Between 2014 - 2018 they lost a total of £6m, so they were self sustaining. They lost £96m in the last filled accounts for 2019. They’ve since made circa £150m in player trading plus they’ll have dramatically reduced the wage bill, which had increased by over £40m in the previous year, and reduced amortisation costs which accounted for a good chunk of the rest. Pre COVID they were definitely on for a record profit. Their year end was June.
Liverpool are willing to pay Diego Carlos’s £70m release clause but face stiff competition from Manchester City to sign the Sevilla defender this summer, according to the Daily Star.L
Liverpool have today extended the deal of specialist throw-in coach Thomas Gronnemark. The Danish coach broke the news on his own Twitter feed.
Man what a great week for being linked to players. Too bad that Klopp has made it clear that we won’t spend big...
This is a constant dilemma. We can only keep so many top quality players happy at any one time. Early Roman Empire Chelsea bought everyone they could in order to try and keep them from other clubs. They had so many loaned out they probably forgot where they all were. We can't do that, and it's a balancing act between getting the best players and being able to keep them. Would Sancho be happy being rotated? Would the present incumbents be happy not playing all the time?
Salah and Mané definitely wouldn't be happy not playing all the time. Bobby seems a happy chappy but I wouldn't want to chance upsetting him. AFCON may make a difference as to how happy any new signing in the forward line would likely be.
We wont get him, but we literally only have Salah and Mane to play wide. Chamberlain is woeful there, as is Firmino. If one is injured or rotation needed we fall off a cliff in quality. I think we could offer Sancho a sh!t load of game time.
Aren't Chelsea's finances as fragile as yours with massive owner loans being booked as equity or loans to holding companies? If Roman pulls the plug, they are in a right mess. I read that the holding company can't get credit, all transactions have to be cash. As you know I don't know much about how finances work but when I read from good financial sources that things aren't as they appear on the surface, it makes me wonder.
Chelsea are not self sustaining. Those figures include £247 million pumped in by Abramovich https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidd...-despite-losing-love-for-london/#7478f7111065
Most of his directors loans have been converted into equity. There’s circa £250m still showing on the last accounts as outstanding loans from one of his other companies. His total investment since buying it, stands at circa £1.1BN. If he never put another bean in, they’d be capable of self sustaining themselves, their estimated value is not far off his total investment. As for credit, I’ve no idea, but I doubt they’re any less credit worthy than most other clubs tbh.
Given they were self sustaining between 2014-18 I’d expect the majority of that predates that period. The article doesn’t specify when the debt was accrued, merely what it totalled in the 2019 accounts.
So long as they were able to find another source of interest-free loans for hundreds of millions of pounds you mean?
Just as an example Arsenal Holdings has a net worth of £393m. Liverpool FC and Athletic Grounds net worth £248m. Chelsea's Fordstam Holdings has a net worth of --£784m. ( that's minus in case it's not clear) Is that not a concern?
It depends how you chose to read the balance sheet, as the net worth is positive, it’s the total equity that’s a negative, due to his cash input over the years. It’s all solely owned by Abramovich, so it’s his debt, and he’s a multi billionaire.
Yep. Even with Salah and Mane starting, he'd still get 35+ games. All three can play central too too a varting degree of success
The net worth is calculated by subtracting the liabilities from the assets isn't it. So that makes the net worth negative. I've checked other PL clubs and none of them have a negative net worth. As well as the holding company having negative net worth ( and that's who the loans are with), Chelsea FC has a negative --£668m net worth. It just doesn't look right to me. It's up to Roman whether or not he decides to write off a £1bn loan but can you say a club is self sustaining if it's being run with owner loans that can be called in at any time?
Nope, and he'd be able to admit Chelsea aren't self sustaining if his own club hadn't also been taken over by a billionaire. Turning loans into equity isn't debt but it definitely isn't self sustaining either.
You’re comparing apples with pears. Those other clubs haven’t had huge cash inputs by their owners who’ve then converted the debt to equity. Equity isn’t a loan btw. The debt is Abramovich’s and will be reflected in the net price he receives as and when he chooses to sell it. If he sold tomorrow for £1BN, then he’d effectively be walking away with a circa £100m loss. An owner like him calling in Directors loans that a club couldn’t pay would be beyond dumb, as you’d literally bankrupt it, and still not get your investment back. As and when he wants the bulk of his cash back, he’ll sell.
