they are 80 million pounds in debt but thats ok. its a step in the right direction.
Banks close other companies for a lot less so why not chelsea
2007-02-18 22:31:42 · 16 answers · asked by Snot Me 6 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ English Football
Carlisle, wrexham have been recent clubs where the receivers have been in for less than a 1milion so is it 1 rule for the big clubs and 1 for the smaller
2007-02-18 22:33:56 · update #1
so a loss doesn't constitute a debt,mmmmmmmmm.
let me work that one out
2007-02-18 22:52:45 · update #2
A lot of people are showing their fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
The fact that they are owned by a billionaire is really neither here nor there. As a business, they are only viable in the long term if they can support themselves by making a profit. They recognise that themselves. If Abramovich died tomorrow, where would that leave the club? The loss they have declared is not as great as last years, so you could argue they are "going in the right direction"...but it is still a huge amount of money to lose. Abramovich may indeed "have the money to cope"...but why would he wish to spend his last penny on a business he bought on a whim, and which is only one of many business he is involved in? Any sensible businessman will cut his losses eventually if his money is leaking like a sieve.
Its ridiculous to suggest that banks have nothing to do with the club just becauseif its owned by an individual...check out the situation at Man Utd, where the Glazers own the club outright but put the club in hock to their bank.
A "recorded loss" is a debt, in any terms. If you spend more than you have coming in, you are in debt. End of story.
Normal business proceedure does not really seem to apply to the world of Premiership football, and banks seem to allow their normal policies to be messed around with. More fool them...but as always its the small clubs who suffer the backlash and find it impossible to borrow.
2007-02-19 00:15:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's ridiculous, isn't it?
It's not looked upon in the same way as other clubs though because of Abramovich. They should do something about it though to limit their spending - like a transfer embargo or a wage cap until the amount becomes a more reasonable figure. Peter Kenyon was even in the press the other day saying that Chelskii wont be reducing ticket prices as their squad are asking for massive pay hikes as a result of the money they'll be getting from the new tv rights, so the figure may well go up again next year.
2007-02-18 23:01:51 · answer #2 · answered by Jay A 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not a debt, it's a recorded loss for the financial year.It's a reduction of 60m on last year.That's why they're not closing.I know everyone & his dog want Chelsea to falter - not gonna happen!
Cuts have been cut by 43% and they're set to break even by 2009.They've stopped the big-money signings & are reducing ticket prices.So even if Roman does leave we'll be self-sufficient.So tough!
2007-02-19 13:37:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
those figures do not include the 100 million puond sponsorship deal with addidas so the figures arent as bad as you think. the reason they havent been closed is that they have no debt as this was payed off when abramovich took over. also they can get away with losses of this nature as it will be payed back very soon and abramovich has th money to do this, he has 10 billion pounds.
2007-02-19 00:17:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Birmingham, Millwall and West Ham have all been in contact interior the worst hooligan incidents. i might say West Ham are the worst according to se, as there at the instant are not any one million/2 measures with them. whilst issues are going properly, they are as intense high quality as pie, making a music 'i'm continuously Blowing Bubbles' and so on; yet whilst issues circulate undesirable, they are actual a set of foul-mouthed, abusive morons. Calling Glenn Roeder 'tumour boy' and making hissing noises at Spurs' Jewish followers working example.
2016-12-18 06:20:45 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they are not in £80 million debt, their owners a billionaire.
its an £80 million pound loss, their outgoings were 80 mil more than income last year
2007-02-18 22:38:40 · answer #6 · answered by blue birds til i die 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They aren't in debt. It's a recorded loss.
This means that they spent £80 million more than they made from revenue and things.
2007-02-18 22:40:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Thing is Chelsea don't care at the moment.
The experts reckon Roman will have had enough by 2011/12 - they will care when he leaves and leaves them in trouble.
2007-02-18 22:41:35 · answer #8 · answered by Sluugy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That 80 mill is only over the 1 year.The true cost is way higher.
2007-02-18 23:35:37 · answer #9 · answered by alan r. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hope they go into horendous debt and have no more money to play their "superstars" and abramovich leaves them because hes bored of them!
That will shut up those chelsea scum!
2007-02-18 23:41:23 · answer #10 · answered by the southern dandy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋