Premier League Club Finances

OPENROAD

Thought I would post this up. Figures make for interesting reading.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/19/premier-league-finances

Gavin "shels"

50% of the debt between 2 out of 20 of the clubs.:eek:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the better UEFA introduce a rule that manages clubs who play in European cups can only have a certain limit of debt, or something along the lines.

everdead.ie

Not so much a limit on debt but a limit on credit debt can be used effectively to build stadi etc as long as its done properly using credit to pay wages and transfer fees shouldn't be alowed.

Gavin "shels"

everdead.ie wrote: »

Not so much a limit on debt but a limit on credit debt can be used effectively to build stadi etc as long as its done properly using credit to pay wages and transfer fees shouldn't be alowed.

Ye that's what I was leaning towards, didn't explain in properly. Conditions need to be in place, something along the lines of the LoI plan, where clubs can only spenda percentage of their income on wages.

Neil3030

I'd go with a debt to turnover ratio, whether the credit be used for stadia, wages or otherwise, and further whether if it comes from sugar-daddies or credit institutions.

End of the day it doesn't matter what the club uses it for, if they are loaded with debt that isn't sustainable by their present turnover they are punching above their weight and essentially cheating.

Headshot

"debt is the road to ruin"

so ****ing true

as a utd fan im really worried, with the raise in interest rates, its so down heartening to see a club that didnt need a sugar daddy to buy top players from a club who's barely able to attract the big players

that's how i see it anyway

MementoMori

Bring in a rule saying that you are not allowed to use debt to buy a club.
If you can't afford to buy a club without borrowing, you shouldn't be buying a football club.

JPA

MementoMori wrote: »

Bring in a rule saying that you are not allowed to use debt to buy a club.
If you can't afford to buy a club without borrowing, you shouldn't be buying a football club.

Most obvious rule ever. Shocking it doesn't exist. The FA and Premier league are running scared of the clubs, constantly bending the rules etc.

L'prof

Interesting that Liverpool's wages are on a par with Arsenal's when so many on here claimed they weren't!

jesus_thats_gre

They weren't. They are after the last round of players signing new contracts.

pistolpetes11

Have to laugh at how they have Chelsea as being 726 mil in debt which is untrue.

The debt was turned into shares by a holding company which RA owns.

The holding company owes him the money so Chelsea dont owe RA anything in monetary terms.

Cant believe how much Man U are paying back on interest,

Spiritoftheseventies

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

They weren't. They are after the last round of players signing new contracts.

Probably wont happen but contracts and be negotiated on a year one year off basis. Gerrard had his contract upgraded during the summer and the return from him wasn't great.
Responsibility is on players to honour those contracts by giving their all on the pitch and Gerrard didn't do that.
Spiralling wages a big problem with a lot of these clubs. Doesn't seem to be any attempt to keep them down.
Sooner or later, the penny will drop.

davyjose

Gavin shels wrote: »

50% of the debt between 2 out of 20 of the clubs.:eek:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the better UEFA introduce a rule that manages clubs who play in European cups can only have a certain limit of debt, or something along the lines.

I'm a United fan, and I'd love that. It might force the Glazers to sell.

Lukker-

"Chelsea Football Club has released a statement today (Wednesday) following media stories on club finance.
The statement reads:
'Contrary to media reports today, other than a small residual balance Chelsea Football Club and our parent company Chelsea FC plc are debt free and do not owe any money to our shareholder (Fordstam Ltd). Neither do we owe any money to Roman Abramovich."


Chelsea are debt free so I don't know where they pulled that 726 million figure from. Abromovich wrote off the debt completely earlier in the year.

event

Lukker- wrote: »

"Chelsea Football Club has released a statement today (Wednesday) following media stories on club finance.
The statement reads:
'Contrary to media reports today, other than a small residual balance Chelsea Football Club and our parent company Chelsea FC plc are debt free and do not owe any money to our shareholder (Fordstam Ltd). Neither do we owe any money to Roman Abramovich."


Chelsea are debt free so I don't know where they pulled that 726 million figure from. Abromovich wrote off the debt completely earlier in the year.

not really, read this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/19/roman-abramovich-chelsea-loan-debt

Lukker-

event wrote: »

not really, read this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/19/roman-abramovich-chelsea-loan-debt

The club statement was a response to that article..

Chelsea owe nothing to their primary holding company Fordstam ltd, thus are debt free.

http://www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2055740,00.html

Pepe LeFrits

Er, since when have Arsenal had higher turnover than Manchester United? - nevermind, just realised that a good chunk of that is a one off in property development.

I wonder how accurate that is - the financial figures of clubs can be notoriously difficult to gauge, there tends to be an awful lot of creative book-keeping. Some of the wage as a percentage of turnover figures are shocking - Burnley, 118%! Wolves, West Ham and a few others aren't much better. Chelsea's 80% makes a mockery of their talk of breaking even too.

therecklessone

Lukker- wrote: »

Chelsea owe nothing to their primary holding company Fordstam ltd, thus are debt free.