Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

United and Chelsea's £1.5bn debts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    United and Chelsea's £1.5bn debts

    Just goes to show how close they both are to being in big trouble:

    David Conn The Guardian, Tuesday May 20 2008 Article historyAbout this articleClose This article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday May 20 2008 on p1 of the Sport news & features section. It was last updated at 07:28 on May 20 2008.
    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

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...league.chelsea

    #2
    We're heading that way unfortunately.

    Comment


      #3
      It would appear it is currently the only route to major success; you'd have to worry about Chelsea, United and us (to a lesser extent) if the football bubble burst or Abramovich walked away.

      I read last week that United didn't even fork out to cover all their interest payment last year and this is the biggest and most profitable club in the world (tm)
      James Philip Milner Fanclub #1

      Curtis Julian Jones Fanclub #1

      Comment


        #4
        Since 2003 Chelsea has been Abromovich's primary play thing. Signs are that his interest is cooling. A dull bad tempered 0-0 draw in Moscow might finish him off. Now appears he's found found a new toy, the art market. He sponsored the Hayward exhibition of the Soviet photographer Rodchenko earlier this year and has just spent £60m on two paintings at Sotheby's. Of course the Freud could be a sweetner to intrest Wayne Rooney.
        Attached Files
        Last edited by focusedonfootball; 20-05-08, 01:14 PM.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by focusedonfootball View Post
          Since 2003 Chelsea has been Abromovich's primary play thing. Signs are that his interest is cooling. A dull bad tempered 0-0 draw in Moscow might finish him off. Now appears he's found found a new toy, the art market. He sponsored the Hayward exhibition of the Soviet photographer Rodchenko earlier this year and has just spent £60 on two paintings at Sotheby's. Of course the Freud could be a sweetner to intrest Wayne Rooney.
          Wow spending £60 shows he has high interest in art .

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by TheStig View Post
            Wow spending £60 shows he has high interest in art .
            To be fair it's be more than I'd pay!
            James Philip Milner Fanclub #1

            Curtis Julian Jones Fanclub #1

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Cacodemon View Post
              It would appear it is currently the only route to major success; you'd have to worry about Chelsea, United and us (to a lesser extent) if the football bubble burst or Abramovich walked away.

              I read last week that United didn't even fork out to cover all their interest payment last year and this is the biggest and most profitable club in the world (tm)
              True, they deferred the intrest until 2010 (next refinancing). United are probably the only club at present that could handle this level of indebtedness, but that will also depend on the money markets over the next 12-18 months. But and this is a big but - If Glazer starts to take some serios money out of United over the course of the current TV deal then in 4-5 years then United may struggle if the next TV deal is lower. If that happens we are looking at a split up of the TV deals.

              If Roman walked then Chelsea are ****ed - End of discussion.


              The whole Premier League is held up by a collective TV deal. If that falls in the future, it will be the end of 60% of the clubs in the permier league but a select few may get richer if they get their own deals. This is why we are an attractive proposition to DIC and the Yanks.
              I make no apologies, this is me

              Comment


                #8
                Don't the big Spanish clubs get their own individual TV deals? I agree that that will be the next likely step at some point in the future for Premier League teams.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Deano View Post
                  True, they deferred the intrest until 2010 (next refinancing). United are probably the only club at present that could handle this level of indebtedness, but that will also depend on the money markets over the next 12-18 months. But and this is a big but - If Glazer starts to take some serios money out of United over the course of the current TV deal then in 4-5 years then United may struggle if the next TV deal is lower. If that happens we are looking at a split up of the TV deals.

                  If Roman walked then Chelsea are ****ed - End of discussion.


                  The whole Premier League is held up by a collective TV deal. If that falls in the future, it will be the end of 60% of the clubs in the permier league but a select few may get richer if they get their own deals. This is why we are an attractive proposition to DIC and the Yanks.

                  I read that the Italian teams and German ones have complained to UEFA about the EPL teams level of debt is unfair as I think they are not allowed to have that level of debt under their own FA rules?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by paulc View Post
                    I read that the Italian teams and German ones have complained to UEFA about the EPL teams level of debt is unfair as I think they are not allowed to have that level of debt under their own FA rules?
                    That's right. I posted the following a few days back. UEFA seem to be looking at introducing rules on how much debt is allowed in order to level the playing field a little. It's understandable that teams from other countries are complaining about the English teams debt-based spending when they are unable to do likewise. They're playing with 1 arm (or leg) tied behind their backs.

                    Premier League clubs warned by Michel Platini

                    Last Updated: 12:09am BST 18/05/2008

                    Michel Platini today warns England's leading clubs that the days when they can buy success by running up huge debts are coming to an end.

                    Uefa's president is determined to introduce a licensing system for clubs across Europe so that there is a level playing field.

                    In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Platini warns that the current situation - where Manchester United are valued at £919 million but have debts of £551 million - cannot continue.

                    "Licensing will come and, when it does, no longer will clubs be able to win through debt," says Platini, who is under pressure from leading clubs in France and Germany, where there are already stricter rules on indebtedness.

                    He also questions the motives of the American businessmen, the Glazer family and George Gillett and Tom Hicks, who have bought Manchester United and Liverpool respectively.

                    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../sfnfro218.xml

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X