Football debt levels!
Discussion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/20/pre...
Couple this with the pair of t
ts at Anfield also saddling us with stloads of debt and its not ahealthy picture. Arsenal are doing reasonably well I think - anyone got any figures?
Can't believe the "game" has never been in a healthier state financially what with TV deals and so on - yet the biggest clubs are debt ridden. Bonkers.
Article said:
Chelsea and United debts at record £1.5bn
• New accounts show London club owe £736m
• Abramovich has loaned - not donated - his money
* David Conn
* The Guardian,
* Tuesday May 20 2008
* Article history
Roman Abramovich has poured £578m into Chelsea as an interest-free loan. Photograph: Shaun Boterill/Getty Images
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.
Jesus.• New accounts show London club owe £736m
• Abramovich has loaned - not donated - his money
* David Conn
* The Guardian,
* Tuesday May 20 2008
* Article history
Roman Abramovich has poured £578m into Chelsea as an interest-free loan. Photograph: Shaun Boterill/Getty Images
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.
Couple this with the pair of t
ts at Anfield also saddling us with stloads of debt and its not ahealthy picture. Arsenal are doing reasonably well I think - anyone got any figures?Can't believe the "game" has never been in a healthier state financially what with TV deals and so on - yet the biggest clubs are debt ridden. Bonkers.
sleep envy said:
im said:
I think Spurs turn a small profit each year as well
that's because they have a very good jewish accountant - you see £20, he sees £10, you see £10, he sees £5... 
...thats funny...cos I thought all the jews were over at the bridge now...
...working for these guys:
sleep envy said:
Puggit said:
That is bonkers to me...
makes sense to me from a business POV, why saddle yourself with the risk when you can off set it?as a football fan I'm not too happy about it though
Group tax relief and it makes perfect sense in beany land.
On the other hand, there is always the element of worry and these people do tend to do a bit of asset manipulation and I'm sure that at some point, one of the clubs will lose their sugar daddy and suddenly feel a bit poor for other reasons.
However, it could be better and I'd rather be in, say, Real Madrid's position than Man Utd's(Chelseas being a slightly different animal). I'd also rather be in the position of any of those than, say, teams like Bolton, Blackburn and especially those lower down the leagues.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff