• Current Donation Goals

richard

Chelsea Finances Thread

Recommended Posts

Spot on. The Glaziers have been fantastic for Utd, fully supporting fergie throughout , giving him a transfer budget of 30 million to spend every year. Is it any surprise they have won 3 league titles in a row since the Glazers took over?

Also given them debt up to their teeth. You act like United were a poor mans club before the Glazers, that budgets of 30m every season is a new phenomenon to the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roman has to be the best one out of them. In the short-term, the Glaziers look like an excellent introduction but if you look long term Glazier must be the worst considering the amount of danger he has put the future of the club in, if Glazier decides to pack his bags United will do a Leeds.

Edited by rikybains1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spot on. The Glaziers have been fantastic for Utd, fully supporting fergie throughout , giving him a transfer budget of 30 million to spend every year. Is it any surprise they have won 3 league titles in a row since the Glazers took over?

Bottom line is Fergie is still at united and they are champions , we sacked Jose and have not won it since , glazers all day long for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if Glazier decides to pack his bags United will do a Leeds.

They wouldn't, in the same way we wouldn't if Roman left. Someone else would have to buy the club, debt and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They wouldn't, in the same way we wouldn't if Roman left. Someone else would have to buy the club, debt and all.

There is a difference. The debt holders are Man U are different to the equity holders. If the club fails to meet its target ratios or other guarantees, the debt holders there might choose to destroy value at the club to get say 75% of their money back fast. That could mean selling off all the decent players while accepting relegation - doing a Leeds.

At Chelsea, debt and equity are held by the same person, so "Abramovich's liquidator" has no interest in destroying value. And because so much of the debt has been converted into equity, that means that even if the debt is sold off to someone else, the equity holders will maintain control of Chelsea. And the future holders of the equity will not be interested in asset stripping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a difference. The debt holders are Man U are different to the equity holders. If the club fails to meet its target ratios or other guarantees, the debt holders there might choose to destroy value at the club to get say 75% of their money back fast. That could mean selling off all the decent players while accepting relegation - doing a Leeds.

At Chelsea, debt and equity are held by the same person, so "Abramovich's liquidator" has no interest in destroying value. And because so much of the debt has been converted into equity, that means that even if the debt is sold off to someone else, the equity holders will maintain control of Chelsea. And the future holders of the equity will not be interested in asset stripping.

Thanks Droy for explaining it succinctly.

I guess the alternate scenario is someone like the RealM president re-elect taking over and selling the training facilities to pay off any outstanding he might incurr and investing in the glactico policy. Glazers have been quite fair to ManU, they also got a little lucky with the Ronaldo sale which I imagine probably paid alone for a couple of payments. Lerner would be my choice as well, for maintaing the Charlton of a few years model; not punching above their weight and aiming at the UEFA cup spot if a few upsets here and there, with some upsets along with way. Fair bit of investment as well into the club. Importantly it seems O'Neil's appointment along with holding on the Aglbanhour (?), amongst other decent players seem to have done the trick. So well done to both O Neil and Lerner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khobar   

Who's Abrahimovic anyway? I've known player-managers, but never a cross between a chairman and a centre-forward.

Oh, and none of the others would have given us the cash and security (and success) that Abramovic has. No contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who's Abrahimovic anyway? I've known player-managers, but never a cross between a chairman and a centre-forward.

Come on K. Player-managers, Player-owners...duh!!!. Wait til plump Sheiks start pulling on their boots at Pompey. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jangz   
Come on K. Player-managers, Player-owners...duh!!!. Wait til plump Sheiks start pulling on their boots at Pompey. :)

I think he meant I spelt Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich wrong yeah.. it does sound like zlatan Ibrahimović .. whatever ...

Anyways.. returning back to the topic see.. a lot of ppl seem to support glazers... but forget when roman came into the club it was an experiment a risk.. where as for glazers man utd was an established setup.. just somekind of an investment option... whereas roman built the club .. rather did a lot to take the club to it's present standards!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

The Glazers bought United with debt (I believe it's called leverage but not being an expert I'm not sure) and look at the state of their finances now. What are they. £700m in debt or something crazy? Indeed, they may be the biggest football/sports brand in the world, or certainly one of them, but how much potential is there? Enough for the Glazers to see a return, even if they sold the club? Not sure about that.

Roman bought us with his OWN cash, which despite being a billionaire still represented HIS OWN money, plus he invested heavily in the infrastructure, ie Cobham and the Academy. Chelsea has no EXTERNAL debt, and borrowing off Roman's really like borrowing off your dad, he's not really going to want it back. If he sold, fair enough, but even then it'd have to be someone with extremely deep pockets so we'd be fine. But at the end of the day, Roman seems to enjoy owning Chelsea a lot more these days, since Hiddink took over I'd say, and selling the club won't make much of a difference in the big scheme of things to him I'd imagine.

So for me, for investing his own hard cash and continuing to support the club financially as he does, it's an easy choice for me. Roman all the way!! :D

Carefree

chelsea_matt :P

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