THFC6061
Paul Robinson
Yes, Spurs only generate around 25% of their revenues from actual ticket sales.
The lion's share comes from Sponsorship, Corporate Hospitality and Media income.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Chelseas finances
- Thread starter P.D.
- Start date
Yes, Spurs only generate around 25% of their revenues from actual ticket sales.
The lion's share comes from Sponsorship, Corporate Hospitality and Media income.
braineclipse
Garth Crooks
In the bookkeeping wouldn't those be amortized or whatever that is over the entire period of the contracts so even the players that are included are only included as typically 1/4th of their actual transfer fee?
This just in, winning the Champions League will bring tons of money to a club....
Usually the accounts that are released, general public info such as amount of tv money paid and some estimates (which he outlines in each post)
Denmark Spur
Alf Ramsey
The winds of change are blowing at Chelsea with pace, but do the accounts add up?
Sunday 11 November 2012
One of the country's leading analysts of Uefa's Financial Fair Play regulations admits to being "puzzled" as to how Chelsea have managed to make a profit for the 12 months ending last June.
The club surprised financial experts by declaring they had made £1.4million after suffering average annual losses of almost £80m during Roman Abramovich's previous eight years as owner. That news was rushed out three months earlier than usual, accounts having not yet been filed at Companies House, which makes them unavailable for public scrutiny. Ed Thompson, who works in banking and runs a website devoted to FFP (financialfairplay.co.uk), had predicted a loss of £40m in his own detailed analysis last month. He now admits to underestimating the income from winning the Champions' League and FA Cup, plus increased commercial activity, but does not understand the club's claims of a transfer profit of £28m. "Logic suggests that the figures Chelsea released could only be achieved if wages and amortisation were pretty-much flat," he says. "So how have they done it? I think it is very telling that we only have a press release.
"We need the full picture. I don't want to sound like some crazy chap with a conspiracy theory but I think we may find out more about the figures in due course. Simply put, I am surprised that the club have seemingly kept expenses flat when logic suggests the player acquisitions and win bonuses would have increased outgoings. We need to see the full accounts to understand how they have managed to achieve this." The club point out that transfer fees are frequently payable over the course of a contract and not upfront, whereas income like the reported £17m for Yuri Zhirkov can be counted in full.
Little, if any, of the £32m paid for Eden Hazard, signed in early June, would have been included, and none of the £25m for Oscar.
The figures released do, however, confirm that Abramovich has converted another £166.6m owed to him into shares in the club, having previously done the same thing three years ago to the tune of £709.9m. That enables Chelsea to claim they are effectively "debt-free".
Nor do the accounts include recent lucrative sponsorship deals with Gazprom, Audi and Delta Airlines, which will go into next year's figures. Gazprom, the Russian energy firm to whom Abramovich sold his Sibneft shares in 2005 for £7.4billion, signed a three-year deal with Chelsea in July for an undisclosed sum.
Under the new FFP system, which is being monitored by Uefa for the first time this season, clubs are allowed losses of up to £36m over three seasons.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-pace-but-do-the-accounts-add-up-8303745.html
Sunday 11 November 2012
One of the country's leading analysts of Uefa's Financial Fair Play regulations admits to being "puzzled" as to how Chelsea have managed to make a profit for the 12 months ending last June.
The club surprised financial experts by declaring they had made £1.4million after suffering average annual losses of almost £80m during Roman Abramovich's previous eight years as owner. That news was rushed out three months earlier than usual, accounts having not yet been filed at Companies House, which makes them unavailable for public scrutiny. Ed Thompson, who works in banking and runs a website devoted to FFP (financialfairplay.co.uk), had predicted a loss of £40m in his own detailed analysis last month. He now admits to underestimating the income from winning the Champions' League and FA Cup, plus increased commercial activity, but does not understand the club's claims of a transfer profit of £28m. "Logic suggests that the figures Chelsea released could only be achieved if wages and amortisation were pretty-much flat," he says. "So how have they done it? I think it is very telling that we only have a press release.
"We need the full picture. I don't want to sound like some crazy chap with a conspiracy theory but I think we may find out more about the figures in due course. Simply put, I am surprised that the club have seemingly kept expenses flat when logic suggests the player acquisitions and win bonuses would have increased outgoings. We need to see the full accounts to understand how they have managed to achieve this." The club point out that transfer fees are frequently payable over the course of a contract and not upfront, whereas income like the reported £17m for Yuri Zhirkov can be counted in full.
Little, if any, of the £32m paid for Eden Hazard, signed in early June, would have been included, and none of the £25m for Oscar.
The figures released do, however, confirm that Abramovich has converted another £166.6m owed to him into shares in the club, having previously done the same thing three years ago to the tune of £709.9m. That enables Chelsea to claim they are effectively "debt-free".
Nor do the accounts include recent lucrative sponsorship deals with Gazprom, Audi and Delta Airlines, which will go into next year's figures. Gazprom, the Russian energy firm to whom Abramovich sold his Sibneft shares in 2005 for £7.4billion, signed a three-year deal with Chelsea in July for an undisclosed sum.
Under the new FFP system, which is being monitored by Uefa for the first time this season, clubs are allowed losses of up to £36m over three seasons.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-pace-but-do-the-accounts-add-up-8303745.html
Danners9
Milenko Acimovic
These 'undisclosed fees' allow for manipulation of the figures. If they can count the first installment (or no installments depending on the timing) of players signed but all of the fee for players sold then there is a problem.. it is not comparing like for like. They will have brought in a lot of money through sponsorship but Gazprom, Audi and Delta won't have paid their fees upfront either, so that will skew next year's figures too.
28m profit on transfers only makes sense if they have a cut off point of before Hazard/Oscar. I read they posted a 1.4m profit overall.. that is after claiming the maximum CL prizemoney possible. They are still running at a loss, regardless of what the figures say, because it doesn't match up with a normal season. They got nearly 50m for winning the CL (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/13/chelsea-prize-money-champions-league) and only turned a tiny profit.. so really they are operating at a ~48m loss and relying on owner bailouts and prizemoney to remain 'debt free' or stay above water. Next year, say they go out in the quarter finals and receive 30-35m, can they still post a profit? the sponsorship deals will kick in then, but as undisclosed fees it is not as transparent as FFP requires. Abramovich could just give the money to a company for them to give back, Gazprom for example as he already has a business relationship with them.
Chelsea didn't sell many players last year, Zhirkov and a few younger ones to Hamburg, Meireles.. http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/chelsea-fc/transfers/verein_631.html
So many loans and free transfers, the 'market value' shouldn't be counted either as the players are still assets of Chelsea. The bottom four arrivals with the red * are loan returns from last season. Similarly the * on departures are loans.
28m profit on transfers only makes sense if they have a cut off point of before Hazard/Oscar. I read they posted a 1.4m profit overall.. that is after claiming the maximum CL prizemoney possible. They are still running at a loss, regardless of what the figures say, because it doesn't match up with a normal season. They got nearly 50m for winning the CL (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/13/chelsea-prize-money-champions-league) and only turned a tiny profit.. so really they are operating at a ~48m loss and relying on owner bailouts and prizemoney to remain 'debt free' or stay above water. Next year, say they go out in the quarter finals and receive 30-35m, can they still post a profit? the sponsorship deals will kick in then, but as undisclosed fees it is not as transparent as FFP requires. Abramovich could just give the money to a company for them to give back, Gazprom for example as he already has a business relationship with them.
Chelsea didn't sell many players last year, Zhirkov and a few younger ones to Hamburg, Meireles.. http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/chelsea-fc/transfers/verein_631.html
So many loans and free transfers, the 'market value' shouldn't be counted either as the players are still assets of Chelsea. The bottom four arrivals with the red * are loan returns from last season. Similarly the * on departures are loans.
jts1882
Edgar Davids
A lot can depend on the timing of various account items. They might improve this years numbers but will eventually show up.
The profit on transfers is not the profit common-sense would suggest. The costs of a new incoming transfer are spread over the length of the contract (amortisation) while the cost of an outgoing transfer is counted immediately (with some adjustments). We bought Berbatov for about £10m and sold him for about £30m, which seems a simple matter if making a £20m profit. But if I understand it correctly*, this was booked as a profit of £25m because the profit is the difference between the transfer fee and the amortised amount on the books (half of £10m because he was halfway through a four year contract).
Although its still hard to see how £83m of purchases and £25m of sales in 2011-12 amounts to a profit of £28m given the net cost of £58m. But these Russian oligarchs have very clever accountants and can always send a "financial advisor" round to Platini's place to explain things.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
* Disclaimer: all I know about accounting has come from reading about football club finances.
The profit on transfers is not the profit common-sense would suggest. The costs of a new incoming transfer are spread over the length of the contract (amortisation) while the cost of an outgoing transfer is counted immediately (with some adjustments). We bought Berbatov for about £10m and sold him for about £30m, which seems a simple matter if making a £20m profit. But if I understand it correctly*, this was booked as a profit of £25m because the profit is the difference between the transfer fee and the amortised amount on the books (half of £10m because he was halfway through a four year contract).
Although its still hard to see how £83m of purchases and £25m of sales in 2011-12 amounts to a profit of £28m given the net cost of £58m. But these Russian oligarchs have very clever accountants and can always send a "financial advisor" round to Platini's place to explain things.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
* Disclaimer: all I know about accounting has come from reading about football club finances.
Last edited:
Robbo
Jack Jull
Unfortunately they both crawled up his stomach a long time ago, so nothing will be done, as usual.
The problem is always down to money, look at the vast amounts of money in the game - who wants to rock the boat? I dont blame Platini, hes just a guy trying to make things look reputable....which they are not. Nobody here can seriously believe that the likes of Barca, Real or Chelsea/City wont be allowed to be in the CL because of this. The message is "cook the books/hide financial doping". FFP/Respect the refs campaign/Kick racism out, its all just politics/flimflam.
Of course there will be "fall guys" like FC Moldovski who will be punished as an example...
Of course there will be "fall guys" like FC Moldovski who will be punished as an example...