Scum have started singing that about Chelsea now, the fucking bellends
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2014/15 accounts released - £10.7m profit
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Scum have started singing that about Chelsea now, the fucking bellends
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 32,250
You have to laugh at the deluded rags criticising our sponsorship deals.
£40M per year for Stadium naming rights, shirt sponsorship and campus branding is an absolute bargain compared to the £53M per year Chevrolet deal for shirt sponsorship only. Since the Etihad deal started, airline profits have increased every year by a lot more than £40M.
Funny that the Chevrolet executive who negotiated the United deal got sacked for paying too much!
£40M per year for Stadium naming rights, shirt sponsorship and campus branding is an absolute bargain compared to the £53M per year Chevrolet deal for shirt sponsorship only. Since the Etihad deal started, airline profits have increased every year by a lot more than £40M.
Funny that the Chevrolet executive who negotiated the United deal got sacked for paying too much!
Thaksinssoldier
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 10,104
Amazing how that lot never mention the 23 million "special rebate" the taxman gave them a few years ago to prevent them going technically bankrupt.
Leave them to it. There's a reason all their players kids are nowhere near the swamp.
Leave them to it. There's a reason all their players kids are nowhere near the swamp.
Graceyboy
Well-Known Member
Bit surprised it's not higher to be honest
Got to the same stage in the CL
Similar amount of TV money from the PL
But supposedly big sponsorships like Nissan and SAP being announced
Only 4m more than last years TO
But Yaya's Cake cost more than they thought though.......
john@staustell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Dec 2009
- Messages
- 1,784
not a big shift in the numbers, slightly surprised.
Me too. Hopefully it's to do with shifting numbers around, making y/e May 2016 a mega year, having given us the transfer cash we've just spent! After that it's all the extra TV money
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The interesting thing in these accounts is that while the press are headlining that we've made a profit for the first time under Sheikh Mansour, there's actually very little difference between these accounts and the previous year's. I've looked at what I call underlying earnings, which involves stripping out anything that's a one-off or can't be easily predicted. So things like the UEFA fine and all the inter-company transactions, as well as any profit or loss on player transactions. So that leaves our normal revenue, less expenses and non-cash items like player amortisation and depreciation then knocking off net interest payable.
Last year our underlying earnings were a loss of £13.5m and this year they're a loss of £3.5m. So effectively we broke even last year but the results were distorted by the fine. I made the point at the time (certainly in my KOTK article) that this meant we were now, to all intents and purposes, financially self-sufficient and that none of the press had picked up on this. That was a far bigger milestone than simply making a profit, which this year was largely due to the profit on player trading. These results cement that and the fact that our operations generated over £100m of cash is yet further proof that, even standing on our own two feet, we're a big player now. This kills stone dead one of the most oft-repeated cliches of our detractors "You'd be nothing if the Sheikh walked away".
Last year our underlying earnings were a loss of £13.5m and this year they're a loss of £3.5m. So effectively we broke even last year but the results were distorted by the fine. I made the point at the time (certainly in my KOTK article) that this meant we were now, to all intents and purposes, financially self-sufficient and that none of the press had picked up on this. That was a far bigger milestone than simply making a profit, which this year was largely due to the profit on player trading. These results cement that and the fact that our operations generated over £100m of cash is yet further proof that, even standing on our own two feet, we're a big player now. This kills stone dead one of the most oft-repeated cliches of our detractors "You'd be nothing if the Sheikh walked away".
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
The interesting thing in these accounts is that while the press are headlining that we've made a profit for the first time under Sheikh Mansour, there's actually very little difference between these accounts and the previous year's. I've looked at what I call underlying earnings, which involves stripping out anything that's a one-off or can't be easily predicted. So things like the UEFA fine and all the inter-company transactions, as well as any profit or loss on player transactions. So that leaves our normal revenue, less expenses and non-cash items like player amortisation, interest payable and depreciation.
Last year our underlying earnings were a loss of £13.5m and this year they're a loss of £3.5m. So effectively we broke even last year but the results were distorted by the fine. I made the point at the time (certainly in my KOTK article) that this meant we were now, to all intents and purposes, financially self-sufficient and that none of the press had picked up on this. That was a far bigger milestone than simply making a profit, which this year was largely due to the profit on player trading. These results cement that and the fact that our operations generated over £100m of cash is yet further proof that, even standing on our own two feet, we're a big player now. This kills stone dead one of the most oft-repeated cliches of our detractors "You'd be nothing if the Sheikh walked away".
I think it's significant that it's been done without substantial rises in our 2 main sponsorships (Etihad, Nike). Now we can show we're profitable with those at an artificially low level, I think substantial increases in their value will be forthcoming, though I think City are smart enough to bide their time and wait for the right moment, i.e. a major signing, or a CL win, to really maximise those negotiations.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
There was never going to be a big change in the numbers. We played less homes games, with a lower crowd at each game so matchday revenue was going to be down (which I neglected to take into account), there was no change in the basis for paying European or domestic media income and there were no really major commercial deals announced.Me too. Hopefully it's to do with shifting numbers around, making y/e May 2016 a mega year, having given us the transfer cash we've just spent! After that it's all the extra TV money
This financial year, we're playing in front of crowds that are over 20% higher plus the reconfiguration of the stadium should result in a higher proportion of hospitality and other premium matchday income. So it's not unreasonable to assume up to a 25% increase in matchday income, even if we play the same number of games as last season. We'll be receiving significantly more from the CL this year, due to the new BT deal. It's difficult to be sure what that might be as it depends to a large degree on any increased TV deals struck by other countries but I can't see it being less than £20m. I'm sure Commercial income will be up again, even if only by £8-10m. The only income stream that won't be signifiantly different is domestic media income but that will be going up by over £30m in the following year.