Who will crack the big four and when?

[OzzieMandias]

Chelsea and Manchester United, the Premier League's two representatives in tomorrow's Champions League final, owe creditors £1.5bn between them. According to the latest accounts of Chelsea Limited, the company which owns the football club, Chelsea owed £736m to all its creditors. United's accounts, also recently filed at Companies House, showed total creditors at £764m. Those unprecedented figures will fuel concern that at this time of English football's greatest club triumph its clubs are carrying too much debt.

 

Covering the year to June 30, 2007, Chelsea's accounts show that the club's largest creditor was the owner himself, Roman Abramovich, who had poured £578m into the club, not as a donation but as an interest-free loan. As stated by the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, in February, Chelsea did not owe "external debt" to any bank.

 

However, with Abramovich's £578m loan, introduced to sign players and pay wages since he bought the club in 2003, plus general amounts owed, taxes and some categories listed among creditors for formal accounting purposes, Chelsea's creditors stood at £736m in total.

 

Chelsea's director of communications, Simon Greenberg, confirmed that the £578m, described in the accounts as "Other loan", is indeed the loan from Abramovich. Greenberg reiterated that Chelsea has no "external debt" and pointed out that the creditors included season-ticket holders for 2007-08, whose money has technically to be treated as owed until the season is over, "and other normal operating creditors". The figure also included £36.3m still owed on a Eurobond taken out by Chelsea's previous owner, Ken Bates, in 1997. That, the last of Chelsea's "external debt", was then repaid last December.

 

Kenyon released headline figures from these accounts in February, highlighting that the club made a record turnover, £190.5m, and that its losses were down from £80.2m in 2005-06 to £75.8m last year. Kenyon said then that the club was in a healthy financial position, still aiming to break even by 2009-10, partly because it did not owe money to outside creditors and retained Abramovich's support. "With the company being external debt free and our ownership clearly demonstrating continuing commitment to the long term," Kenyon said, "I am very confident about the future."

 

United's accounts showed the club's total creditors at £764m. United does have "external debt" - £666m owed to financial institutions, including £152m to hedge funds - taken on by the Glazer family when they bought the club in 2005, then loaded on to United itself. While United's loans incurred interest of £81m last year, the loan to Chelsea by Abramovich is interest-free. Abramovich has funded Chelsea's extraordinary acquisition of stars and, although transfers showed a profit last year, he continued to allow Chelsea to be run at a substantial loss.

 

Kenyon's role is to transform Chelsea into a club which can survive on its own earnings. In February he acknowledged it was an "ambitious" target to aim to be self-financing by 2009-10 but the accounts bear out commercial progress in all areas. Having finished runners-up in the Premier League, won the FA Cup and League Cup and reached the Champions League semi-final, the club's sponsorship, match-day and media income all increased to push total turnover 25% up.

 

However, there is no doubt that the club remains wholly reliant on Abramovich's continued funding. Chelsea's chairman, Bruce Buck, has stressed that Abramovich "loves football" and will not "walk away" from Chelsea.

 

If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/20/premierleague.chelsea

 

All this talk about the big 4 clubs having huge debt is nothing really. Many successful modern institutions run on deficit spending. Any of the big 4 going under is just about as likely as the United States of America going bankrupt due to their ginormous national debt. ie, it's not impossible, but not damn likely any time soon.

 

The difference being top football clubs can't start wars. 

 

Or global recessions.

[merlin]

Spurs and Villa are the only 2 teams in the prem who are fully equipped for a sustained assault on the CL if you ask me, we wont be ready for another 2-3 years if you ask me, think UEFA cup is imperative  next year if we are gonna start progresssing fully.

 

Totally agree - fancy Villa to run Spurs very close for 5th next season.

We will not be in serious contention for at least 3 years.

[madras]

Spurs and Villa are the only 2 teams in the prem who are fully equipped for a sustained assault on the CL if you ask me, we wont be ready for another 2-3 years if you ask me, think UEFA cup is imperative  next year if we are gonna start progresssing fully.

 

Totally agree - fancy Villa to run Spurs very close for 5th next season.

We will not be in serious contention for at least 3 years.

spurs ? who we have turned over 4 times deservedly in the last 5 outings and fluked the other and who finished 3 points ahead of us ?

 

at the end of the window they might have pulled away in terms of squad but as yet i don't see it.

 

where does anyone think nufc would have finished last season hads Keegan took over on sept 1st 2007 ?

[merlin]

Newcastle United in 2013

 

Manager - Paul Ince

 

Top striker - Gomis 30 goals (having indeed morphed into the new Drogba)

 

Top midfielder - Samir Nasri 20 assists

 

Top defender - Not Steven Taylor

 

Gaol Keeper - Tim Krul

 

 

quite impressive what Ince has done mind.

 

 

 

I was only fairly impressed up until I actually saw MK Dons play and I was stunned because they actually play some very good football and they got away with it and indeed dominated with it in the rough and tumble world of the lower leagues.

 

That guy has serious potential. He's not just a shouter and motivator by any means, which is probably what I expected him to be due to his personality when he played.

 

I've seen very few people have such an impact. Ferguson, Clough, Shankly etc all did.....giants of the managerial game, very early days to put him in that bracket, but one to watch for sure. As everyone will be doing. If they play pass and move football, then that is the type to play at the highest levels.

 

 

 

 

 

What about Mowbray ? Has done it at a higher level than Ince, also successful with Hibs and has done it by playing attacking football..

Would rather have him to replace KK in 3 years' time(he will be 47 then)than Ince and I reckon he will have made his mark with WBA before then ; as a NE born lad, he would be a better bet as NUFC manager.

[brummie]

What about Mowbray ? Has done it at a higher level than Ince, also successful with Hibs and has done it by playing attacking football..

Would rather have him to replace KK in 3 years' time(he will be 47 then)than Ince and I reckon he will have made his mark with WBA before then ; as a NE born lad, he would be a better bet as NUFC manager.

 

Said this before, but I think Mowbray is a managerial star of the future.

[madras]

Newcastle United in 2013

 

Manager - Paul Ince

 

Top striker - Gomis 30 goals (having indeed morphed into the new Drogba)

 

Top midfielder - Samir Nasri 20 assists

 

Top defender - Not Steven Taylor

 

Gaol Keeper - Tim Krul

 

 

quite impressive what Ince has done mind.

 

 

 

I was only fairly impressed up until I actually saw MK Dons play and I was stunned because they actually play some very good football and they got away with it and indeed dominated with it in the rough and tumble world of the lower leagues.

 

That guy has serious potential. He's not just a shouter and motivator by any means, which is probably what I expected him to be due to his personality when he played.

 

I've seen very few people have such an impact. Ferguson, Clough, Shankly etc all did.....giants of the managerial game, very early days to put him in that bracket, but one to watch for sure. As everyone will be doing. If they play pass and move football, then that is the type to play at the highest levels.

 

 

 

 

 

What about Mowbray ? Has done it at a higher level than Ince, also successful with Hibs and has done it by playing attacking football..

Would rather have him to replace KK in 3 years' time(he will be 47 then)than Ince and I reckon he will have made his mark with WBA before then ; as a NE born lad, he would be a better bet as NUFC manager.

lets see how ince and mowbray and others are doing when we need a new manager. not now.

[NE5]

Newcastle United in 2013

 

Manager - Paul Ince

 

Top striker - Gomis 30 goals (having indeed morphed into the new Drogba)

 

Top midfielder - Samir Nasri 20 assists

 

Top defender - Not Steven Taylor

 

Gaol Keeper - Tim Krul

 

 

quite impressive what Ince has done mind.

 

 

 

I was only fairly impressed up until I actually saw MK Dons play and I was stunned because they actually play some very good football and they got away with it and indeed dominated with it in the rough and tumble world of the lower leagues.

 

That guy has serious potential. He's not just a shouter and motivator by any means, which is probably what I expected him to be due to his personality when he played.

 

I've seen very few people have such an impact. Ferguson, Clough, Shankly etc all did.....giants of the managerial game, very early days to put him in that bracket, but one to watch for sure. As everyone will be doing. If they play pass and move football, then that is the type to play at the highest levels.

 

 

 

 

 

What about Mowbray ? Has done it at a higher level than Ince, also successful with Hibs and has done it by playing attacking football..

Would rather have him to replace KK in 3 years' time(he will be 47 then)than Ince and I reckon he will have made his mark with WBA before then ; as a NE born lad, he would be a better bet as NUFC manager.

 

was saying to a mate a couple of months ago Mowbray has done well and seems to have a good authoritive personality.

 

I think one lesson to be learned from Allardyce - is i went against my better judgement - I know that the way to succeed at the top is to play thoughtful, intelligent, passing football. I thought Allardyce would have adjusted to the big club mentality, and he had the record of getting lots of established players to play for him and respect. To a degree I'm one who isn't particularly bothered if the team "excites" me or not, I just want to win, so I'd have accepted his brand of football if we had been winning.

 

Sadly, it wasn't the case. It will be interesting to see where he goes next and what he does. I think he's a builder though, he may have done well in the long run, but ultimately his approach to our games against the likes of Derby, mackems etc didn't buy him the time he needed.

 

Glad he's gone though.

 

 

[NE5]

Chelsea and Manchester United, the Premier League's two representatives in tomorrow's Champions League final, owe creditors £1.5bn between them. According to the latest accounts of Chelsea Limited, the company which owns the football club, Chelsea owed £736m to all its creditors. United's accounts, also recently filed at Companies House, showed total creditors at £764m. Those unprecedented figures will fuel concern that at this time of English football's greatest club triumph its clubs are carrying too much debt.

 

Covering the year to June 30, 2007, Chelsea's accounts show that the club's largest creditor was the owner himself, Roman Abramovich, who had poured £578m into the club, not as a donation but as an interest-free loan. As stated by the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, in February, Chelsea did not owe "external debt" to any bank.

 

However, with Abramovich's £578m loan, introduced to sign players and pay wages since he bought the club in 2003, plus general amounts owed, taxes and some categories listed among creditors for formal accounting purposes, Chelsea's creditors stood at £736m in total.

 

Chelsea's director of communications, Simon Greenberg, confirmed that the £578m, described in the accounts as "Other loan", is indeed the loan from Abramovich. Greenberg reiterated that Chelsea has no "external debt" and pointed out that the creditors included season-ticket holders for 2007-08, whose money has technically to be treated as owed until the season is over, "and other normal operating creditors". The figure also included £36.3m still owed on a Eurobond taken out by Chelsea's previous owner, Ken Bates, in 1997. That, the last of Chelsea's "external debt", was then repaid last December.

 

Kenyon released headline figures from these accounts in February, highlighting that the club made a record turnover, £190.5m, and that its losses were down from £80.2m in 2005-06 to £75.8m last year. Kenyon said then that the club was in a healthy financial position, still aiming to break even by 2009-10, partly because it did not owe money to outside creditors and retained Abramovich's support. "With the company being external debt free and our ownership clearly demonstrating continuing commitment to the long term," Kenyon said, "I am very confident about the future."

 

United's accounts showed the club's total creditors at £764m. United does have "external debt" - £666m owed to financial institutions, including £152m to hedge funds - taken on by the Glazer family when they bought the club in 2005, then loaded on to United itself. While United's loans incurred interest of £81m last year, the loan to Chelsea by Abramovich is interest-free. Abramovich has funded Chelsea's extraordinary acquisition of stars and, although transfers showed a profit last year, he continued to allow Chelsea to be run at a substantial loss.

 

Kenyon's role is to transform Chelsea into a club which can survive on its own earnings. In February he acknowledged it was an "ambitious" target to aim to be self-financing by 2009-10 but the accounts bear out commercial progress in all areas. Having finished runners-up in the Premier League, won the FA Cup and League Cup and reached the Champions League semi-final, the club's sponsorship, match-day and media income all increased to push total turnover 25% up.

 

However, there is no doubt that the club remains wholly reliant on Abramovich's continued funding. Chelsea's chairman, Bruce Buck, has stressed that Abramovich "loves football" and will not "walk away" from Chelsea.

 

If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/20/premierleague.chelsea

 

All this talk about the big 4 clubs having huge debt is nothing really. Many successful modern institutions run on deficit spending. Any of the big 4 going under is just about as likely as the United States of America going bankrupt due to their ginormous national debt. ie, it's not impossible, but not damn likely any time soon.

 

of course. Its just the hype phrase used by those who want to slate the old board for anything they can think of mate.

 

 

[fredbob]

Spurs and Villa are the only 2 teams in the prem who are fully equipped for a sustained assault on the CL if you ask me, we wont be ready for another 2-3 years if you ask me, think UEFA cup is imperative next year if we are gonna start progresssing fully.

 

Totally agree - fancy Villa to run Spurs very close for 5th next season.

We will not be in serious contention for at least 3 years.

spurs ? who we have turned over 4 times deservedly in the last 5 outings and fluked the other and who finished 3 points ahead of us ?

 

at the end of the window they might have pulled away in terms of squad but as yet i don't see it.

 

where does anyone think nufc would have finished last season hads Keegan took over on sept 1st 2007 ?

 

Where do you think spurs would be had Ramos been in charge at 1stsept 2007 - bare in mind we did well the first 10-12 games and Spurs were 19th or something. Where would they be assuming they didnt lose as many points as they did.

 

I get the feeling Ramos will make his better squad count soon enough.

[Guest elbee909]

of course. Its just the hype phrase used by those who want to slate the old board for anything they can think of mate.

 

That didn't take very long.

[Baggio]

Chelsea and Manchester United, the Premier League's two representatives in tomorrow's Champions League final, owe creditors £1.5bn between them. According to the latest accounts of Chelsea Limited, the company which owns the football club, Chelsea owed £736m to all its creditors. United's accounts, also recently filed at Companies House, showed total creditors at £764m. Those unprecedented figures will fuel concern that at this time of English football's greatest club triumph its clubs are carrying too much debt.

 

Covering the year to June 30, 2007, Chelsea's accounts show that the club's largest creditor was the owner himself, Roman Abramovich, who had poured £578m into the club, not as a donation but as an interest-free loan. As stated by the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, in February, Chelsea did not owe "external debt" to any bank.

 

However, with Abramovich's £578m loan, introduced to sign players and pay wages since he bought the club in 2003, plus general amounts owed, taxes and some categories listed among creditors for formal accounting purposes, Chelsea's creditors stood at £736m in total.

 

Chelsea's director of communications, Simon Greenberg, confirmed that the £578m, described in the accounts as "Other loan", is indeed the loan from Abramovich. Greenberg reiterated that Chelsea has no "external debt" and pointed out that the creditors included season-ticket holders for 2007-08, whose money has technically to be treated as owed until the season is over, "and other normal operating creditors". The figure also included £36.3m still owed on a Eurobond taken out by Chelsea's previous owner, Ken Bates, in 1997. That, the last of Chelsea's "external debt", was then repaid last December.

 

Kenyon released headline figures from these accounts in February, highlighting that the club made a record turnover, £190.5m, and that its losses were down from £80.2m in 2005-06 to £75.8m last year. Kenyon said then that the club was in a healthy financial position, still aiming to break even by 2009-10, partly because it did not owe money to outside creditors and retained Abramovich's support. "With the company being external debt free and our ownership clearly demonstrating continuing commitment to the long term," Kenyon said, "I am very confident about the future."

 

United's accounts showed the club's total creditors at £764m. United does have "external debt" - £666m owed to financial institutions, including £152m to hedge funds - taken on by the Glazer family when they bought the club in 2005, then loaded on to United itself. While United's loans incurred interest of £81m last year, the loan to Chelsea by Abramovich is interest-free. Abramovich has funded Chelsea's extraordinary acquisition of stars and, although transfers showed a profit last year, he continued to allow Chelsea to be run at a substantial loss.

 

Kenyon's role is to transform Chelsea into a club which can survive on its own earnings. In February he acknowledged it was an "ambitious" target to aim to be self-financing by 2009-10 but the accounts bear out commercial progress in all areas. Having finished runners-up in the Premier League, won the FA Cup and League Cup and reached the Champions League semi-final, the club's sponsorship, match-day and media income all increased to push total turnover 25% up.

 

However, there is no doubt that the club remains wholly reliant on Abramovich's continued funding. Chelsea's chairman, Bruce Buck, has stressed that Abramovich "loves football" and will not "walk away" from Chelsea.

 

If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/20/premierleague.chelsea

 

All this talk about the big 4 clubs having huge debt is nothing really. Many successful modern institutions run on deficit spending. Any of the big 4 going under is just about as likely as the United States of America going bankrupt due to their ginormous national debt. ie, it's not impossible, but not damn likely any time soon.

 

of course. Its just the hype phrase used by those who want to slate the old board for anything they can think of mate.

 

 

 

Not at all, most slag the old board off for appointing Souness which set the club back years...

 

The big difference between us having debt and the big 4 is that after we'd made our repayments there was no money left for transfer fee's, which is why the club spent the best part of £2 million looking at ways to get more finance because the pot was empty, the new tv money would have helped but all clubs would get it so it was hardly an advantage.

 

I expect this to go straight over your head though.

[Teasy]

Those are turnover figures so can be interpreted any way you like.  You could say Everton had a turnover of £51m but then again they have outsourced virtually all club operations so turnover would take a hit.

 

I'm not sure catering would make up the difference to be honest   If you don't want to look strictly as revenue then look at profits, Newcastle 7 million pounds profit, Everton 1 million pound loss...  Again despite Everton finishing 8 places above us.  They're just not in the same league when it comes to generating cash.

[1878]

Those are turnover figures so can be interpreted any way you like.  You could say Everton had a turnover of £51m but then again they have outsourced virtually all club operations so turnover would take a hit.

 

I'm not sure catering would make up the difference to be honest   If you don't want to look strictly as revenue then look at profits, Newcastle 7 million pounds profit, Everton 1 million pound loss...  Again despite Everton finishing 8 places above us.  They're just not in the same league when it comes to generating cash.

 

It's not just catering, it's merchandise also. We  have one of the biggest buffoons known to man running the club, Keith Wyness.

[Guest defo]

Hate to say it, but if anyone will then it will be Spurs. Seems to be some idea on here that Spurs will have a s*** season again because they did last year but they have a very good manager now with money behind him it seems.

 

Even with the Modric signing they still lack character, I still feel they are a fancy pants team and nothing more. They severely lack physical strength and explosiveness. Till they add a bit of this I think they will continue to struggle. I'm yet to be convinced.

 

I don't think it's fair to say Spurs "continue to struggle". 2 top 5 finishes in the last 3 seasons, 3 consecutive years of European fotball and a trophy this year is not struggling. Bringing Modric Woodgate and Hutton in is building as well

 

Spuds do continue to struggle.........to attract fans with half a brain cell more than an amoeba.

 

The amoeba is a unicellular organism and therefore quite incapable of accommodating any further cells, brain or otherwise, which would render it no longer classifiable as an amoeba. But I'm sure you knew that.

[NE5]

Hate to say it, but if anyone will then it will be Spurs. Seems to be some idea on here that Spurs will have a s*** season again because they did last year but they have a very good manager now with money behind him it seems.

 

Even with the Modric signing they still lack character, I still feel they are a fancy pants team and nothing more. They severely lack physical strength and explosiveness. Till they add a bit of this I think they will continue to struggle. I'm yet to be convinced.

 

I don't think it's fair to say Spurs "continue to struggle". 2 top 5 finishes in the last 3 seasons, 3 consecutive years of European fotball and a trophy this year is not struggling. Bringing Modric Woodgate and Hutton in is building as well

 

Spuds do continue to struggle.........to attract fans with half a brain cell more than an amoeba.

 

The amoebi is a unicellular organism and therefore quite incapable of accommodating any further cells, brain or otherwise, which would render it no longer classifiable as an amoeba. But I'm sure you knew that.

 

edited for correctness mate