Elliott Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 and if he did, we would have 18 months to hand all his dosh back! http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/ma...rleague.chelsea Chelsea and Manchester United, the Premier League's two representatives in tomorrow's Champions League final, owe creditors £1.5bn between them. According to the latest accounts of Chelsea Limited, the company which owns the football club, Chelsea owed £736m to all its creditors. United's accounts, also recently filed at Companies House, showed total creditors at £764m. Those unprecedented figures will fuel concern that at this time of English football's greatest club triumph its clubs are carrying too much debt. Covering the year to June 30, 2007, Chelsea's accounts show that the club's largest creditor was the owner himself, Roman Abramovich, who had poured £578m into the club, not as a donation but as an interest-free loan. As stated by the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, in February, Chelsea did not owe "external debt" to any bank. However, with Abramovich's £578m loan, introduced to sign players and pay wages since he bought the club in 2003, plus general amounts owed, taxes and some categories listed among creditors for formal accounting purposes, Chelsea's creditors stood at £736m in total. Chelsea's director of communications, Simon Greenberg, confirmed that the £578m, described in the accounts as "Other loan", is indeed the loan from Abramovich. Greenberg reiterated that Chelsea has no "external debt" and pointed out that the creditors included season-ticket holders for 2007-08, whose money has technically to be treated as owed until the season is over, "and other normal operating creditors". The figure also included £36.3m still owed on a Eurobond taken out by Chelsea's previous owner, Ken Bates, in 1997. That, the last of Chelsea's "external debt", was then repaid last December. Kenyon released headline figures from these accounts in February, highlighting that the club made a record turnover, £190.5m, and that its losses were down from £80.2m in 2005-06 to £75.8m last year. Kenyon said then that the club was in a healthy financial position, still aiming to break even by 2009-10, partly because it did not owe money to outside creditors and retained Abramovich's support. "With the company being external debt free and our ownership clearly demonstrating continuing commitment to the long term," Kenyon said, "I am very confident about the future." United's accounts showed the club's total creditors at £764m. United does have "external debt" - £666m owed to financial institutions, including £152m to hedge funds - taken on by the Glazer family when they bought the club in 2005, then loaded on to United itself. While United's loans incurred interest of £81m last year, the loan to Chelsea by Abramovich is interest-free. Abramovich has funded Chelsea's extraordinary acquisition of stars and, although transfers showed a profit last year, he continued to allow Chelsea to be run at a substantial loss. Kenyon's role is to transform Chelsea into a club which can survive on its own earnings. In February he acknowledged it was an "ambitious" target to aim to be self-financing by 2009-10 but the accounts bear out commercial progress in all areas. Having finished runners-up in the Premier League, won the FA Cup and League Cup and reached the Champions League semi-final, the club's sponsorship, match-day and media income all increased to push total turnover 25% up. However, there is no doubt that the club remains wholly reliant on Abramovich's continued funding. Chelsea's chairman, Bruce Buck, has stressed that Abramovich "loves football" and will not "walk away" from Chelsea. If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coco Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Bla bla bla bla bla ! Yes Roman is going, terracing is making a comeback, ticket prices will plummet, Ronaldo will be sold to Liverpool and Mod will start asking easier music questions, funny old world ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkw Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 funny how all this crap is coming out a day before one of the biggest games in history. nothing to do with the bitter media morons unhappy that weve usurped their beloved liverpool/west ham/arsenal (delete as applicable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethicalstrategy Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 And, of course the banks and hedge funds that are funding Utd can't get their money back under any circumstances! I'd rather be in the hands of a sugar daddy than a corporate financier who would sell his granny to turn a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brit Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 still a bit worrying no matter how we can dress it up as anti-chelsea etc...the clause wouldn't be in there if roman wasn't thinking of leaving at one point and that's a hell of a lot of cash we owe him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coco Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 He wont go when he hasnt made any money yet, he isnt stupid, he's in this for more than love you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckel Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 There is a LOT more than a media agenda to this if accurate. Someone please explain to me why this is not absolutely f*cking appalling news for us. F*cking business men, always got their arses covered, and if anything should happen to the Roman Empire (like a conviction for all the robbing he did in the 90s and the freezing of his assets, not at all an unforseeable occurrence) we'll be up sh*t creek with no boat, no paddle, no life-jacket and ... no football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonetti Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I would rather have our situation than the mankers any day. Mankers are up to there eyes in debt and have to pay interest on those loans. Glazers couldnt give a toss about them or football - just another asset for generating cash. The 600m loans from RA are interest free and could be called in with 18 months notice - in real terms that loan to CFC is costing RA about 50m a year in interest foregone based on an 8% return - petty cash to him. Sure there is a danger he will walk away - but for some reason I dont think he will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 I didnt post this to highlight the anti Chelsea bias. I work with sets of accounts for a living, and found this information interesting purely on a factual basis. Yes, we are in a better position than Utd in terms of debt owed, as we are keeping it all in-house, therefore not racking up huge amounts of interest, however, it's not exactly wonderful news either is it? Being that RA is effectively 'lending' us the cash, as opposed to donating, means that; yes, he may want it all back at some point, and IF he does, (not to say he will) then we have 18 months to find the best part of £600m. That was the talking point, if not a slightly uncomfortable one at that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckel Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I'd rather be in the hands of a sugar daddy than a corporate financier who would sell his granny to turn a profit. Sure there is a danger he will walk away - but for some reason I dont think he will He wont go when he hasnt made any money yet £600 is enough to sink us permanently and are we comfortable that the fate of our century-old club rests in the hands (and, indeed the fate) of a Russian business man whose motives are difficult to discern at best?? Even if he loved this club more than his mother, there's no saying what will happen to him. he's certainly not the world's most scrupulous character. One thing's for sure, the phrase 'sugar daddy' no longer applies ; sugar daddies do not loan their mistresses diamond rings 'interest free' and hold open the choice to call them up on the loans if business is bad. I'm not usually one for doomsday scenarios but the truth seems to be if worst comes to worst we'll not just be saddled with an unwieldy wage bill as we (or at least I) had previously thought, we'll be completely f*cked, much much worse the L**ds. Either the club would fold or the fans be more screwed over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peeking Duck? Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 ...RA is effectively 'lending' us the cash,... ...then we have 18 months to find the best part of £600m. Just out of curiosity, does that mean we own the club? If so, can we ditch a certain...nevermind. It would appear that Roman is effectively lending this money to himself as he owns CFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 Sorry for assuming that i am part of Chelsea. Of course, like other fans such as myself, this is not the case. Completely seperate entities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkw Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 though it doesnt sound too god, i doubt he would put this much effort and investment into the club to just dump on it all of a sudden. plus, id rather owe one man who has a love of the club than be in this situation The Guardian also reports that Manchester United owe an equally-extraordinary £764million to external creditors, £666million of which is to the assorted financial institutions that loaned the Glazer family the money to buy the club in 2005. The loans - now of course loaded on to the club by Glazer - incurred interest payments of £81million last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killbill Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money. Or else what? Bankrupt his own club so another millionaire can pick the “name” of a now global brand and Stamford Bridge (if not the whole company) for peanuts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkw Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 the thing is, this is an internal debt. the club owes roman, but surely this is more than likely an accountancy thing. what the article doesnt say is that if roman decides to walk away, he could very easily write that debt off leaving the club totally debt free. but of course that wouldnt fit with teheir ant-chelsea stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killbill Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 If Roman is funding his own club through “loans” it has to be for tax or any other financial reason and not because when he walks away Chelsea has 18 month to pay back. So why didn’t the journalist look into that and inform, rather than go for the 1.5bn debt sensationalistic headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkw Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 i dont think we need to even ask that question killbilll. if his exclusive was "roman abrmaovich has given internal loans to chelsea, which mean if he leaves they can either write the debts off or sell them to the next person buying the club. either way the club are in a fantastic opsition financially. and roman doesnt look like leaving in anyway". i doubt his editor would have been happy. better to sensaionalise it, talk utter sh*te then print a sh*tty little apology in 3 months time. their utter scum and id love to see roman bring down the might of his legal department on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peeking Duck? Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 i dont think we need to even ask that question killbilll. if his exclusive was "roman abrmaovich has given internal loans to chelsea, which mean if he leaves they can either write the debts off or sell them to the next person buying the club. either way the club are in a fantastic opsition financially. and roman doesnt look like leaving in anyway". i doubt his editor would have been happy. better to sensaionalise it, talk utter sh*t then print a sh*t little apology in 3 months time. their utter scum and id love to see roman bring down the might of his legal department on them. Have to agree with you on this dkw. They not only got it wrong, but they went out of their way to get it wrong, as well. In addition, this type of story is not incidental like the ones purporting to "scoop" whether Sidwell stays or goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballack & Blu Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 what happens if it transpires that Roman has just spent some his Largesse on something he really wants to,to him it could be just indulging but on a far greater scale than normally possible to the average person,probably just wishful thinking but who knows,what a multi billionaire does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I'm angry... How dare Roman lend Chelsea 600 million pounds interest free. I mean the nerve of the guy!... Where does this end?. Next thing he'll be lending me 600 million pounds interest free. Ohh the pain of it all.....the pain of it all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts