Fao Morbyd and Chelsea fans...

[silvia]

I don't know if the case is the same but there's a big difference between Madrid and Barça: one invested in stars, the other one invested in building up a team

 

[x-amount]

I hardly think 2 years of spending on new players is any worse than the many years of spending by Man U, Madrid, Barca, Milan, Inter and Juve. Ya, Arsenal has some homegrown players - because they bought them all at 19 or 20 and put them in the youth program for a year (and almost none of them are English!) For Chelsea, it's been playing catch up... just turns out it was a lot easier to catch up than most of us thought

$2.4 billion?

You call that easy?

And during Chelsea's pre-Roman (post Zola) obscurity, they spent just as much as Man Utd and Arsenal, iirc.

How can you say that you can even compare your team with Man Utd or Arsenal? You are only where you are due to Romans money FACT.

(Oh, and don't get me wrong, I'm DELIGHTED Chelsea are doing well, only to wipe the smug grin off the trul;y worst team on Gods planet, Arsenal. mwahahahah (Just don't think it's for any other reason that Roman's roulette wheel stopped at Chelsea.))

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/08/content_449610.htm

 

[djchewie]

The Blue tide has turned, X-man. Get used to it. It's long term.

cant wait for Arnesen to get his little black book out and sign players of the calibre of Atouba for u.

 

[Morbyd]

$2.4 billion?

You call that easy?

Where in hell did you get that number? From that article?

EVERY number you've seen in the press is bullshit.

You want to know what it cost? $0.

Here's how:

Chelsea was purchased for 140 million pounds (60 million equity plus assumption of 80 million in debt). It's now worth, according to a different Deloitte & Touche report, over $400 million. Profit.

Now, player fees. They are amortized over the life of the player contracts, so you don't add them all up and say "he spent this much" unless you have no idea about business. Those fees and salaries are offset by revenues. Chelsea had an operating loss of somwhere around 150 million pounds over the past 2 years.

So, if you take the increase in equity versus the operating loss you'll see that it actually wasn't as massive a spend as everyone makes out.

But for the naysayers, it's a lot simpler to add up one column of numbers. Makes good headlines for The Sun.

 

[jjinit]

Johnny!!!

can you please confirm last nights result?

because based on the fact that you actually beat everton and didnt draw, then last night was a draw wasnt it??

 

[Morbyd]

Johnny!!!

can you please confirm last nights result?

because based on the fact that you actually beat everton and didnt draw, then last night was a draw wasnt it??

You're mixing it up. Everton was a draw. Mourinho said we didn't lose to Charlton... at least not in regular time or extra time. It was a draw.

Last night was a loss, jj. Nothing shameful about losing once or twice every 30 games or so

 

[jjinit]

 

[dw151174]

$2.4 billion?

You call that easy?

Where in hell did you get that number? From that article?

EVERY number you've seen in the press is bullshit.

You want to know what it cost? $0.

Here's how:

Chelsea was purchased for 140 million pounds (60 million equity plus assumption of 80 million in debt). It's now worth, according to a different Deloitte & Touche report, over $400 million. Profit.

Now, player fees. They are amortized over the life of the player contracts, so you don't add them all up and say "he spent this much" unless you have no idea about business. Those fees and salaries are offset by revenues. Chelsea had an operating loss of somwhere around 150 million pounds over the past 2 years.

So, if you take the increase in equity versus the operating loss you'll see that it actually wasn't as massive a spend as everyone makes out.

But for the naysayers, it's a lot simpler to add up one column of numbers. Makes good headlines for The Sun.

remember one thing morbyd my essay writing friend......chelsea (as a club) are still in debt, £110m+ (this being from purchases etc) from the last time I recall, thats what they owe Roman is it not???

as for the £400 million profit I believe that is tosh as kenyon himself said it will take unitil 2010 to break even......!!!! and that includes a business plan to break asia with shirt sales etc which you will struggle to do as you will rightly know united have had that part of the world in the bag for ages and for the foreseable future (past 2010 even) and I belive kenyon also admitted it will be a hard task to match what he did at united re: Marketing of the club.

any other facts you want to write in a 4 page a4 documnent for us to debate over?

 

[djchewie]

Johnny!!!

can you please confirm last nights result?

because based on the fact that you actually beat everton and didnt draw, then last night was a draw wasnt it??

You're mixing it up. Everton was a draw. Mourinho said we didn't lose to Charlton... at least not in regular time or extra time. It was a draw.

Last night was a loss, jj. Nothing shameful about losing once or twice every 30 games or so

JJ, ever thought about having a career as a pundit for ITV?

 

[Morbyd]

remember one thing morbyd my essay writing friend......chelsea (as a club) are still in debt, £110m+ (this being from purchases etc) from the last time I recall, thats what they owe Roman is it not???

as for the £400 million profit I believe that is tosh as kenyon himself said it will take unitil 2010 to break even......!!!! and that includes a business plan to break asia with shirt sales etc which you will struggle to do as you will rightly know united have had that part of the world in the bag for ages and for the foreseable future (past 2010 even) and I belive kenyon also admitted it will be a hard task to match what he did at united re: Marketing of the club.

any other facts you want to write in a 4 page a4 documnent for us to debate over?

What are you on about? My essays are no longer than X-amount's

You're mixing 3 different issues.

The difference in acquisition cost and current equity value is unrealized gains unless you sell the club, but it is a gain on paper.

Kenyon was talking about something totally different - operating profit. The club hopes to be EBITDA positive this year and net profitable by 2010. It's realistic, if they stick to the new wage structure guidelines and the investment in the academy starts pay off by turning out good players for promotion or sale. Oh, and sell more shirts

The debt to Mr A is a result of the operating losses I mentioned above. It's 0 interest loans with flexible repayment. Not a problem.

 

[Ferd]

Musho Betis Musho Betis!!

 

[jeembo]

Have been quite busy, so just managed to read through this site. What a load of mixed feelings and emotions. A few words of sense, but a whole lot of crap spoken from the heart.

Chelsea got beat by Betis. Spanish sides are good. Either way, Chelsea have brilliant team spirit, and amazing amount of depth and breadth and are going to be around for years to come.

You can say they would be where they are without the millions of Abramovic. Very true. But all the teams need money now.

Look at Lazio, Milan, Fiorentina etc etc. They all had loads of money and didn't so much with it. (Granted Milan early 90's, but the game was different then)

Take Real Madrid as an example. If it was all about money then they would have wone everything all the time before Chelsea came along. They didn't.

We have to face the fact Chelsea are good, no matter what and what teams need to do is bring good youth players up through the ranks who are willing to die for there club.

Like Beckham, Scholes, Neville etc. That's why Man U did so well.

Terry is doing it for Chelsea

Oh footy, a world of opinion!

 

[x-amount]

$2.4 billion?

You call that easy?

Where in hell did you get that number? From that article?

EVERY number you've seen in the press is bullshit.

You want to know what it cost? $0.

Here's how:

Chelsea was purchased for 140 million pounds (60 million equity plus assumption of 80 million in debt). It's now worth, according to a different Deloitte & Touche report, over $400 million. Profit.

Now, player fees. They are amortized over the life of the player contracts, so you don't add them all up and say "he spent this much" unless you have no idea about business. Those fees and salaries are offset by revenues. Chelsea had an operating loss of somwhere around 150 million pounds over the past 2 years.

So, if you take the increase in equity versus the operating loss you'll see that it actually wasn't as massive a spend as everyone makes out.

But for the naysayers, it's a lot simpler to add up one column of numbers. Makes good headlines for The Sun.

What you have said there is complete and utter rubbish, and, if you have the business acumen it sounds like you want people to think you have, then you know this too.

$0 indeed.

I could be here all day and pull your post apart, but I can't be bothered, and you've made yourself look a fool by trying to get technical, and think you can wow people with a few "EBITDA"'s and "amortised", and then in the same post try to convince us Chelsea cost nothing to build.

Quick question, as a low level example to show you up, on what assets were D&T's costs based? Were all of them acquired with the 160 mil? Ergo is it a fair comparison? Exactly.

And then the player amortisation? Don;t make me laugh. All the players JM has bought have been charged LUDICROUSLY high prices. They are not worth nearly as much as what you paid for them. Don't tell me you think JM is a savvy buyer? Your two best players were in the team even before he arrived. So then do you really think Chelsea will be able to show a realistic player amortisation for their costs? No, becasue their residual values will be incomparible to their original ones.

 

[dw151174]

What are you on about? My essays are no longer than X-amount's true but his are far more entertaining

You're mixing 3 different issues.

The difference in acquisition cost and current equity value is unrealized gains unless you sell the club, but it is a gain on paper.

Kenyon was talking about something totally different - operating profit. The club hopes to be EBITDA positive this year and net profitable by 2010. It's realistic, if they stick to the new wage structure guidelines and the investment in the academy starts pay off by turning out good players for promotion or sale. Oh, and sell more shirts

The debt to Mr A is a result of the operating losses I mentioned above. It's 0 interest loans with flexible repayment. Not a problem.

The point I was trying to get at was as a club you owe money, if roman pulled the plug now you wouldn't be able to pay the salaries, therefore lose a vast amount of players and probably a manager.....who would you support then? whoever roman put his (dubious) fortunes into next.

Plus there are alot of ifs with Chelsea and there financials going forward(for one you've got to be successful for about a decade, you've been 2/3 years so far, to say you will be operating at a profit by 2010 is a big ask)

As I don't do 'financial analyis' on my team or others come to that (as I have a life and I do it for a job) I wouldn't want to comment on Chelseas P&l, BS or Cash Flow, I'm sure your not lieing but I look forward to seeing year end results for the next few years........

 

[Morbyd]

What you have said there is complete and utter rubbish, and, if you have the business acumen it sounds like you want people to think you have, then you know this too.

$0 indeed.

I could be here all day and pull your post apart, but I can't be bothered, and you've made yourself look a fool by trying to get technical, and think you can wow people with a few "EBITDA"'s and "amortised", and then in the same post try to convince us Chelsea cost nothing to build.

Quick question, as a low level example to show you up, on what assets were D&T's costs based? Were all of them acquired with the 160 mil? Ergo is it a fair comparison? Exactly.

You couldn't pick my post apart because I'm right.

I don't have an MBA, lest anyone be fooled as you accuse me of trying to do, but I do understand the basics of business accounting.

D&T's report was their take on the value of the football club. As you probably know, what was acquired for 140 million pounds also included hotels and related businesses but their overall value is neglible. So yes, it's a fair comparison. Exactly.

$0 is an exaggeration, but it's no more of one than $2.4 billion dollars. There was an investment, but it wasn't made in a vacuum and it has been somewhat offset by increased revenues and an increase in asset value (though the latter is only on paper, of course.)

If you want a number you can shout from the rooftops as a sign of the massive spending of Chelsea that is sooooooooo ruining the Premiership, add the acquisition cost (160) and the net operating loss (150).

 

[Morbyd]

Plus there are alot of ifs with Chelsea and there financials going forward(for one you've got to be successful for about a decade, you've been 2/3 years so far, to say you will be operating at a profit by 2010 is a big ask)

True... it's a gamble. Don't make the Champion's League one year and you're already screwed

 

[dw151174]

Plus there are alot of ifs with Chelsea and there financials going forward(for one you've got to be successful for about a decade, you've been 2/3 years so far, to say you will be operating at a profit by 2010 is a big ask)

True... it's a gamble. Don't make the Champion's League one year and you're already screwed

making it is one thing.....to win it is a hole different ball game (technically and financially!)

hence the reason why united are still showing profits 6 years on as a result of wining it (albeit a little diminished and in debt, thanks to someone from accross the pond )

point over from a supporter of the most success english club in the last 15 years (again technically and financially )

good luck for sunday......your 1-0 up already (on the monetory side of things) lets let the footy do the talking to decide the rest (i'm digging my own grave here )