etc. That figure is reduced to €10m per season (€30m over three seasons) for the 2015-16 season. If an owner does not put any money into a club by way of cash for shares, each club’s acceptable loss (by reference to the last column in the table) is a mere €5m over three years.''

Edited January 1, 201412 yr by Erik

I read somewhere than owner investment counts as turnover up until around about the £45 million mark? I may be wrong but I'm sure I've seen that somewhere. I'll have a little look around see if I can find anything concrete. If so then I'm guessing this is how the big spending teams will go about not hitting that limit.

that's interesting, didn't know that.