Gemmill 46030 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Chelsea have recorded losses of £140m, the biggest in football history. It was a severe increase from the £88m loss they made last year, with the Blues citing a "series of exceptional one-off items" behind the rise. "These figures reflect the continuing restructuring of the business which we began in 2003-4," Chelsea chief Peter Kenyon told the club website. "The rise is down to some exceptional items that were necessary to help us in our aim to break-even by 2009-10." The termination of a deal with Umbro, which cost £25.5m, plus a total loss of £22.8m over the transfers of Adrian Mutu and Juan Sebastien Veron and the £5m for Academy recruitment were picked out as the "exceptional items". Kenyon added: "We terminated the Umbro contract which had a huge impact on these figures, but we have not yet seen any of the financial benefit of our new adidas contract. "Similarly these figures do not include any of the monies from our new sponsorship deal with Samsung, which was the biggest in Premiership history." Chelsea's wage bill was reduced from £115.5m to £108.9m, while transfer fees, and the additional fees involved in buying players, fell from £175.1m to £101m. Turnover dropped from £152.1m to £146.6m, with the PLC putting that down to the sale of Chelsea Village Travel, the club travel agents. Chelsea have used Roman Abramovich's fortunes to fund a transfer spend of nearly £265m which helped them win their first domestic league title for 50 years when they won the Premiership last season. I'd love to know what this plan is that's going to see them turning a profit within 5 years. Wage bill of £109m on turnover of £147m! Even if you took out the "exceptional" (non-recurring) items that total around £50m, they're still losing £90m or so. Completely unsustainable if Abramovich was to get bored......which is possible if the Chosen One left and the trophies dried up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Peter Kenyon is the anti-christ. Ithangu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Heard this on the Radio this morning. Let's hope he does get bored tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Russian money laundering tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Heard this on the Radio this morning. Let's hope he does get bored tbh. 85214[/snapback] We only want him to get bored when Newcastle become an attractive prospect for the likes of Terry and Lampard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1260 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I was going to say hopefully when he does get bored he leaves them enough to keep them afloat. But tbh I hated them before they came just as much as I hate them now so I really don't care if they fall big time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46030 Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 I honestly can't see what this 5 year plan is. Their wage bill isn't going to drop significantly if they're going to maintain a playing squad of the current calibre, and their turnover isn't going to go up all that much (barring them selling out a huge stadium at Earl's Court every week) - it actually fell slightly in a season in which they won the Premiership. There aren't that many untapped foreign markets out there that aren't already saturated by Man United (and yeah, foreign fans may change allegiance easier, but not to the extend that Chelsea would vastly increase turnover). So basically, they're going to have to reduce all other costs to £38m or less (turnover less wages) just to break even, when these costs are currently running at £124m (not including the exceptional items). Now they can harp on about the new sponsorship deals etc, but I can't see those new deals being worth an extra £80m in turnover. And they haven't even got involved in buying Earl's Court and all the costs involved in that yet. Good luck Mr. Kenyon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I honestly can't see what this 5 year plan is. Their wage bill isn't going to drop significantly if they're going to maintain a playing squad of the current calibre, and their turnover isn't going to go up all that much (barring them selling out a huge stadium at Earl's Court every week) - it actually fell slightly in a season in which they won the Premiership. There aren't that many untapped foreign markets out there that aren't already saturated by Man United (and yeah, foreign fans may change allegiance easier, but not to the extend that Chelsea would vastly increase turnover). So basically, they're going to have to reduce all other costs to £38m or less (turnover less wages) just to break even, when these costs are currently running at £124m (not including the exceptional items). Now they can harp on about the new sponsorship deals etc, but I can't see those new deals being worth an extra £80m in turnover. And they haven't even got involved in buying Earl's Court and all the costs involved in that yet. Good luck Mr. Kenyon. 85230[/snapback] I'm honestly at a complete loss as to why they bothered getting Peter Kenyon in. Obviously he's at the top of the tree in his profession but frankly Chelsea dont need him to manage the finances. It's Abramovich's hobby horse-$140 million is a drop in the proverbial for him. It'll only ever become an issue if Abramovich gets bored, and in that case Kenyon (even with all the financial acumen on the planet) wont be able to do sweet fanny adams anyway. And he knows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewJerseyMag 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) I honestly can't see what this 5 year plan is. Their wage bill isn't going to drop significantly if they're going to maintain a playing squad of the current calibre, and their turnover isn't going to go up all that much (barring them selling out a huge stadium at Earl's Court every week) - it actually fell slightly in a season in which they won the Premiership. There aren't that many untapped foreign markets out there that aren't already saturated by Man United (and yeah, foreign fans may change allegiance easier, but not to the extend that Chelsea would vastly increase turnover). So basically, they're going to have to reduce all other costs to £38m or less (turnover less wages) just to break even, when these costs are currently running at £124m (not including the exceptional items). Now they can harp on about the new sponsorship deals etc, but I can't see those new deals being worth an extra £80m in turnover. And they haven't even got involved in buying Earl's Court and all the costs involved in that yet. Good luck Mr. Kenyon. 85230[/snapback] I'm honestly at a complete loss as to why they bothered getting Peter Kenyon in. Obviously he's at the top of the tree in his profession but frankly Chelsea dont need him to manage the finances. It's Abramovich's hobby horse-$140 million is a drop in the proverbial for him. It'll only ever become an issue if Abramovich gets bored, and in that case Kenyon (even with all the financial acumen on the planet) wont be able to do sweet fanny adams anyway. And he knows it. 85236[/snapback] They're doomed, doomed I tell you. I'll be smiling to myself when it happens, couldnt happen to a nicer set of people. Edited January 27, 2006 by NewJerseyMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Supposing it does go tits up in a few years, would you swap places with them? Assuming Jose wins a few more pots, including probably the European Cup at least once. I think I probably would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocChip 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Supposing it does go tits up in a few years, would you swap places with them? Assuming Jose wins a few more pots, including probably the European Cup at least once. I think I probably would. 85269[/snapback] But your children and your children's children would forever curse your memory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Supposing it does go tits up in a few years, would you swap places with them? Assuming Jose wins a few more pots, including probably the European Cup at least once. I think I probably would. 85269[/snapback] But your children and your children's children would forever curse your memory 85281[/snapback] I think that's probably already a given in Alex's case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Supposing it does go tits up in a few years, would you swap places with them? Assuming Jose wins a few more pots, including probably the European Cup at least once. I think I probably would. 85269[/snapback] But your children and your children's children would forever curse your memory 85281[/snapback] I think that's probably already a given in Alex's case. 85294[/snapback] Cheeky bugger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut 190 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Heard this on the Radio this morning. Let's hope he does get bored tbh. 85214[/snapback] We only want him to get bored when Newcastle become an attractive prospect for the likes of Terry and Lampard 85221[/snapback] About 7 months time would be good after they've steered England to World Cup glory under the leadership of newly appointed Toon boss, Sven Goran Eriksson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Cheeky bugger! 85295[/snapback] You can counter it by getting a few sly digs in first. Just start calling your first born fat now, then when it comes along stuff it full of chocolate and you will be proven right. It's the way of the future, ask Renton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) If we reckon Comrade A is worth lets say £ 10 billion he makes around £ 800 million a year probably so he's burning 10-20% of his income at Chelski - that is not sustainable I suspect BUT the plan was never just a winning team - if he moves the club to Earls Court he wil be able to finance the rebuilding as we did on a long term loan AND he's left with several acres of the most desireable real estate in W Europe to redevelop at the Bridge - and no-one will object to new flats & offices (and social housing and maybe the R Abramovitch Sports Centre) because they will have got rid of the appaling football supporters and other riff raff ........................... Looking at the map it look as if the ground covers about 1 sq km (= 247 acres) = 100 hectares In 2003 land for development in london was going at £ 5.5 milion a hectare - but that's an average and a large site in a desirable area would certainly fetch more - in 2003 a site in Wadsworth fetched £ 14.4 million a hectare (Wadsworth FFS!!!) and they are currently quoting £ 18 million a hectare for land in Camden so God knows what Chelsea/Fulham will bring.................................. Even at £ 5.5 million that's £ 500.5 million in his pocket - maybe twice - to four times that.............. Edited January 27, 2006 by Rob W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 If we reckon Comrade A is worth lets say £ 10 billion he makes around £ 800 million a year probably so he's burning 25% of his income at Chelski - that is not sustainable I suspect BUT the plan was never just a winning team - if he moves the club to Earls Court he wil be able to finance the rebuilding as we did on a long term loan AND he's left with several acres of the most desireable real estate in W Europe to redevelop at the Bridge - and no-one will obkject to new flats & offices (and social housing and maybe the R Abramovitch Sports Centre) because they will have got rid of the appaling football supporters and other riff raff ........................... Looking at the map it look as if the ground covers about 1 sq km (= 247 acres) = 100 hectares In 2003 land for development in london was going at £ 5.5 milion a hectare - but that's an average and a large site in a desirable area would certainly fetch more - in 2003 a site in Wadsworth fetched £ 14.4 million a hectare (Wadsworth FFS!!!) and they are quoting £ 18 million a hectare for land in Camden so God knows what Chelsea/Fulham will bring.................................. Even at £ 5.5 million that's £ 500.5 million in his pocket - maybe twice - to four times that.............. 85314[/snapback] Interesting figures, but in all seriousness the blokes clearly a fan. You see him at the matches and he's obviously genuinely into the game/winning etc etc. There may be scenarios where there is actually money to be made but I doubt this is what is motivating him. He could make far more and far more quickly, outside of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Supposing it does go tits up in a few years, would you swap places with them? Assuming Jose wins a few more pots, including probably the European Cup at least once. I think I probably would. 85269[/snapback] Ditto tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 "He could make far more and far more quickly, outside of football." he did................................ I agree tho that he is a genuine football fan - but take it from me the Goblins know a thing or two about wheeling and dealing............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22001 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 If we reckon Comrade A is worth lets say £ 10 billion he makes around £ 800 million a year probably so he's burning 10-20% of his income at Chelski - that is not sustainable I suspect BUT the plan was never just a winning team - if he moves the club to Earls Court he wil be able to finance the rebuilding as we did on a long term loan AND he's left with several acres of the most desireable real estate in W Europe to redevelop at the Bridge - and no-one will object to new flats & offices (and social housing and maybe the R Abramovitch Sports Centre) because they will have got rid of the appaling football supporters and other riff raff ........................... Looking at the map it look as if the ground covers about 1 sq km (= 247 acres) = 100 hectares In 2003 land for development in london was going at £ 5.5 milion a hectare - but that's an average and a large site in a desirable area would certainly fetch more - in 2003 a site in Wadsworth fetched £ 14.4 million a hectare (Wadsworth FFS!!!) and they are currently quoting £ 18 million a hectare for land in Camden so God knows what Chelsea/Fulham will bring.................................. Even at £ 5.5 million that's £ 500.5 million in his pocket - maybe twice - to four times that.............. 85314[/snapback] Yeah, but how much is Earl's court, the land it's built on, and the building of a brand new stadium going to cost - bearing in mind Earl's court is 10 minutes walk from Stamford bridge? And if it were that simple, why didn't the evil Santa Clause do it - he rarely misses a trick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I don't think KB would have had the cashflow tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Spit it out, Gemmill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46030 Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 If we reckon Comrade A is worth lets say £ 10 billion he makes around £ 800 million a year probably so he's burning 10-20% of his income at Chelski - that is not sustainable I suspect BUT the plan was never just a winning team - if he moves the club to Earls Court he wil be able to finance the rebuilding as we did on a long term loan AND he's left with several acres of the most desireable real estate in W Europe to redevelop at the Bridge - and no-one will object to new flats & offices (and social housing and maybe the R Abramovitch Sports Centre) because they will have got rid of the appaling football supporters and other riff raff ........................... Looking at the map it look as if the ground covers about 1 sq km (= 247 acres) = 100 hectares In 2003 land for development in london was going at £ 5.5 milion a hectare - but that's an average and a large site in a desirable area would certainly fetch more - in 2003 a site in Wadsworth fetched £ 14.4 million a hectare (Wadsworth FFS!!!) and they are currently quoting £ 18 million a hectare for land in Camden so God knows what Chelsea/Fulham will bring.................................. Even at £ 5.5 million that's £ 500.5 million in his pocket - maybe twice - to four times that.............. 85314[/snapback] Yeah, but how much is Earl's court, the land it's built on, and the building of a brand new stadium going to cost - bearing in mind Earl's court is 10 minutes walk from Stamford bridge? And if it were that simple, why didn't the evil Santa Clause do it - he rarely misses a trick? 85327[/snapback] Aye, Rob, even if it was a long term loan, the payments on it would be huge (WAY more than what we're making) - I'm assuming they would sell off the land that Stamford Bridge is on, or at least if it was going to be used for property development, it would be something that Abramovich would manage personally rather than keep on the books of the club - in other words, it's not going to be a source of revenue for them. The Earl's Court venture is going to cost them a fortune and is going to be a drain presumably for at least the next 2-3 years on Abramovich's cash, and they're not going to be showing a profit in that time, that's for sure, not while they're still on a limited capacity at Stamford Bridge. If they have got a plan for the club to become self-sufficient, it must be a very cunning one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46030 Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Spit it out, Gemmill! 85338[/snapback] Hanging on my every word tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Spit it out, Gemmill! 85338[/snapback] Hanging on my every word tbh. 85340[/snapback] Close to hanging myself after your every word tbqfh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now