Financial Fair Play/Financial Report (merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Financial figures appear to be somewhat late.

AdamoTheGreat said:
Chelsea report £49.4m loss but meet Financial Fair Play rules

Chelsea have made a loss of £49.4m for the year ended 30 June 2013.
Their group turnover of £255.8m for the 12-month period is a record figure for the club, but elimination from last season's Champions League in the group stages saw a drop in income.
The club said these figures, combined with the previous year's profit of £1.4m, fall within the criteria set by Uefa's Financial Fair Play regulations.
What are Uefa's Financial Fair Play regulations?

• The Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) was set up in June 2012 to oversee the application of the Uefa Club Licensing System and Financial Fair Play Regulations

• Clubs cannot repeatedly spend more than their generated revenues, and clubs will be obliged to meet all their transfer and employee payment commitments at all times

• Higher-risk clubs that fail certain indicators will also be required to provide budgets detailing their strategic plans

• Teams participating in Uefa club competitions have had their transfer and employee payables monitored since the summer of 2011. The break-even assessment covering the financial years ending 2012 and 2013 will be assessed during 2013-14


Their commercial income rose from £67m to £79.6m - a 19% rise.
Chelsea won the Europa League in 2013 - but the club received significantly less prize money for that than they did in winning the Champions League in 2012, which contributed to the loss.
"For Chelsea FC to achieve a record level of turnover, despite our first group-stage elimination from the Champions League, shows we have structured our business and are growing in the correct way for long-term stability," chief executive Ron Gourlay said.
"Our philosophy is that we build upon success on the pitch - and although in these financial results we haven't repeated the sizeable profits made the previous year from player transfers, we believe the age profile of the existing squad means we will benefit from that investment for many years to come."
Chelsea's profit last year was their first since Roman Abramovich took control of the club in 2003.
That profit was aided by money brought in from player sales, in addition to a one-off financial boost that came when the broadcaster BSkyB agreed to cancel its shares in a joint digital media venture with the club.
The last two seasons have been the first monitoring period for Uefa's FFP regulations.
Chairman Bruce Buck added: "A long-term objective was financial sustainability, and the subsequent implementation of Financial Fair Play by Uefa and by the Premier League has brought that to the top of the agenda for football clubs.
"We are pleased therefore that we will meet the stipulations set down by Uefa in their first assessment period.
"By our own analysis, we are progressing from a commercial viewpoint as well as continuing to add trophies to our collection, which we never lose sight of as our most important goal."

So Chelsea made a 49m loss but last year made a 1.4m profit?

How does this swing away from breaking-even / making profit mean they are complying with FFPR?

Anyone?
 
Re: Financial figures appear to be somewhat late.

Stoned Rose said:
So Chelsea made a 49m loss but last year made a 1.4m profit?

How does this swing away from breaking-even / making profit mean they are complying with FFPR?

Anyone?
I think even UEFA reach the limits of hypocrisy if they condemn a club for winning one of their competitions.
 
Re: Financial figures appear to be somewhat late.

Skashion said:
Stoned Rose said:
So Chelsea made a 49m loss but last year made a 1.4m profit?

How does this swing away from breaking-even / making profit mean they are complying with FFPR?

Anyone?
I think even UEFA reach the limits of hypocrisy if they condemn a club for winning one of their competitions.
Reach, but not overreach :-)
 
Re: Financial figures appear to be somewhat late.

Skashion said:
Stoned Rose said:
So Chelsea made a 49m loss but last year made a 1.4m profit?

How does this swing away from breaking-even / making profit mean they are complying with FFPR?

Anyone?
I think even UEFA reach the limits of hypocrisy if they condemn a club for winning one of their competitions.

Doesn't address my question this though does it?
 
Re: Financial figures appear to be somewhat late.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25564078

BBC link on Chelseas latest accounts;

Their group turnover of £255.8m for the 12-month period is a record figure for the club,

Tom Glick said in a recent interview we now had a bigger turnover than Chelsea so I'd expect ours to be quite easily above that figure larger than that given it was only £24m lower than that figure for the previous financial year quotes below

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896...39394/glick-manchester-city-revenue-will-soar

Next year Manchester will have two of the top five clubs in terms of worldwide revenues, we’re catching up with Bayern Munich. We are very excited about the direction of the club.

We are fortunate to have amazing owners who challenge us, and to have a visionary chief executive [Ferran Soriano].

Over the summer we played nine games in four continents and we were astounded by the number of fans and interest in our club.

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2012/december/mcfc-annual-report-2011-12

Furthermore, the report highlights that annual turnover has broken the £200m threshold for the first time in the Club’s history with the Club achieving annual revenues of £231.1m in 2011-12.
 
Re: Financial figures appear to be somewhat late.

Stoned Rose said:
Doesn't address my question this though does it?
Well, it wouldn't matter anyway, because they meet the criteria regardless. The bit about moving towards future compliance is only relevant if they fail, which they haven't. Moving towards compliance is like a mitigating factor in sentencing. Chelsea haven't been found guilty so it's utterly irrelevant. They won't even have been close to failing with all the exclusions. We have much bigger losses and should pass due to the exclusions.

My point though, was that the revenue from winning the Champions League boosted their revenues. If UEFA punished Chelsea because of a trend away from profitability - when their profitability in 11/12 only came about because of winning the Champions League, that would be ridiculous even for them as they're the ones handing out the prize money.
 
Re: Financial figures appear to be somewhat late.

The club is probably keeping the accounts private so no one can see how much we're paying Moyes and Faillini.
 
Re: Financial figures appear to be somewhat late.

Skashion said:
Stoned Rose said:
Doesn't address my question this though does it?
Well, it wouldn't matter anyway, because they meet the criteria regardless. The bit about moving towards future compliance is only relevant if they fail, which they haven't. Moving towards compliance is like a mitigating factor in sentencing. Chelsea haven't been found guilty so it's utterly irrelevant. They won't even have been close to failing with all the exclusions. We have much bigger losses and should pass due to the exclusions.

My point though, was that the revenue from winning the Champions League boosted their revenues. If UEFA punished Chelsea because of a trend away from profitability - when their profitability in 11/12 only came about because of winning the Champions League, that would be ridiculous even for them as they're the ones handing out the prize money.

Much better that skash I knew you had it in you ;)
 
Re: Financial figures appear to be somewhat late.

Some deductions can be made from that overall loss for FFP purposes, invastructure and academy expenses ect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.