City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[mad4city]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I see chelsea have made a 20 million profit this year. The media will be loving this as shitty city loses 52 million last year. I can't wait till our figures are out, if we do make a profit then I'll take a guess that nothing will be said at all about it and all the clueless journalists will go into hiding.

I wouldn't be holding my breath for due credit, let alone praise.
If City make a profit, it will be due to crafty ruses, imaginative accounting and blah, blah, blah.

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I see chelsea have made a 20 million profit this year. The media will be loving this as shitty city loses 52 million last year. I can't wait till our figures are out, if we do make a profit then I'll take a guess that nothing will be said at all about it and all the clueless journalists will go into hiding.

I wouldn't be holding my breath for due credit, let alone praise.
If City make a profit, it will be due to crafty ruses, imaginative accounting and blah, blah, blah.

I can`t wait for seeing how that useless twat from Arsenals Fans Forum reacts.He`ll throw himself in the Thames.

 

[waspish]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'll be very surprised if we make that much of a profit this financial year if any few quid either way I predict next year hopefully it'll be in the multi millions..

 

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I see chelsea have made a 20 million profit this year. The media will be loving this as shitty city loses 52 million last year. I can't wait till our figures are out, if we do make a profit then I'll take a guess that nothing will be said at all about it and all the clueless journalists will go into hiding.

Has anyone seen a breakdown of the figure? The report I read said that it included the sale of Mata and luiz but not subsequent purchases, which, if correct, would seriously distort their underlying profitability. I would be surprised if they would have lost £60m+ without those sales but these headline numbers are often fairly meaningless.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I see chelsea have made a 20 million profit this year. The media will be loving this as shitty city loses 52 million last year. I can't wait till our figures are out, if we do make a profit then I'll take a guess that nothing will be said at all about it and all the clueless journalists will go into hiding.

Has anyone seen a breakdown of the figure? The report I read said that it included the sale of Mata and luiz but not subsequent purchases, which, if correct, would seriously distort their underlying profitability. I would be surprised if they would have lost £60m+ without those sales but these headline numbers are often fairly meaningless.

It does include £87.1m sales of Luiz and Mata.

In essence, Chelsea would have made a £70m loss without it.

A bit like when United announced record profit after selling Ronaldo to Madrid...

I've seen some outlets cite our figures from 2012/13 to highlight our £59m loss and how Chelsea are now leaving us in the financial shade.

And yet we will shortly announce break-even, a larger turnover and sponsorship income.

Chelsea can't extend their stadium because it works out at £20,000 a seat to do so and no appropriate site is available. They also charge substantially higher than our match day prices.

We have already left them in our wake.

 

[tonea2003]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I see chelsea have made a 20 million profit this year. The media will be loving this as shitty city loses 52 million last year. I can't wait till our figures are out, if we do make a profit then I'll take a guess that nothing will be said at all about it and all the clueless journalists will go into hiding.

Has anyone seen a breakdown of the figure? The report I read said that it included the sale of Mata and luiz but not subsequent purchases, which, if correct, would seriously distort their underlying profitability. I would be surprised if they would have lost £60m+ without those sales but these headline numbers are often fairly meaningless.

It does include £87.1m sales of Luiz and Mata.

In essence, Chelsea would have made a £70m loss without it.

A bit like when United announced record profit after selling Ronaldo to Madrid...

I've seen some outlets cite our figures from 2012/13 to highlight our £59m loss and how Chelsea are now leaving us in the financial shade.

And yet we will shortly announce break-even, a larger turnover and sponsorship income.

Chelsea can't extend their stadium because it works out at £20,000 a seat to do so and no appropriate site is available. They also charge substantially higher than our match day prices.

We have already left them in our wake.

that's good to hear mate, looking forward to the future one could say

 

[Bluewonder]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What's Chelsea's actual revenue?

 

[mat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What's Chelsea's actual revenue?

Whatever Terry nicks from Poundland....

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I see chelsea have made a 20 million profit this year. The media will be loving this as shitty city loses 52 million last year. I can't wait till our figures are out, if we do make a profit then I'll take a guess that nothing will be said at all about it and all the clueless journalists will go into hiding.

Has anyone seen a breakdown of the figure? The report I read said that it included the sale of Mata and luiz but not subsequent purchases, which, if correct, would seriously distort their underlying profitability. I would be surprised if they would have lost £60m+ without those sales but these headline numbers are often fairly meaningless.

It does include £87.1m sales of Luiz and Mata.

In essence, Chelsea would have made a £70m loss without it.

More like £50m loss I guess. They'd have to take a P&L hit for whatever the residual value was on the balance sheet. Both were roughly half way through 5 year contracts of circa £20m to £25m a piece.

 

[Ric]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Chelsea were pretty fortunate to find two buyers, in United and PSG, so willing to pay over the odds for Mata and Luiz. They can't rely on making similar sales every season.

 

[Damocles]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

They're going to fail FFP this year if my maths is right.

My mistake, they would have failed FFP if they didn't sell Mata which probably explains the January transfer (as the summer transfer would have put them into a new set of accounts)

 

[inbetween]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

They're going to fail FFP this year if my maths is right.

My mistake, they would have failed FFP if they didn't sell Mata which probably explains the January transfer (as the summer transfer would have put them into a new set of accounts)

It would be pretty funny and ironic if they failed after everything Mourinho has spouted about us. They are no different and if anything have to squeeze their money even harder because I don't see them signing any deals of the magnitude of ours. The only real gain Chelsea have is that they are in London and tourists snap up tickets/merchandise whilst there or see the relation between the club and city.

 

[stony]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What's the delay in naming the new sponsors for the CFA ? Are we waiting until the new financial year starts ?

 

[pirate]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What's the delay in naming the new sponsors for the CFA ? Are we waiting until the new financial year starts ?

i am cynic and think the later we leave it the less time twatini and UEFA have to twist the rules to screw us over

the cunts

 

[mancity dan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What's Chelsea's actual revenue?

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2014/11/13/6116171/chelsea-announce-184m-profit-in-annual-financial-results

The Premier League leaders also recorded a turnover of £319.8m in the 2013-14 financial year, leaving them well placed to meet Uefa's Financial Fair Play requirements

Chelsea have announced a profit of £18.4 million and a record turnover of £319.8m in their accounts for the financial year 2013-14.

It is only the second year that the Blues have recorded anything other than a loss since Roman Abramovich assumed control of the club, having announced a more modest profit of £1.4m in the 2011-12 financial year leading into the club's Champions League triumph.

A turnover of £319.8m is a significant rise from the £255.8m total Chelsea posted in 2012-13 - one the club attributes to a combination of the new Premier League television deal, increased commercial income and a surplus generated by player sales.

The £18.4m profit is also in marked contrast to the £49.4m loss Chelsea announced in 2012-13, a year which saw the club exit the Champions League at the group stage for the first time under Abramovich and acquire Eden Hazard and Oscar for a combined £57m.

Commenting on the results, chairman Bruce Buck told the club's official website: "The club is naturally pleased to record a significant profit for 2013-14. By reaching the Champions League semi-final and maintaining a challenge in the Premier League until the final week of the season we demonstrated that, while improving our financial figures, we remained competitive in football’s toughest club competitions.

"We financed player purchases from sales as the squad for this current season was shaped, and our philosophy since Mr Abramovich acquired the club in 2003 has been to build upon success on the pitch. That is evident in the partnerships we signed and in our fanbase growth which contributed to the new record turnover figure and the profit made. We have done all of this at the same time as creating one of the world’s leading football community programmes through the Chelsea Foundation.

"Going forward, we have ambitious plans to build a pioneering global commercial programme, partnering with innovative and market-leading organisations from around the world. In the era of FFP, we must progress commercially to continue the circle of success to invest in the team and get results."

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

They're going to fail FFP this year if my maths is right.

My mistake, they would have failed FFP if they didn't sell Mata which probably explains the January transfer (as the summer transfer would have put them into a new set of accounts)

But they didn't fail it because they were able to find two clubs each only too willing to pay big money for their cast-offs. If only our top brass could do they same, and we would have been laughing it up by now.

 

[Ray78]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

They're going to fail FFP this year if my maths is right.

My mistake, they would have failed FFP if they didn't sell Mata which probably explains the January transfer (as the summer transfer would have put them into a new set of accounts)

But they didn't fail it because they were able to find two clubs each only too willing to pay big money for their cast-offs. If only our top brass could do they same, and we would have been laughing it up by now.

Chelsea have 'friends in high places'.

 

[fulhamroad22]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Revenue was £320 Million/€402 Million, a record for us.

In terms of sponsorships, we announced an extension with Adidas which comes into effect in the next accounts (one of the most valuable shirt sponsorships in world football) and are going to announce a deal with Turkish Airlines who are going to replace Samsung. Rumour has it they are getting stadium and training ground naming rights too, so that should be worth a fortune. There's also loads of other new deals to with Audi etc.

As for transfer sales, the Luiz deal didn't go through officially until the 1st July so wouldn't have been included on these accounts. The De Bruyne and Mata sales, however would have been included on these accounts, and we can't expect the make sales like that so regularly.

Going forward, if we do what we normally do with loans, Torres' wages will disappear from the accounts, so only his remaining fee will be amortised which will save us a fortune. Combine that with the new sponsorships, reduction in wages, exposure into new markets, we are in a good place even without a stadium big enough for the demand for tickets (matchday revenue doesn't count for a great deal, anyway!).

...Oh, and if all that doesn't work, there's always our potentially dodgy deal with Gazprom we can exploit.

 

[MeatHunterrr]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Didn't Soriano predict our revenues for 2013-14 financial year to be around £330m? Hopefully our results will come someday.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

They're going to fail FFP this year if my maths is right.

My mistake, they would have failed FFP if they didn't sell Mata which probably explains the January transfer (as the summer transfer would have put them into a new set of accounts)

But they didn't fail it because they were able to find two clubs each only too willing to pay big money for their cast-offs. If only our top brass could do they same, and we would have been laughing it up by now.

Chelsea have 'friends in high places'.

They may have many such friends, but even friends will baulk at handing over multi-millions on wasting assets!