• Current Donation Goals

richard

Chelsea Finances Thread

Recommended Posts

fantastic news for our club.. just should remind people how lucky we are that roman is here and now we are practically debt free which means we are a secure club... which must mean we will be staying up top for a long time :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said: 'The club's debt load has been reduced almost to nil in order to provide more long-term stability for the club.This is bullsh*t. A debt which is repayable one day to the owner is almost meaningless. The financial stability of hte company is unchanged imo. All suppliers knew that the debt would never be recalled.

Hold on, of course the financial stability has changed. Beforehand Roman could recall those debts, which we would have to repay. Which he may well have done if he sold the club. To say that getting rid of a debt that may have to be paid at any time isn't financially stabilizing is plain foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simon   

Hold on, of course the financial stability has changed. Beforehand Roman could recall those debts, which we would have to repay. Which he may well have done if he sold the club. To say that getting rid of a debt that may have to be paid at any time isn't financially stabilizing is plain foolish.

Agreed. Roman is the man !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on, of course the financial stability has changed. Beforehand Roman could recall those debts, which we would have to repay. Which he may well have done if he sold the club. To say that getting rid of a debt that may have to be paid at any time isn't financially stabilizing is plain foolish.

The debt was owed by the club to Roman, who also owns the club. So, In simple terms: He basically owed himself. Do you really think that he'd have demanded that he repay himself?

That's the point Buck was making, and it's not 'foolish' at all. What has changed here is the appearance of the club having a large debt, and little else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simon   

The debt was owed by the club to Roman, who also owns the club. So, In simple terms: He basically owed himself. Do you really think that he'd have demanded that he repay himself?

That's the point Buck was making, and it's not 'foolish' at all. What has changed here is the appearance of the club having a large debt, and little else.

But if Roman walks away then so does the debt now. Something that wouldnt have happened before this. Thats how I read it.

Thats certainly alot bigger than just appearance and little else. Unless you just see Chelsea in the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why people are offended by this 'Brand' thing. Chelsea are a brand. In fact that's all we ever were.

Nothing remains the same:

Manager -nope

ground-nope

owner-nope

fans-nope

staff-nope

kit-nope

crest-nope

In fact every single thing about the club-apart from the name or rather the brand name- has changed from when we first started supporting

So what exactly are we supporting ?

Let me hazard a guess at :childhood memories...

We don't want someone stamping on our childhood dreams. Sorry but t'was ever thus.onwards and upwards

Cheers

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if Roman walks away then so does the debt now. Something that wouldnt have happened before this. Thats how I read it.

No offence, but you're not reading it correctly. Again, it was a case of Roman owing the debt to Roman. And he was never going to just 'walk away- that's fanciful. If he wanted out, he'd sell to another individual/business entity, and the price he'd ask would include his total investment, just as it would do now. The only difference being whether that investment stayed on the books as 'debt', or was wrapped-up in Roman's valuation of the business. The situation at Chelsea is an accounting one, and very different to clubs such as Man Utd and Liverpool, who have huge debts owed to external entities (banks/financial institutions, etc) - that's real debt, that needs to be serviced and repaid at some time.Treating the two situations as if they were the same, is simply a mistake.

Thats certainly alot bigger than just appearance and little else. Unless you just see Chelsea in the short term.

It has nothing to do with seeing Chelsea in the short-term, or long-term. It has to do with understanding the financial dynamics of what's just happened. It's book-keeping. And Roman has done this (converting debt into equity) a number of times before. And, if we go out and spend a 100 mill on new players any time soon, the same exercise will be repeated no doubt: the money will come from RA, and go onto the books as a loan to the business (I.e., debt). Somewhere down the line, he'll convert that debt into equity. It a standard business practice, where that facility exists. Of course we're lucky that we have an owner in the position, and with the commitment, to do this, and not having a large book debt looks good to Uefa (complies with their new rules), to the media, and to to the outside world in general. It's great, but people should understand it for what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can be very cynical by nature,most of which stems from following Chelsea with Uncle Ken at the helm.On the plus side,we are now debt free,which is a HUGE 2 fingers(of the Agincourt type)to Platini(which is more amusing,as he's French)and all the others at UEFA.

On the down side,especially for those who work for the media,Chelsea FC are now a much more viable asset,for those wishing to buy a football club.For as we are often told by said media,Roman isn't in it for the long haul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simon   

No offence, but you're not reading it correctly. Again, it was a case of Roman owing the debt to Roman. And he was never going to just 'walk away- that's fanciful. If he wanted out, he'd sell to another individual/business entity, and the price he'd ask would include his total investment, just as it would do now. The only difference being whether that investment stayed on the books as 'debt', or was wrapped-up in Roman's valuation of the business. The situation at Chelsea is an accounting one, and very different to clubs such as Man Utd and Liverpool, who have huge debts owed to external entities (banks/financial institutions, etc) - that's real debt, that needs to be serviced and repaid at some time.Treating the two situations as if they were the same, is simply a mistake.

It has nothing to do with seeing Chelsea in the short-term, or long-term. It has to do with understanding the financial dynamics of what's just happened. It's book-keeping. And Roman has done this (converting debt into equity) a number of times before. And, if we go out and spend a 100 mill on new players any time soon, the same exercise will be repeated no doubt: the money will come from RA, and go onto the books as a loan to the business (I.e., debt). Somewhere down the line, he'll convert that debt into equity. It a standard business practice, where that facility exists. Of course we're lucky that we have an owner in the position, and with the commitment, to do this, and not having a large book debt looks good to Uefa (complies with their new rules), to the media, and to to the outside world in general. It's great, but people should understand it for what it is.

I understand it for what it is and am very grateful to Roman as should any Chelsea fan be. Roman isn't only making us the club we are, he is also writing away debt after debt for us, much like what happens in Spain with the big 2. I imagine the Mancs, Gooners and Liverpool fans were green with envy yesterday, not you though eh Michael, still got to stick your oar in. It has everything to do with the long term you muppett !!! Without continuing to write of the debt as he has done there would be no term to look into...........

Roman bails us out time and time again and all you think is its just for appearance and UEFA and we should just understand it as financial dynamics and book keeping?? Your making a point that isn't necessary !!!!! Roman obviously doesnt see it as the business and book keeping your making it out to be or he would be writing away millions of pounds of his wealth. I honestly can't believe how ungrateful your post above sounds...............

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