Comments on: Chelsea FC’s financial accounts and understanding Roman Abramovich

By: Jide mutiu

Jide mutiu — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:50:25 +0000

Concerning financial status, I think chelsea should learn from d past by trying to b conservative in d amount being placed on signing a new player to d team. Pls Anceloti should warn d players on avoiding costly mistake which most time has caused us conceded goal especially towards final whistle.the blues I know and to which I belong wil always avoid to be d first to concede goal bt be d first to scope goal. Also our midfield should be more sharp in attacking to create chance for strikers to score goals.

By: Skido jawa

Skido jawa — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:16:14 +0000

we pray for Better improvement. And we pray That Carlo will bring the whole cup to us this season

By: Richard Omena

Richard Omena — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:34:17 +0000

you guys have done justice to issues that have made me an object of redicule out here in Nigeria,cuz the jealousy amongst the fans of the big four,dont really get along so it feels good that i get to use some of the materials from you guys in my defence…As mush as i wanna give kudos to peter keneyon and roman, roman needs to be more know that football isnt paintings,marriage etc,but more of a great culture that has been b4 he was born,so he should respect it and it elements and not be a dictator or close to it… i wish him well though…

p;s
i dont believe liverpool can make it to get the title this season…but i like rafa’s comments to fegie, he needs to be investigated but as usual the english syndicate in english football wouldnt allow that,but some day MAN U would go down…it happened in ITALY ENGLAND wont be an exception…no wonder they fought Mourhino even to his dog,but he lft ENGLAND a HERO with his deeds in the sand of time… CHELSEA RULES………

By: mehvaf

mehvaf — Fri, 23 May 2008 06:57:09 +0000

it is absolutely clear that Chelsea is great team,and absoluetly clear that roman make it great.

By: akilla

akilla — Thu, 22 May 2008 09:49:15 +0000

im just asking, but is it possible that manU will do a Leeds United? What do they have to do to avoid that!?

By: Azar

Azar — Wed, 21 May 2008 17:56:18 +0000

Ben: Market forces. The day transfer market watches Roman ditch Chelsea, they’ll know how to literally dismantle the team by their bids. It’s not easy to retain 6 national team captains without “certainty” and “hope” within the dressing room.

By: Ben Fawkes

Ben Fawkes — Wed, 21 May 2008 14:47:35 +0000

It’s good to see a bit of clarity when it comes to the Chelsea money situation, epsecially as most people always fall back on the opinion that eventually Roman will get bored and leave them in the lurch, this won’t happen and what makes you so sure they would go to a mid table team in no time if he did leave – I don’t know what that opinion is based on.

By: Azar

Azar — Wed, 21 May 2008 09:51:44 +0000

My view on Chelsea is quite simple. This club doesn’t need any financial analysis. A view on succession is more like it. If Roman walks away within 1-2 years, this club will reduce to a mid-table name in no time. If Roman stays till the time Chelsea creates a sustained track record of success…. (and track record means at least a decade long status of a formidable English/European team)… and waits till the club broadens its revenue base (see the link: Success -> Fan Base -> Revenue Base), this club might manage itself without Roman. But here’s the gist of it all:

1) Roman’s rich as hell. The stakes he offloaded from his commodities businesses (oil, gas, metals) has provided him billions of CASH. Glazers net worth (which isn’t more than one-fifth of Roman’s – verify this, I’m not wrong) is illiquid. Liquidity is THE definition of being rich. You might be living in a palace on Mayfair or Kensington, but you can only buy/spend as much as the amount of cash/plastic in your wallet allows you to. Why do you think Glazers went to a bank and Roman did not?

2) Roman takes pride in being a Russian, and in being a Jew. Apart from that all he cares for London is two hoots. Chelsea was his route into football. It’s his favorite sport. And being a rich boy who owns a Boeing, a cruise etc, he also owns a football team. His view of Chelsea is “his team”, not an economic entity. Some of his decisions pertaining to Chelsea have had no financial/business sense at all. He pays for his fun. But of course, the man is rich, not dumb. He expects the club to rely less and less on him going forward.

3) To add to what Ahmed said: Owner’s debt is almost always subordinated to any bank debt. If things get really bad for Chelsea, and Roman reprimands the management by saying “Fu**off, I am not feeding you more!”…. Chelsea can simply subordinate Roman’s debt (with his consent of course) and banks will then view it as good as equity! From this angle, Chelsea is in a SWEET financial condition to leverage LOADS of money from financial institutions.

4) And by the way, I hope people acknowledge the “economic meaning” of an interest free loan from an owner. With each day going by, the loan is decreasing in value. With Chelsea paying no interest, Roman is essentially CONTINUALLY investing into Chelsea.

By: Ahmed Bilal

Ahmed Bilal — Wed, 21 May 2008 02:08:12 +0000

Brian,

Azar said something along the lines of how owner’s debt is quasi-equity, so what you say would make some sense.

By: Brian W

Brian W — Tue, 20 May 2008 20:58:36 +0000

Us Blues supporters are theorizing on our boards that the interest free loan is desgianted as such because Roman is able to claim that as owned money each year and therefore avoid taxes on it.