• Current Donation Goals

richard

Chelsea Finances Thread

Recommended Posts

Being a fully qualified accountant and reading Kenyon's statement. It is not as bad as it sounds. In fact the £140m figure was what I was expecting. I knew Chelsea would squeeze in the extraordinary costs this year. This will ensure the 2009/10 to break-even.

Expect to see 3 more financial years of losses before witnessing a profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Richard Redmond

Only £90 million? Well that's alright then!


id="quote">

id="quote">

£90m isn't bad when you consider our market capitisation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you listened to the 606-Chelsea 100 years show last night,you would have heard the same thing.

What I didn't like was the assumption that we will still pay over the odds for ticket prices."Would you prefer to pay £28 to watch Villa or £45 to watch Chelsea".I'd like to know how many tickets are given to companies that are then sold for a huge profit.Where do all the tourists get theirs from.And how many more are given to corporate sponsors and businesses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea Business Plan On Target:

Chelsea are on course to achieve the business plan and break even in 2009/10 said chairman Bruce Buck and chief executive Peter Kenyon at the announcement of the year’s accounts this morning, Friday.

The accounts were for the year from July 1st 2004  June 30th 2005, the second year of Roman Abramovich.

Chairman Buck emphasised: “The very beginning of the business plan was that Chelsea Football Club should aspire to be successful on the pitch.†That’s what stimulated the investment of £175m in Mr Abramovich’s first year, 101m in the year reported, and is currently at £57m this year.

More on it from TOCFCWS, read the full article here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing

£25.5m loss on Umbro cut-off (so that we can gain extra revenue of the next few years)

£9m loss on Veron (to save two years of Veron wages)

£5m on recruiting Arnesen (to reap talented youth in near future).

So £40m of those loses are for the benefit of Chelsea FC. The Veron situation is more of a case of mitigating the loss.

Only the £13.8m loss of Mutu (although I would say £11m as he gave us a good year in his first year) is an ACTUAL significant loss.

The other £86m needs to be broken down further to be examined, I would assume it mainly consists of the transfer fees and the wages overriding the revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Dan Murphy

Does anyone else find it amusing that they describe Veron as a write-off?!


id="quote">

id="quote">

In football financial terms, players are considered as assets. hence when you remove an asset in terms of being obsolete or dis-used or as a loss-generating asset it is considered as a write-off.

Veron is considered as obsolete, hence a write-off.

Mutu is more of a dis-used asset. An asset that can still generate added-value but under exceptional circumstances is removed for exceptional reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now