Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
By dixon9
February 13 2009
Chelsea FC plc today released the financial results for the season 2007-8. The figures make for encouraging reading in parts and disappointing in others (due to compensation payments), however, there is one column in the balance sheet which will silence Abramovich dissenters in the media and among opposition fans – half of the clubs “soft debt” has now been converted into equity.
Abramovich halves “soft debt”
Abramovich’s investment in the club has now reached £679.7m but has been classed as “soft debt” as the loans are owed from Chelsea FC (owned by himself) to Millhouse Capital (also owned by himself), nevertheless, half of this amount has now been converted into equity (shares in the club) leaving a new soft-debt of £339.8m.
This is a move which clearly demonstrates Abramovich´s commitment to the club – great news for Chelsea fans and bad news for the moaning Jonahs over the years that have been anxious to see the Russian leave.
“Following the conversion of half of the interest-free loans into equity there should now be no doubt as to the owner’s commitment to the club and the stability of the company’s funding structure,” said Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck.
“We have always believed that this “debt”, now reduced by 50%, has been misrepresented. Chelsea has no external debt and makes no punitive interest payments to external funders.”
There is also a further positive side to the debt-to-equity move by Abramovich in that Platini will have much less meat to chew on should he attempt to exclude us (along with 1-2 more English clubs) from European competition due to new financial parameters he wants to set for European football.
Record turnover yet tainted reduced losses
Whilst record group turnover and reduced losses are announced for a third successive season there is a tinge of disappointment in that it could have been even better were it not for a certain level of incompetence in the hiring and firing of managers.
Losses have gone down to £66m for the year end June 2008 although these include a total of £23m in compensation payments made to Jose Mourinho, Avram Grant and five other coaches who were dismissed in this financial period (Big Phil’s compensation of around £7 will show up in next years figures).
This is still an improvement from the £74m losses of last year, £80.2m in 2006/7 and of course the £140m announced in 2004/2005, but despite an encouraging constant downward trend, £140m - £80.2m - £74m - £42.6m would have looked much better if we had been able to hang on to or select our managers a bit better.
A turnover of £213.1m up from £190.5m (2006/7) is excellent and keeps us up there with the worlds elite clubs in 5th place (which could have been an even higher position due to exchange rate issues) in the Deloitte’s Football Money League (More on that soon).
Gross turnover was actually £248m which included adidas, merchandise and Chelsea Digital Media which were NOT consolidated in group results.
Global fanbase increase
Apparently we now have 110 million fans globally according to independent research by TNS (October 2008) which is an increase of 20 million on previous research (I’ve no idea how they arrive at these figures but it would be interesting to know and compare the results with other clubs).
Main figures
The main figures as per official Chelsea website were:
· Group turnover up 11.9% to £213.1m from £190.5m (2006/7)
· Football activities up 14.8% to £189.8m from £165.3m (of this media revenues are up 30.2% to £77.6m from £59.6m)
· Shareholder loans have been reduced to £339.8m while shareholder capital/equity has increased to £369.9m
· Losses reduced by 43% before exceptional items to £42.6m from £74.8m (not including managers compensation payments)
· Losses reduced by 12.2% after exceptional items to £65.7m (including managers compensation payments)
· Wages and salaries as percentage of turnover before exceptional items 70.6%
The dreaded wages to turnover ratio
The wages percentage of turnover is still far too high – translated this means we paid £150.45m in players salaries during the last financial period, however, it should also be noted that these numbers do not include the summer cull in wages of Sidwell, Shevchenko, Pizarro, Ben Haim and Makelele and the recent reduction in personnel of Wright-Phillips, Cuducini and Bridge – there’s a very substantial wedge there. Expect the next financials to reveal a much more acceptable wages to turnover ratio.
According to the BBC, Chelsea plan to reduce debt further by largely self-funding the purchase of new players in the summer with the sale of current squad members. We’ll have to wait and see on that one as this depends on if a “big fish” is available and whether Abramovich decides to dip into his own pocket again to pay for such a player.
Kenyon’s summary on the financials
“There is no doubt that the positive upward trends of turnover and the continued reduction in losses shows that Chelsea is building a strong business base to build on in what will be challenging times.”
“We have set ourselves ambitious targets to be EBITDA neutral on June 30, 2010 and to require zero cash funding from the owner at the beginning of the financial year 2009/2010.”
“We have consistently advocated the aim of self-sufficiency which has always been supported by the owner. We are hopeful of being close to these targets in the timeframes we have set given the underlying strengths of the business.
“Success on the field is a key part of this. But in line with our long stated business aims, any squad restructuring in the summer will be funded predominantly by sales as we have consistently reduced our net transfer spend over the last five years.”
“This is the fifth set of financial accounts since the takeover and Chelsea has made huge progress during that period as a football club and a business.
“In that time we have had significant on-field success, our turnover has increased by 96%, which ranks us fifth in the world, and our fan base has increased hugely. That gives us great confidence for the next five years.”
Conclusion
Maybe I’ve been a bit harsh with regard to criticism of the hiring and firing of managers and its subsequent influence on financial losses; could the Mourinho exit have been avoided? Debatable I suppose. Grant? Yes, we should have looked for a more permanent solution or at least given him a shorter contract. Scolari? Was he cut out for the Premier League or are the club guilty of providing him with little support? Again, debatable although we were on a downward slope.
What is evident is that the financial model is working.
The club have stuck to a script with rewards of an upward trend in turnover and a downward trend in losses, but what cannot be overlooked is Abramovich´s ongoing and unstinting commitment to the club.
Compare our owner to others (who are practically financially raping their clubs) and we really do have someone who has the clubs best interests at heart.
This very brief, albeit amusingly cringing perhaps, interview with Abramovich with a representative of CFC net (If it had been me I may have knelt down and crumbled in a similar fashion!) sums it up:
cfcuk: “We love you Mr Abramovich, you know that don’t you?
Mr A (in perfect English): I’m very pleased to hear that!”
cfcuk: “You’re not going to leave us are you – please don’t, we need you!”
Mr A: (Laughs heartily) Don’t you worry! I’m not going anywhere!”Link to piece here:
Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: 50 Years Over 100 Years (IP Logged)
Date: 13/02/2009 10:43
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: Since 66 (IP Logged)
Date: 13/02/2009 11:15
We always knew Abramovich was committed
Are these figures that good, I still cannot see us being 'self-sufficient,' this time next year.
This weeks turmoil hasn't helped as you say another £7m plus having to be paid out.
Perhaps Chelsea should have bitten the bullet and PAID the money for Robinho as Scolari wanted.
But that was yesterday and tomorrow is another day
Onwards and upwards
OH THE GLORIOUS UNPREDICTABILITY!!!!
Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free
Are these figures that good, I still cannot see us being 'self-sufficient,' this time next year.
This weeks turmoil hasn't helped as you say another £7m plus having to be paid out.
Perhaps Chelsea should have bitten the bullet and PAID the money for Robinho as Scolari wanted.
But that was yesterday and tomorrow is another day
Onwards and upwards
OH THE GLORIOUS UNPREDICTABILITY!!!!
Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 13/02/2009 13:20
Financially, the historical bottom line is very encouraging: we have come from a club that turned over just over 100m when Roman came in and now boasts 213m (or 248m if you include merchandise, digital media etc).
Losses are progressively reducing; £140m - £80.2m - £74m - 66m (which could have been £42.6m were it not for our manager merry-go-round).
Then we have an owner who has just converted half of the interest free "soft debt" into equity whilst the owners of Liverpool and Man Utd are financially raping their clubs.
What do we have to complain about considering where we were and where we are now?
As for converting HALF of the soft-debt into equity I imagine this must be a balancing act re tax advantages re Millhouse and Chelsea....???
If the club doesn't keep making the same mistakes (Sheva, managers…) then the future looks pretty good on the financial side.
Just think, if we still had Mourinho and hadn’t bought Sheva we could have almost broke even this year (and if my auntie had bollix...)
They have actually projected 2010 or 2011 as a break even target date - so as these latest financials are for 2007/8 season we could conceivably have 3 more seasons to reach it (which we wont "see" until the year 2012 if we do it in the last year of that window) although Kenyon is on about being self-funding next year (he chops and changes).
Man United make a paper profit in their accounts but that soon gets put into context when you look at the £765m they owe and the interest on that - or Arsenal who have a turnover slightly less than ours but need to service a £265m debt (or is it more?) which again won't be turned into equity and acrues interest.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:13:18:45:57 by dixon9.
Losses are progressively reducing; £140m - £80.2m - £74m - 66m (which could have been £42.6m were it not for our manager merry-go-round).
Then we have an owner who has just converted half of the interest free "soft debt" into equity whilst the owners of Liverpool and Man Utd are financially raping their clubs.
What do we have to complain about considering where we were and where we are now?
As for converting HALF of the soft-debt into equity I imagine this must be a balancing act re tax advantages re Millhouse and Chelsea....???
If the club doesn't keep making the same mistakes (Sheva, managers…) then the future looks pretty good on the financial side.
Just think, if we still had Mourinho and hadn’t bought Sheva we could have almost broke even this year (and if my auntie had bollix...)
They have actually projected 2010 or 2011 as a break even target date - so as these latest financials are for 2007/8 season we could conceivably have 3 more seasons to reach it (which we wont "see" until the year 2012 if we do it in the last year of that window) although Kenyon is on about being self-funding next year (he chops and changes).
Man United make a paper profit in their accounts but that soon gets put into context when you look at the £765m they owe and the interest on that - or Arsenal who have a turnover slightly less than ours but need to service a £265m debt (or is it more?) which again won't be turned into equity and acrues interest.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:13:18:45:57 by dixon9.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: Since 66 (IP Logged)
Date: 13/02/2009 13:23
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 13/02/2009 13:44
Cheers Since 66! (still got the Rich list to do though!).
I look forward to the match stuff from you coming up!
By the way...
The net seems quiet lately - not much activity on the network recently I´ve noticed.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:13:13:46:20 by dixon9.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: Since 66 (IP Logged)
Date: 13/02/2009 18:28
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 13/02/2009 18:46
End of month -beginning of March at very very very latest.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: Since 66 (IP Logged)
Date: 13/02/2009 18:50
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: The N5er (IP Logged)
Date: 13/02/2009 23:49
haha seriously Dixie while just about every other Chelsea fan saw those results as being very disappointing you look to spin only the 'positives' - that being the conversion of part of his debt into equity.
apart from this maybe having some bearing on UEFA's mindset re clubs debt it is largely irrelevent.
so despite the huge increase in new EPL tv money you fail to make too much of an overall dent in your overall profitability with this breakeven target becoming more of a daydream.
will be interesting to see how you plan to invest over the summer if there is no new money coming in from your owner especially as Roman subsidised you to the extent of 132m last year.
apart from this maybe having some bearing on UEFA's mindset re clubs debt it is largely irrelevent.
so despite the huge increase in new EPL tv money you fail to make too much of an overall dent in your overall profitability with this breakeven target becoming more of a daydream.
will be interesting to see how you plan to invest over the summer if there is no new money coming in from your owner especially as Roman subsidised you to the extent of 132m last year.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 14/02/2009 02:38
Only positive spin? Read the first paragraph for starters!
As I said on the other thread, it´s not quite turning out as you predicted is it?
"Losses will increase, you wont sustain it, Roman will be off, TV revenues won´t increase, what about Romans loans!, it won´t work! etc etc blah blah!"
I know it must be VERY frustrating for you!
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
As I said on the other thread, it´s not quite turning out as you predicted is it?
"Losses will increase, you wont sustain it, Roman will be off, TV revenues won´t increase, what about Romans loans!, it won´t work! etc etc blah blah!"
I know it must be VERY frustrating for you!
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: TheN5er (IP Logged)
Date: 14/02/2009 03:55
why would it be frustrating me? "Losses will increase, you wont sustain it, Roman will be off, TV revenues won´t increase, what about Romans loans!, it won´t work! etc etc blah blah!" losses have continued, I never said they would increase but you are not puuting any meaningful dent in them are you? Roman will be off? l never said that, I did say he was becoming skint and him not shelling out for you in future is just the beginning of your problems.. last year he sunk 132m into your club.. of course i knew tv revenues would rise this year l told you they would but thats it fella, they are locked in for another two years, no revenue increases there.. and what about Romans loans? you are deluded if you can honestly see anything much positive in all of this but then again..
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 14/02/2009 12:49
I have said right from the beginning that losses will progressively reduce, transfer spending will generally reduce, turnover will increase..... that it was all just a matter of time before Chelsea became self-sufficient.
ALL of the above has happened or is happening - the trend is POSITIVE and the facts should make you unable to deny this.
Yet to you continue to come on here spouting off stuff of no real substance.
NO COMMENTS at all from you on the debt to equity conversion by the way - quite telling that!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
ALL of the above has happened or is happening - the trend is POSITIVE and the facts should make you unable to deny this.
Yet to you continue to come on here spouting off stuff of no real substance.
NO COMMENTS at all from you on the debt to equity conversion by the way - quite telling that!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: TheN5er (IP Logged)
Date: 14/02/2009 14:27
laughable Dixie.. you know I saw you on your official chat forum while l was looking at what the rest of your fans thought about these financial results *not at all positive were they?* you were asking what this debt to equity actually meant.. well I'll tell you mate not much at all.. it's near enough a completely irrelevent move especially for a one man band like Abramovich that owns you 100%.. you suggested it could be somehow tax related.. nope it can't be, the accumulated losses are still on CFC's books.. it's been suggested that no interest in the future can now be charged on these loans, true but he could just as easily pay a dividend on the now capital.. it is said that he is showing commitment to the club by converting it into equity? I fail to see how, if he has any future intentions of selling the club he will get the same amount regardless of the debt/equity structure.. the only advantage l see in this is that it may appease UEFA somewhat and that may be advantageous to your club down the line.. that is a possibility I guess but I'd suggest any financial restrictions would equally include turnover/wage ratios and profitability thresholds which CFC would find hard to adhere to.. but anyway mate if you want to tell me what the BIG deal was with this debt to equity conversion be my guest because no one else has figured it out yet lol..
btw I have never said Roman would sell you and indeed I hope he doesnt.. just cutting his supply of cash to yopu will do the trick as his total pay out has so far been 709m quid up to 30 june last year and no doubt more this season.. with accumulated debt during this period being 450m.. but like i say the party is over and we'll see if you can survive on your own funds from now on.. should be a laugh..
as for me spouting stuff of no real substance well you dont really believe that mate do you? ;_) your losses have come down marginally but compared with the leap in EPL revenues this year they were a disappointment and further increases in revenues are unlikely to increase significantly in the next few years and even then you have to equal success of the last few years (as in getting to latter stages of CL)just to maintain your existing revenue flows.. meanwhile you have to rebuild in the summer by selling first as theres no more money coming from sugar daddy.. oh dear where will it end?
btw I have never said Roman would sell you and indeed I hope he doesnt.. just cutting his supply of cash to yopu will do the trick as his total pay out has so far been 709m quid up to 30 june last year and no doubt more this season.. with accumulated debt during this period being 450m.. but like i say the party is over and we'll see if you can survive on your own funds from now on.. should be a laugh..
as for me spouting stuff of no real substance well you dont really believe that mate do you? ;_) your losses have come down marginally but compared with the leap in EPL revenues this year they were a disappointment and further increases in revenues are unlikely to increase significantly in the next few years and even then you have to equal success of the last few years (as in getting to latter stages of CL)just to maintain your existing revenue flows.. meanwhile you have to rebuild in the summer by selling first as theres no more money coming from sugar daddy.. oh dear where will it end?
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 14/02/2009 14:46
laughable Dixie.. you know I saw you on your official chat forum while l was looking at what the rest of your fans thought about these financial results *not at all positive were they?* you were asking what this debt to equity actually meant.. well I'll tell you mate not much at all.. it's near enough a completely irrelevent move especially for a one man band like Abramovich that owns you 100%.. you suggested it could be somehow tax related..
Sorry, you are laughable mate!
Firstly, most of the opinions on the official chat were VERY positive re the accounts - funny that you say the opposite. There´s not much point in debating with you if you are going to start lying to suit your agenda is there?
Secondly, I didn´t suggest, I ASKED an accountant what the reasons could be for the equity issue - but here you are trying to paint it a different way (surprise surprise!).
So the equity issue doesn´t mean anything then? RIGHTO!
"nope it can't be, the accumulated losses are still on CFC's books.. it's been suggested that no interest in the future can now be charged on these loans, true but he could just as easily pay a dividend on the now capital.. it is said that he is showing commitment to the club by converting it into equity? I fail to see how, if he has any future intentions of selling the club he will get the same amount regardless of the debt/equity structure.. the only advantage l see in this is that it may appease UEFA somewhat and that may be advantageous to your club down the line.. that is a possibility I guess but I'd suggest any financial restrictions would equally include turnover/wage ratios and profitability thresholds which CFC would find hard to adhere to.. but anyway mate if you want to tell me what the BIG deal was with this debt to equity conversion be my guest because no one else has figured it out yet lol..
The soft debt is now put at 339m as the other half is converted into equity.
You say it doesn´t mean anything (although you agree re Platini issues). Maybe he just did it because he was bored and felt like doing something.
Buck and Kenyon said it was a demonstration of his commitment to Chelsea - which you have always put into question - but hey, what do they know about Chelsea´s accounts. I dunno why they just didn´t come to you to get all the answers!
btw I have never said Roman would sell you and indeed I hope he doesnt.. just cutting his supply of cash to yopu will do the trick as his total pay out has so far been 709m quid up to 30 june last year and no doubt more this season.. with accumulated debt during this period being 450m.. but like i say the party is over and we'll see if you can survive on your own funds from now on.. should be a laugh..
Oh dear! Come on mate! You are in denial and you know it!
"as for me spouting stuff of no real substance well you dont really believe that mate do you? ;_) your losses have come down marginally but compared with the leap in EPL revenues this year they were a disappointment and further increases in revenues are unlikely to increase significantly in the next few years and even then you have to equal success of the last few years (as in getting to latter stages of CL)just to maintain your existing revenue flows.. meanwhile you have to rebuild in the summer by selling first as theres no more money coming from sugar daddy.. oh dear where will it end?"
Yes I so believe it - you are full of the brown stuff. You have comtinually said that Chelsea wil not reduce their losses - the opposite has happened.
Where will it all end? Chelsea debt free and challenging for honours!
And Arsenal? How are the numbers shaping up? Lol! Remember I told you Bracewell-Smith and co would sell you out soon and you denied this? Your board were stout yeoman full of the corinthian spirit and steeped in Arsenal tradition blah blah blah! Well look what´s happening - she was ousted off the board. Give it a season or two and you´ll be yank or russian (well you are already are I suppose). But no doubt you´ll produce yet more smoke and mirrors.
.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Sorry, you are laughable mate!
Firstly, most of the opinions on the official chat were VERY positive re the accounts - funny that you say the opposite. There´s not much point in debating with you if you are going to start lying to suit your agenda is there?
Secondly, I didn´t suggest, I ASKED an accountant what the reasons could be for the equity issue - but here you are trying to paint it a different way (surprise surprise!).
So the equity issue doesn´t mean anything then? RIGHTO!
"nope it can't be, the accumulated losses are still on CFC's books.. it's been suggested that no interest in the future can now be charged on these loans, true but he could just as easily pay a dividend on the now capital.. it is said that he is showing commitment to the club by converting it into equity? I fail to see how, if he has any future intentions of selling the club he will get the same amount regardless of the debt/equity structure.. the only advantage l see in this is that it may appease UEFA somewhat and that may be advantageous to your club down the line.. that is a possibility I guess but I'd suggest any financial restrictions would equally include turnover/wage ratios and profitability thresholds which CFC would find hard to adhere to.. but anyway mate if you want to tell me what the BIG deal was with this debt to equity conversion be my guest because no one else has figured it out yet lol..
The soft debt is now put at 339m as the other half is converted into equity.
You say it doesn´t mean anything (although you agree re Platini issues). Maybe he just did it because he was bored and felt like doing something.
Buck and Kenyon said it was a demonstration of his commitment to Chelsea - which you have always put into question - but hey, what do they know about Chelsea´s accounts. I dunno why they just didn´t come to you to get all the answers!
btw I have never said Roman would sell you and indeed I hope he doesnt.. just cutting his supply of cash to yopu will do the trick as his total pay out has so far been 709m quid up to 30 june last year and no doubt more this season.. with accumulated debt during this period being 450m.. but like i say the party is over and we'll see if you can survive on your own funds from now on.. should be a laugh..
Oh dear! Come on mate! You are in denial and you know it!
"as for me spouting stuff of no real substance well you dont really believe that mate do you? ;_) your losses have come down marginally but compared with the leap in EPL revenues this year they were a disappointment and further increases in revenues are unlikely to increase significantly in the next few years and even then you have to equal success of the last few years (as in getting to latter stages of CL)just to maintain your existing revenue flows.. meanwhile you have to rebuild in the summer by selling first as theres no more money coming from sugar daddy.. oh dear where will it end?"
Yes I so believe it - you are full of the brown stuff. You have comtinually said that Chelsea wil not reduce their losses - the opposite has happened.
Where will it all end? Chelsea debt free and challenging for honours!
And Arsenal? How are the numbers shaping up? Lol! Remember I told you Bracewell-Smith and co would sell you out soon and you denied this? Your board were stout yeoman full of the corinthian spirit and steeped in Arsenal tradition blah blah blah! Well look what´s happening - she was ousted off the board. Give it a season or two and you´ll be yank or russian (well you are already are I suppose). But no doubt you´ll produce yet more smoke and mirrors.
.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: TheN5er (IP Logged)
Date: 14/02/2009 23:57
some nice deflection there and some down right lies.. I can remember clearly musing about these latest accounts of yours with you and saying that debt this past year would come down because of the new EPL deal but that in future years you would struggle to raise the ever increasing revenues you need to break even.. I remember inviting you to give me an insight into exactly how these future revenues would be raised after analysing all aspects of your revenue but I got no response from you probably because you havent got a clue..
as for you asking the accountant.. yeah I saw that along with no answer from him but that hasnt stopped you suggesting that tax might be a reason in your article has it?
Re the real reason he has done it well I'm sure it is a mixture of (trying to) appease Platini as well as trying to (and apparently succeeding) in hoodwinking some of your fans.. this is no doubt the "will show commitment" comment that was bandied about by Kenyon and co last month.. except theres no more money coming apparently but at least he is not selling.. lol.. then again as Piers Morgan says in his overnight peice "a Russian owner without his billions is about as much use as Jordan without her cleavage."
as for you asking the accountant.. yeah I saw that along with no answer from him but that hasnt stopped you suggesting that tax might be a reason in your article has it?
Re the real reason he has done it well I'm sure it is a mixture of (trying to) appease Platini as well as trying to (and apparently succeeding) in hoodwinking some of your fans.. this is no doubt the "will show commitment" comment that was bandied about by Kenyon and co last month.. except theres no more money coming apparently but at least he is not selling.. lol.. then again as Piers Morgan says in his overnight peice "a Russian owner without his billions is about as much use as Jordan without her cleavage."
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: TheN5er (IP Logged)
Date: 15/02/2009 01:07
as for your Arsenal deflections well lets leave that one for the next week or so when our interim results are due to be released.. then no doubt you can give me your expert opinion as to whether we are well place or not fianancially..
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 15/02/2009 12:30
I remember inviting you to give me an insight into exactly how these future revenues would be raised after analysing all aspects of your revenue but I got no response from you probably because you havent got a clue..
Well actually,I think it´s you that doesn´t have a clue. You´ve spent years on here blurbing out your sanctimonious, very condescending yet erroneous vitriol - if you don´t like it you know what you can do don´t you. (Trouble is, Chelsea winds you up so much you can´t keep away).
I´ve constantly told you that every financial year our figures would improve - they have - turnover has increased and soft debt increments decreased. You cannot deny that the trend is positive. This flies in the face of the doom and gloom predictions that you NEED to pontificate - it somehow gives you a (albeit false) moral high-ground that you need to cling to.
What has really irked you is that Roman gives us money interest free whereas you have had to go cap in hand to the banks - well boo hoo! What can I say?! Neither source is football generated is it - but yes, the idea is football will pay off the debts.
Not only that, the soft debt, which you have constantly asked how on earth the club would pay back, is being quite brilliantly wiped clean by Roman - turned into equity (admit it, you didn´t see that coming!) - and we will eventually be debt free.
He bought the club for only 140m - how much is it worth now? How much in 5 years? 10 years? 15 years time? It´s obvious he´s in it for the long term and it´s obviuos that his business model is working - and it´s also obviosu that it is frustrating the hell out of you after all your pontificating on here during recent years.
LOL!
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Well actually,I think it´s you that doesn´t have a clue. You´ve spent years on here blurbing out your sanctimonious, very condescending yet erroneous vitriol - if you don´t like it you know what you can do don´t you. (Trouble is, Chelsea winds you up so much you can´t keep away).
I´ve constantly told you that every financial year our figures would improve - they have - turnover has increased and soft debt increments decreased. You cannot deny that the trend is positive. This flies in the face of the doom and gloom predictions that you NEED to pontificate - it somehow gives you a (albeit false) moral high-ground that you need to cling to.
What has really irked you is that Roman gives us money interest free whereas you have had to go cap in hand to the banks - well boo hoo! What can I say?! Neither source is football generated is it - but yes, the idea is football will pay off the debts.
Not only that, the soft debt, which you have constantly asked how on earth the club would pay back, is being quite brilliantly wiped clean by Roman - turned into equity (admit it, you didn´t see that coming!) - and we will eventually be debt free.
He bought the club for only 140m - how much is it worth now? How much in 5 years? 10 years? 15 years time? It´s obvious he´s in it for the long term and it´s obviuos that his business model is working - and it´s also obviosu that it is frustrating the hell out of you after all your pontificating on here during recent years.
LOL!
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 15/02/2009 12:39
Posted by: TheN5er (124.148.107.12)
Date: 15/02/2009 01:07
as for your Arsenal deflections well lets leave that one for the next week or so when our interim results are due to be released.. then no doubt you can give me your expert opinion as to whether we are well place or not fianancially..
I am not that bothered about the Arrsenal accounts - interested yes - but at least not to the extent that I go on the Arsenal board pontificating and obsessing about their numbers through 100´s of posts and threads. That would be a bit sad don´t you think?
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Date: 15/02/2009 01:07
as for your Arsenal deflections well lets leave that one for the next week or so when our interim results are due to be released.. then no doubt you can give me your expert opinion as to whether we are well place or not fianancially..
I am not that bothered about the Arrsenal accounts - interested yes - but at least not to the extent that I go on the Arsenal board pontificating and obsessing about their numbers through 100´s of posts and threads. That would be a bit sad don´t you think?
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: TheN5er (IP Logged)
Date: 15/02/2009 23:07
haha and here you were a year or so ago telling me that you liked a bit of banter.. not to mention the traffic that I was generating.. my my Dixie you are one frustrated individual old son.. Chelsea dont wind me up at all btw, they are basically a spent force and will be on a downward spiral from now on as you well expect.. I'll pass by from time to time to remind you about it no doubt..
![[:wor kid:]](/phorum-5.1.15/mods/smileys/images/13.gif "[:wor kid:]")
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: TheN5er (IP Logged)
Date: 15/02/2009 23:35
Quote:before I go though I'd like to comment on the above which just about sums up your lack of knowledge about the financial wranglings of your club.. he may have picked up the club for 140m but he has since that time pumped into the club a total of 709m with this no doubt rising even more over the intervening period to June 30th this year when apparently your club will be self sufficient.. so what about 800m by then? *shrugs*dixon9
He bought the club for only 140m - how much is it worth now? How much in 5 years? 10 years? 15 years time? It´s obvious he´s in it for the long term and it´s obviuos that his business model is working - and it´s also obviosu that it is frustrating the hell out of you after all your pontificating on here during recent years.
you ask how much is it worth now? you tell me old son but nowhere near the 800m he has pumped in despite all the smoke and mirrors that surrounds this debt to equity conversion.. it just doesn't matter.. you say I never saw it coming? thats BS, it's always been a possibility but what you can't get through your thick skin is that it doesnt matter.. that you are believing that it somehow shows his commitment to your club is cute at best and naive at worst..
You say the business model is working but have no proof of this, in fact all the evidence suggests that it is far from working, just look at the accumulated losses for a start, that they are coming down was predictable due the large increase in EPL money but what you are failing to acknowledge is that revenue streams are unlikely to rise much more from here and that the only possible source of cutting costs is by reducing expenditure which will no doubt have a flow on effect on other parts of the model..
Lets see where you are this time next year Dixie, I wont be going very far old son and will be here to watch the downward spiral.. unless you are an absolute thicko you suspect all is not well surely and certainly a lot of your fans are worried..
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/02/2009 00:18
he may have picked up the club for 140m but he has since that time pumped into the club a total of 709m with this no doubt rising even more over the intervening period to June 30th this year when apparently your club will be self sufficient.. so what about 800m by then? *shrugs*
you ask how much is it worth now? you tell me old son but nowhere near the 800m he has pumped in despite all the smoke and mirrors that surrounds this debt to equity conversion..
I didn´t ask you just about now though did I? I asked you for 5 years, 10 years, 15 years... here you go, diverting off again...
I´m sure you will concede it´s worth a lot more now than the 140m he paid for it? I´m sure you´ll concede that the club will eventually be worth the investment he put in it - or more - over time. You see, Roman is thinking long term - despite what you desperate moaning Jonahs have been saying ever since he first took over.
you say I never saw it coming? thats BS, it's always been a possibility but what you can't get through your thick skin is that it doesnt matter.. that you are believing that it somehow shows his commitment to your club is cute at best and naive at worst..
Absolute rollocks and you know it! You have spent years on here ranting away about his investment, where the debt is going to be recouped...Blah blah blah! Well NOW you see - equity old boy! equity! And no doubt the other half of the soft debt will be converted soon aswell - leaving Chelsea FC debt free. (I do understand your frustration though).
You say the business model is working but have no proof of this, in fact all the evidence suggests that it is far from working, just look at the accumulated losses for a start,
Well the acummulated losses are investment converted into equity for a start as I stated above.
Business model NOT working?
Hmmmm...let´s see:
Losses are progressively reducing;
£140m - £80.2m - £74m - 66m (which could have been £42.6m were it not for our manager merry-go-round and do not include the offloading of Sidwell, Shevchenko, Pizarro, Ben Haim and Makelele and the recent reduction in personnel of Wright-Phillips, Cuducini and Bridge – there’s a very substantial wedge there. ).
Turnover:
From just over 100m to 213m in 5 years (248m onc Digital media etc)
Soft debt
Half already converted into equity - no doubt the other half soon leaving us debt free.
Now unless you are THICK you would have to say the business model is working!
Lets see where you are this time next year Dixie, I wont be going very far old son and will be here to watch the downward spiral.. unless you are an absolute thicko you suspect all is not well surely and certainly a lot of your fans are worried..
Oh dear! And this coming from an Arsenal fan who was boasting away about the superior more robust business model - who are now starting to sack their directors, Dean sells out to the Russian, recession biting in, we dont want his sort Hill-Wood on the yank NOW giving him a seat on the board and looking upon him as the saviour! You´ve got to laugh! How long before you get sold down the river?! I give you 2-3 years max!
And then there was all your bs on Evraz and Abramovich losing 20bn- I mean FFS!
To be honest, I wouldnt even bother coming back on here. You are far too smug and sabctimonious - and above all, annoyingly THICK.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:16:04:10:35 by dixon9.
you ask how much is it worth now? you tell me old son but nowhere near the 800m he has pumped in despite all the smoke and mirrors that surrounds this debt to equity conversion..
I didn´t ask you just about now though did I? I asked you for 5 years, 10 years, 15 years... here you go, diverting off again...
I´m sure you will concede it´s worth a lot more now than the 140m he paid for it? I´m sure you´ll concede that the club will eventually be worth the investment he put in it - or more - over time. You see, Roman is thinking long term - despite what you desperate moaning Jonahs have been saying ever since he first took over.
you say I never saw it coming? thats BS, it's always been a possibility but what you can't get through your thick skin is that it doesnt matter.. that you are believing that it somehow shows his commitment to your club is cute at best and naive at worst..
Absolute rollocks and you know it! You have spent years on here ranting away about his investment, where the debt is going to be recouped...Blah blah blah! Well NOW you see - equity old boy! equity! And no doubt the other half of the soft debt will be converted soon aswell - leaving Chelsea FC debt free. (I do understand your frustration though).
You say the business model is working but have no proof of this, in fact all the evidence suggests that it is far from working, just look at the accumulated losses for a start,
Well the acummulated losses are investment converted into equity for a start as I stated above.
Business model NOT working?
Hmmmm...let´s see:
Losses are progressively reducing;
£140m - £80.2m - £74m - 66m (which could have been £42.6m were it not for our manager merry-go-round and do not include the offloading of Sidwell, Shevchenko, Pizarro, Ben Haim and Makelele and the recent reduction in personnel of Wright-Phillips, Cuducini and Bridge – there’s a very substantial wedge there. ).
Turnover:
From just over 100m to 213m in 5 years (248m onc Digital media etc)
Soft debt
Half already converted into equity - no doubt the other half soon leaving us debt free.
Now unless you are THICK you would have to say the business model is working!
Lets see where you are this time next year Dixie, I wont be going very far old son and will be here to watch the downward spiral.. unless you are an absolute thicko you suspect all is not well surely and certainly a lot of your fans are worried..
Oh dear! And this coming from an Arsenal fan who was boasting away about the superior more robust business model - who are now starting to sack their directors, Dean sells out to the Russian, recession biting in, we dont want his sort Hill-Wood on the yank NOW giving him a seat on the board and looking upon him as the saviour! You´ve got to laugh! How long before you get sold down the river?! I give you 2-3 years max!
And then there was all your bs on Evraz and Abramovich losing 20bn- I mean FFS!
To be honest, I wouldnt even bother coming back on here. You are far too smug and sabctimonious - and above all, annoyingly THICK.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:16:04:10:35 by dixon9.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: TheN5er (IP Logged)
Date: 16/02/2009 02:59
Absolute rollocks and you know it! You have spent years on here ranting away about his investment, where the debt is going to be recouped...Blah blah blah! Well NOW you see - equity old boy! equity! And no doubt the other half of the soft debt will be converted soon aswell - leaving Chelsea FC debt free. (I do understand your frustration though).
Good rant above Dixie but adding absolutely nothing new to the argument.. however it is your above actually that shows your complete lack of understanding about business.. you think that because he has changed the nature of his debt from a loan to capital it has made any blinding bit of difference? So what?
Read what The times has to say about it and the general shambles which is your club..
[www.timesonline.co.uk]
Almost from the moment he bought the club, it has been run on a whim and a prayer, with splurges of extravagant and at times highly capricious spending in the transfer market punctuated by outbreaks of prudence. For all the attempts to characterise this as part of a smart, intelligent business plan — “losses reduced again”, the official website exclaimed on Friday, as they reported a £65.7 million loss for the previous financial year — the reality is that Chelsea, on and off the pitch, continue to fall short of the ambitious targets set by their Russian owner.
The announcement that potentially Abramovich had written off £369.9 million by turning half of his interest-free loans to the club into shares was viewed by some in the industry as a cosmetic exercise that raised almost as many questions as it answered. More interesting, perhaps, was Kenyon’s talk of Chelsea’s “ambitious targets to be EBIDTA-neutral (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) on June 30 2010 and to require zero cash funding from the owner at the beginning of the financial year 2009/10”.
Go on have a good read Dixie old son and note the reference to a 'cosmetic exercise' no less but then again the media is probably out for you lot as well lol
Good rant above Dixie but adding absolutely nothing new to the argument.. however it is your above actually that shows your complete lack of understanding about business.. you think that because he has changed the nature of his debt from a loan to capital it has made any blinding bit of difference? So what?
Read what The times has to say about it and the general shambles which is your club..
[www.timesonline.co.uk]
Almost from the moment he bought the club, it has been run on a whim and a prayer, with splurges of extravagant and at times highly capricious spending in the transfer market punctuated by outbreaks of prudence. For all the attempts to characterise this as part of a smart, intelligent business plan — “losses reduced again”, the official website exclaimed on Friday, as they reported a £65.7 million loss for the previous financial year — the reality is that Chelsea, on and off the pitch, continue to fall short of the ambitious targets set by their Russian owner.
The announcement that potentially Abramovich had written off £369.9 million by turning half of his interest-free loans to the club into shares was viewed by some in the industry as a cosmetic exercise that raised almost as many questions as it answered. More interesting, perhaps, was Kenyon’s talk of Chelsea’s “ambitious targets to be EBIDTA-neutral (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) on June 30 2010 and to require zero cash funding from the owner at the beginning of the financial year 2009/10”.
Go on have a good read Dixie old son and note the reference to a 'cosmetic exercise' no less but then again the media is probably out for you lot as well lol
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/02/2009 04:24
Good rant above Dixie but adding absolutely nothing new to the argument.. however it is your above actually that shows your complete lack of understanding about business.. you think that because he has changed the nature of his debt from a loan to capital it has made any blinding bit of difference? So what?
Read what The times has to say about it and the general shambles which is your club..
[www.timesonline.co.uk]
Pathetic, weak response from you there Woolwich.
There is nothing new to add to the argument because you just wont accept basic premises - you keep asking for proof - I keep on illustrating it for you and then you keep coming back with the same old BS.
The debt is halved - the rest will more likely follow, The trends re losses and turnover are positive.
And then you come out with this pearler of "proof" "Read what the Times has to say" - well you might as well dip your finger in a lucky bag old son! The Times also has this to say - completely contradicting the so called "proof" you offer:
LINK (Chelsea now resemble a normal business)
LOL! LOL!
Shall I cut and paste and then put in bold like you did? Yeah! Why not! (I mean,it is the Times and proof according to you!):
Roman Abramovich’s decision to convert half of his interest-free loan to Chelsea into shares appears, on the face of it, to be a strong demonstration of the tycoon’s commitment to the club.
That Abramovich now owns £369.9 million worth of equity in Chelsea should be an emphatic denial that he is looking to sell.
However, apart from being a crowd-pleasing gesture, there are also hard-headed practical reasons why Abramovich and Chelsea should want to do this.
From Chelsea’s point of view, the club look far more healthy, financially speaking. This is because one of the key barometers of a company’s financial health — particularly when debt issues are to the fore — is its “gearing”. This is the ratio of borrowings to the amount of equity invested in the business by shareholders and, generally speaking, it is more desirable if companies are funded by equity rather than by loans.
Abramovich has, at a stroke, reduced Chelsea’s borrowings and increased their equity, making the business look far more attractive.
That the club have less debt on their balance sheet also means that, in theory, they would find it much easier to increase their borrowings again in future, from sources other than Abramovich — assuming that lending in the economy returns to normal in the fullness of time.
For Abramovich, the transaction means that Chelsea far more closely resemble a “normal” business. It should prevent the club from being criticised by Michel Platini, the president of Uefa, and Lord Triesman, the FA chairman, who will find it more difficult to accuse Chelsea of distorting competition. This will particularly be the case given the promise of Peter Kenyon, the chief executive, that player purchases will, in future, be funded by sales rather than Abramovich.
How do you feel now?
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:16:04:26:27 by dixon9.
Read what The times has to say about it and the general shambles which is your club..
[www.timesonline.co.uk]
Pathetic, weak response from you there Woolwich.
There is nothing new to add to the argument because you just wont accept basic premises - you keep asking for proof - I keep on illustrating it for you and then you keep coming back with the same old BS.
The debt is halved - the rest will more likely follow, The trends re losses and turnover are positive.
And then you come out with this pearler of "proof" "Read what the Times has to say" - well you might as well dip your finger in a lucky bag old son! The Times also has this to say - completely contradicting the so called "proof" you offer:
LINK (Chelsea now resemble a normal business)
LOL! LOL!
Shall I cut and paste and then put in bold like you did? Yeah! Why not! (I mean,it is the Times and proof according to you!):
Roman Abramovich’s decision to convert half of his interest-free loan to Chelsea into shares appears, on the face of it, to be a strong demonstration of the tycoon’s commitment to the club.
That Abramovich now owns £369.9 million worth of equity in Chelsea should be an emphatic denial that he is looking to sell.
However, apart from being a crowd-pleasing gesture, there are also hard-headed practical reasons why Abramovich and Chelsea should want to do this.
From Chelsea’s point of view, the club look far more healthy, financially speaking. This is because one of the key barometers of a company’s financial health — particularly when debt issues are to the fore — is its “gearing”. This is the ratio of borrowings to the amount of equity invested in the business by shareholders and, generally speaking, it is more desirable if companies are funded by equity rather than by loans.
Abramovich has, at a stroke, reduced Chelsea’s borrowings and increased their equity, making the business look far more attractive.
That the club have less debt on their balance sheet also means that, in theory, they would find it much easier to increase their borrowings again in future, from sources other than Abramovich — assuming that lending in the economy returns to normal in the fullness of time.
For Abramovich, the transaction means that Chelsea far more closely resemble a “normal” business. It should prevent the club from being criticised by Michel Platini, the president of Uefa, and Lord Triesman, the FA chairman, who will find it more difficult to accuse Chelsea of distorting competition. This will particularly be the case given the promise of Peter Kenyon, the chief executive, that player purchases will, in future, be funded by sales rather than Abramovich.
How do you feel now?
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:16:04:26:27 by dixon9.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: TheN5er (IP Logged)
Date: 16/02/2009 04:58
I was offering no cush thing as 'proof' - merely showing what a mess your club is in both on and off the field..the peice had a general swipe at they cosmetic exercise which is your debt to equity conversion but otherwise yeah it looks like a bit of contradiction there from The Times.. even so it doesn't alter the fact of what I have said in that it still basically means absolutely zilch.. this debt to equity swap doesnt negate the fact that Abramovich has pumped 800m of his own money into the business.. it doesnt wipe out any of the 450m accumulated losses in the business or magically make the business model more efficient or more profitable, either in the past or in the future and that is the thing you just can't grasp here Dixie old son.. the whole thing means precisely jack $4it.. that you are harping on about it as if it's some great sacrificial offering from your owner is just laughable.. it gets back to what we already know and that is it was done to appease Platini and then again if Platini was serious like l suggested before debt would only be one of the criteria along with a wages/turnover ratio margin and a profitability (loss) threshold.. morevover it's been done to keep cretins like you appeased and so far it's worked.. I wonder how you'll feel in another year though when you have to sell to buy and theres no new money available because you havent been able to manage so far by a long shot have you? Meanwhile the holy grail of the break even season continues and this will only happen if drastic cost cutting measures are taken across the board and that will surely come at a competitive price on the field.. I'm afraid charging for ham sandwiches at Cobham wont cut the mustard old son.. lol
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/02/2009 12:02
Only to appease Platini?
You might want to read what your "oracle of truth" Times have put forward:
That Abramovich now owns £369.9 million worth of equity in Chelsea should be an emphatic denial that he is looking to sell.
However, apart from being a crowd-pleasing gesture, there are also hard-headed practical reasons why Abramovich and Chelsea should want to do this.
From Chelsea’s point of view, the club look far more healthy, financially speaking. This is because one of the key barometers of a company’s financial health — particularly when debt issues are to the fore — is its “gearing”. This is the ratio of borrowings to the amount of equity invested in the business by shareholders and, generally speaking, it is more desirable if companies are funded by equity rather than by loans.
Abramovich has, at a stroke, reduced Chelsea’s borrowings and increased their equity, making the business look far more attractive.
That the club have less debt on their balance sheet also means that, in theory, they would find it much easier to increase their borrowings again in future, from sources other than Abramovich — assuming that lending in the economy returns to normal in the fullness of time.
For Abramovich, the transaction means that Chelsea far more closely resemble a “normal” business. It should prevent the club from being criticised by Michel Platini, the president of Uefa, and Lord Triesman, the FA chairman, who will find it more difficult to accuse Chelsea of distorting competition. This will particularly be the case given the promise of Peter Kenyon, the chief executive, that player purchases will, in future, be funded by sales rather than Abramovich.
Quite a few reasons there wouldn´t you say? And let´s be honest, if the debt to equity conversion really, as you say, means "jack $hit" then he wouldn´t bother doing it would he?
You´re just frustrated mate - all the bollix you´ve been spouting off on here for the last few years is finally unravelling in front of you.
Unfortunately, "cretins" like you never learn do they?
Lol!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:16:12:05:49 by dixon9.
You might want to read what your "oracle of truth" Times have put forward:
That Abramovich now owns £369.9 million worth of equity in Chelsea should be an emphatic denial that he is looking to sell.
However, apart from being a crowd-pleasing gesture, there are also hard-headed practical reasons why Abramovich and Chelsea should want to do this.
From Chelsea’s point of view, the club look far more healthy, financially speaking. This is because one of the key barometers of a company’s financial health — particularly when debt issues are to the fore — is its “gearing”. This is the ratio of borrowings to the amount of equity invested in the business by shareholders and, generally speaking, it is more desirable if companies are funded by equity rather than by loans.
Abramovich has, at a stroke, reduced Chelsea’s borrowings and increased their equity, making the business look far more attractive.
That the club have less debt on their balance sheet also means that, in theory, they would find it much easier to increase their borrowings again in future, from sources other than Abramovich — assuming that lending in the economy returns to normal in the fullness of time.
For Abramovich, the transaction means that Chelsea far more closely resemble a “normal” business. It should prevent the club from being criticised by Michel Platini, the president of Uefa, and Lord Triesman, the FA chairman, who will find it more difficult to accuse Chelsea of distorting competition. This will particularly be the case given the promise of Peter Kenyon, the chief executive, that player purchases will, in future, be funded by sales rather than Abramovich.
Quite a few reasons there wouldn´t you say? And let´s be honest, if the debt to equity conversion really, as you say, means "jack $hit" then he wouldn´t bother doing it would he?
You´re just frustrated mate - all the bollix you´ve been spouting off on here for the last few years is finally unravelling in front of you.
Unfortunately, "cretins" like you never learn do they?
Lol!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:16:12:05:49 by dixon9.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/02/2009 17:04
Oh dear!
It´s getting closer Woolwich!
LINK
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
It´s getting closer Woolwich!
LINK
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: TheN5er (IP Logged)
Date: 18/02/2009 05:12
What do they say? - there is none as blind as he that will not see.. fits you aptly Dixie, lets see what financial position you find yourself in next year.. a summer of selling to buy that should be fun.. no new monies coming into the business from 1st July onwards apparently.. stagnating revenues..
& as more Usmanov well the majority of Arsenal fans dont want him anywhere near our club mainly cos the man is a despicable peice of work but just as a matter of interest why does it concern you? I mean do you think he will throw money into Arsenal similar to what Abramovich has done? Is that the stick you wish to beat us with? - that I would be somehow hypocritical if it was us? What would it matter if he did just basically become a majority shareholder but that the basic business model went on as it is now? Or is it that he really is just an odious t.wat and you'd therefore like him associated with us?
Just interested in knowing your angle here really as then I can debate the point.. at the moment it's just "oh dear the big bad wolf is (maybe) coming" For your information I'm far from happy with how the current board of Arsenal have operated over the past couple of years and nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see a shake up at board level but as you can probably tell (and I think I've said here before) Usmanov is someone I'd prefer not associated with us.
& as more Usmanov well the majority of Arsenal fans dont want him anywhere near our club mainly cos the man is a despicable peice of work but just as a matter of interest why does it concern you? I mean do you think he will throw money into Arsenal similar to what Abramovich has done? Is that the stick you wish to beat us with? - that I would be somehow hypocritical if it was us? What would it matter if he did just basically become a majority shareholder but that the basic business model went on as it is now? Or is it that he really is just an odious t.wat and you'd therefore like him associated with us?
Just interested in knowing your angle here really as then I can debate the point.. at the moment it's just "oh dear the big bad wolf is (maybe) coming" For your information I'm far from happy with how the current board of Arsenal have operated over the past couple of years and nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see a shake up at board level but as you can probably tell (and I think I've said here before) Usmanov is someone I'd prefer not associated with us.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/02/2009 07:01
You want to take a look at your own back-garden before you start picking holes in your neighbours:
Dean sells you out...
Hill-Wood says "We don´t want his sort!" re Kroenke, then invites him on to the board and NOW looks to him as the saviour...
Board ousts Bracewell-Smith in a disgraceful episode...
Usmanov the other day brings his shares up to 25% now that Arsenal share-value has fallen by more than 30%...
Usmanov max share-holder now and closing in...(just 4% off from buy-out)
Only a matter of time now before your board sell you out and your predictions lie in tatters...
You know it and I know it - and it is going to be FUN watching you squirm Woolwich!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:18:07:24:54 by dixon9.
Dean sells you out...
Hill-Wood says "We don´t want his sort!" re Kroenke, then invites him on to the board and NOW looks to him as the saviour...
Board ousts Bracewell-Smith in a disgraceful episode...
Usmanov the other day brings his shares up to 25% now that Arsenal share-value has fallen by more than 30%...
Usmanov max share-holder now and closing in...(just 4% off from buy-out)
Only a matter of time now before your board sell you out and your predictions lie in tatters...
You know it and I know it - and it is going to be FUN watching you squirm Woolwich!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:18:07:24:54 by dixon9.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: TheN5er (IP Logged)
Date: 18/02/2009 08:19
You make me laugh Dixie I mean I give you an opportunity of opening some serious debat on the subject and as per par for the course you come out mud slinging.. not that I quite see how any of it has an impact on our financial circumstances which are much healthier than your own but anyway..
As for your 4% from buy out claim (if Usmanov gets to 29.9%) - thats only if the other shareholders want to sell and he has enough money.. I'm sure you have heard the rumours of his own financial demise and theres reason to believe that he only attained the few hundred more shares he needed to reach 25% as a defensive measure.. the other shareholders can't now vote in share restriction powers or anything else detrimental to his share ownership.. also bear in mind he is now the highest individual shareholder (actually it's him and his partner 50/50), in any other business he would usually attain some kind of board recognition for this degree of ownership as Kroenke has done and I can't see what your point is in all of this..
Like I said earlier I dont want him to get any kind of controlling interest in the club because I think he is an unsavory character but even if he does I fail to appreciate why he would change the infrastructure of the club as far as the financials are concerned.. we are profitable and operating within our means, something your own owner is trying desperately to achieve and failing desperately..
As for your 4% from buy out claim (if Usmanov gets to 29.9%) - thats only if the other shareholders want to sell and he has enough money.. I'm sure you have heard the rumours of his own financial demise and theres reason to believe that he only attained the few hundred more shares he needed to reach 25% as a defensive measure.. the other shareholders can't now vote in share restriction powers or anything else detrimental to his share ownership.. also bear in mind he is now the highest individual shareholder (actually it's him and his partner 50/50), in any other business he would usually attain some kind of board recognition for this degree of ownership as Kroenke has done and I can't see what your point is in all of this..
Like I said earlier I dont want him to get any kind of controlling interest in the club because I think he is an unsavory character but even if he does I fail to appreciate why he would change the infrastructure of the club as far as the financials are concerned.. we are profitable and operating within our means, something your own owner is trying desperately to achieve and failing desperately..
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/02/2009 09:42
Serious debate? Mud slinging?
I got as far as that then STOPPED.
You haven´t stopped being the condescending and insulting t.w.at from the beginning - read above! (or are you going to say that was banter? If so, then take mine as banter - you cant have it both ways).
If you can´t take it then don´t dish it out.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
I got as far as that then STOPPED.
You haven´t stopped being the condescending and insulting t.w.at from the beginning - read above! (or are you going to say that was banter? If so, then take mine as banter - you cant have it both ways).
If you can´t take it then don´t dish it out.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: TheN5er (IP Logged)
Date: 20/02/2009 03:11
No seriously Dixie.. only you could change this from a thread discussing Chelsea's financials to an attack on the ownership of Arsenal.. well done mate, you are the deflection master and naturally I'll await your last word..
Re: Financials: Half of debt converted to equity
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 20/02/2009 11:23
Not changed anything.
I´ve given you my viewpoint but you keep banging on ignoring what I´ve said to you.
Don´t understand why SUDDENLY you are getting all twitchy about us discussing Arsenal´s finances - you have never had a problem with that before (also amusing that you describe your comments on Chelsea´s finances as "banter" yet get all offended and describe my comments on Arsenal´s as an "attack" - bit of double standard there wouldn´t you say?!).
And if you are going to be sanctimonious, smug, condescending and downright rude then you are going to get it back with both barrels. If you don´t like it then you
know what you can do.
You can have the last word - I know it is important to you.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:20:11:28:59 by dixon9.
I´ve given you my viewpoint but you keep banging on ignoring what I´ve said to you.
Don´t understand why SUDDENLY you are getting all twitchy about us discussing Arsenal´s finances - you have never had a problem with that before (also amusing that you describe your comments on Chelsea´s finances as "banter" yet get all offended and describe my comments on Arsenal´s as an "attack" - bit of double standard there wouldn´t you say?!).
And if you are going to be sanctimonious, smug, condescending and downright rude then you are going to get it back with both barrels. If you don´t like it then you
know what you can do.
You can have the last word - I know it is important to you.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:20:11:28:59 by dixon9.