Potential buyer - MLSE

[JimmytheJim]

Self-effacing? Self-harming? Self-racisting?

[Royal Rother]

Will-Selfing? Ugh...

[Franchise FC]

True.

My worry is that, rather than an asset stripper or an investor we’d get the other (and worst) kind of billionaire: an egomaniac. Fayed, Abramovich, Romanov etc.

How many successful clubs are actually owned by rich local individuals who love the club? After Reading, maybe only Newcastle.

We really don’t know how lucky we are.

Sorry ..... I'm a little confused by your statement.

Are you suggesting that Chelski are not successful ?
If so, can I have a bit of their failure, please ?

[ElmParker]

True.

My worry is that, rather than an asset stripper or an investor we’d get the other (and worst) kind of billionaire: an egomaniac. Fayed, Abramovich, Romanov etc.

How many successful clubs are actually owned by rich local individuals who love the club? After Reading, maybe only Newcastle.

We really don’t know how lucky we are.

Sorry ..... I'm a little confused by your statement.

Are you suggesting that Chelski are not successful ?
If so, can I have a bit of their failure, please ?

Read it again. Nowhere did I say Chelsea was unsuccessful or a failure. What it is, however, is heavily indebted and the play thing of a rich man with no connection to the area or feeling for the club. I, for one, would not swap. Not in a million years.

Yes, Chelsea have won several trophies since Abramovich bought the club with money conned out of some of Russia’s poorest people, but the club is in a vast amount of debt to him – money it could never repay. (In fact, genuine question: what is the financial situation there? The debts keep climbing. To get a return on his money, he’d need to sell the club for over a £1bn!)

Should he get bored or decide to install one of his friends as manager (oh, wait...) or start buying players he likes (oh, wait...) then you don’t know how wrong this could go. In addition, all the success hasn’t brought, yet, a larger stadium or bigger fan base which could help the club sustain its success in a post-Abramovich era.

Look at Man City or Leicester. Look at Liverpool and the new stadium they can’t now afford. I’m amazed that even success-starved scousers haven’t started thinking twice about DIC.

Would I want to swap chairmen? No, not even for all Chelsea’s trophies. I want Reading to earn its success and, above all, I want the club to have solid foundations in the community so it’s still a club I can recognise and love in the decades to come, and so it’s a club I can be proud to take my kids to.

Nothing confusing about any of that.

[IMAMATEOFJOVSKY]

Club Value (£m) Debt(£m)
Man United 919 551
Real Madrid 656 177
Arsenal 612 263
Liverpool 536 348
Bayern Munich 468 0
AC Milan 407 0
Barcelona 400 28
Chelsea 390 0
Juventus 260 13
Schalke 240 115


Abramovich has absorbed the debt - according to Deloittes ( see above) Chelsea have zero debt!

Bayern Munich obviously stashed away plenty of gold during the war!!!!

[Tilehurst End]

True.

My worry is that, rather than an asset stripper or an investor we’d get the other (and worst) kind of billionaire: an egomaniac. Fayed, Abramovich, Romanov etc.

How many successful clubs are actually owned by rich local individuals who love the club? After Reading, maybe only Newcastle.

We really don’t know how lucky we are.

Sorry ..... I'm a little confused by your statement.

Are you suggesting that Chelski are not successful ?
If so, can I have a bit of their failure, please ?

Read it again. Nowhere did I say Chelsea was unsuccessful or a failure. What it is, however, is heavily indebted and the play thing of a rich man with no connection to the area or feeling for the club. I, for one, would not swap. Not in a million years.

Yes, Chelsea have won several trophies since Abramovich bought the club with money conned out of some of Russia’s poorest people, but the club is in a vast amount of debt to him – money it could never repay. (In fact, genuine question: what is the financial situation there? The debts keep climbing. To get a return on his money, he’d need to sell the club for over a £1bn!)

Should he get bored or decide to install one of his friends as manager (oh, wait...) or start buying players he likes (oh, wait...) then you don’t know how wrong this could go. In addition, all the success hasn’t brought, yet, a larger stadium or bigger fan base which could help the club sustain its success in a post-Abramovich era.

Look at Man City or Leicester. Look at Liverpool and the new stadium they can’t now afford. I’m amazed that even success-starved scousers haven’t started thinking twice about DIC.

Would I want to swap chairmen? No, not even for all Chelsea’s trophies. I want Reading to earn its success and, above all, I want the club to have solid foundations in the community so it’s still a club I can recognise and love in the decades to come, and so it’s a club I can be proud to take my kids to.

Nothing confusing about any of that.

Excellent post.

In the Abramovich era Chelsea have spent £366million on players, recouped around £55m in selling, spent something like £550m on wages and won 2 championships, 2 league cups, an FA cup and a Charity Shield equating to roughly £143million per trophy.

That's one expensive hobby!

[Royal Rother]

I read somwhere this week that Chelsea owe Abramovitch £578m.

[ElmParker]

Club Value (£m) Debt(£m)
Man United 919 551
Real Madrid 656 177
Arsenal 612 263
Liverpool 536 348
Bayern Munich 468 0
AC Milan 407 0
Barcelona 400 28
Chelsea 390 0
Juventus 260 13
Schalke 240 115


Abramovich has absorbed the debt - according to Deloittes ( see above) Chelsea have zero debt!

Bayern Munich obviously stashed away plenty of gold during the war!!!!

Thanks for that. Very interesting.

So, if Abramovich dies tomorrow, Chelsea aren't bankrupt? And if he gets bored, he can't ask for his money back?

The question then is, what would he be willing to sell the club for if he did lose interest? He might have to asset strip them to recoup his investment or, wishful thinking, demolish Stamford Bridge and turn it into excutive flats...

I wouldn't sleep well as a Chelsea fan with that kind of financial arrangment.

[Royal Rother]

Ah yes, here we go. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008 ... ue.chelsea

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.

[ElmParker]

Roman Abramovich, who had poured £578m into the club, not as a donation but as an interest-free loan.

Financialol security? Sword of Damocloles.