Czarnikjak Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 1 minute ago, paul514 said: how the **** do Brighton have that much debt? It's interest free debt to their owner...he paid for their stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 1 hour ago, Lichfield Dean said: It’s great that Villa have zero debt, but how do Chelsea and Fulham have positive debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 9 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: It's interest free debt to their owner...he paid for their stadium. i mean that is great from their owner but these massive sales they have made should have wiped all that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 11 hours ago, ender4 said: It’s great that Villa have zero debt, but how do Chelsea and Fulham have positive debt? They're owed money. Assume they've reported that in their accounts. Most likely due to positive transfer activity (ie Chelsea are owed money for player sales) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 Chelsea had a loss of £89.9m last season but aren’t as heavy because the owners sold £76m of hotels to their sister company. They make a mockery of the game. They've got the second highest wage bill in the league too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 The thing about 'selling hotels to yourself' is it's quite a neat trick but it's hard to replicate. They also squeezed in £55m from selling Mason Mount right before the deadline last season, but that's then just a huge hole in *this year's* accounts that everyone assumed they had already sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 31 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: The thing about 'selling hotels to yourself' is it's quite a neat trick but it's hard to replicate. They also squeezed in £55m from selling Mason Mount right before the deadline last season, but that's then just a huge hole in *this year's* accounts that everyone assumed they had already sorted. This year's hole is estimated to be about £100m. Not sure if they have any other property to sell, or they'll need to rely on player sales. I guess they could sell the stadium, I know it was outlawed in championship, but I *think* it's still allowed in Premier League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinebro Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 115 charges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: The thing about 'selling hotels to yourself' is it's quite a neat trick but it's hard to replicate. They also squeezed in £55m from selling Mason Mount right before the deadline last season, but that's then just a huge hole in *this year's* accounts that everyone assumed they had already sorted. £404m wage bill. It’s just not sustainable. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 20 minutes ago, The_Steve said: £404m wage bill. It’s just not sustainable. Certainly isn't sustainable without getting Champions League football nearly every season, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 15 VT Supporter Share Posted April 15 1 hour ago, Czarnikjak said: This year's hole is estimated to be about £100m. Not sure if they have any other property to sell, or they'll need to rely on player sales. I guess they could sell the stadium, I know it was outlawed in championship, but I *think* it's still allowed in Premier League. Iirc Chelsea can't do the stadium sale trick as they don't own it. Stamford Bridge is owned by a separate supporters trust entity, which came about when they got into trouble in the 90s and Bates did some deals to save the stadium that ended with the stadium being owned by a separate trust that allows the club to use the stadium at no cost, but the club has never got enough support from the trust itself to dissolve itself and give the stadium back proper when they got success under Abramovich. Or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 13 minutes ago, Chindie said: Iirc Chelsea can't do the stadium sale trick as they don't own it. Stamford Bridge is owned by a separate supporters trust entity, which came about when they got into trouble in the 90s and Bates did some deals to save the stadium that ended with the stadium being owned by a separate trust that allows the club to use the stadium at no cost, but the club has never got enough support from the trust itself to dissolve itself and give the stadium back proper when they got success under Abramovich. Or something. someone else owns the pitch dont they? like a local charity or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 I think you can do the stadium trick or similar but not massively overvalue it like Derby did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 15 VT Supporter Share Posted April 15 3 minutes ago, villa4europe said: someone else owns the pitch dont they? like a local charity or something Yes, looking it up the pitch, freehold of the stadium, the stadium infrastructure and the name of the club is owned by Chelsea Pitch Owners plc, a nonprofit which while part of club is it's own entity with shareholders who act independently of the club (although obviously the point is to protect the stadium and by extension the club, so they're unlikely to ever do anything the club doesn't like, they also haven't agreed to let the club get the stadium back when it's been proposed...). Therefore Chelsea can't technically sell the stadium to themselves as they don't own it anyway. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted April 16 VT Supporter Share Posted April 16 18 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: Certainly isn't sustainable without getting Champions League football nearly every season, anyway. If only there were a set of rules whose aim is to make sure that a club's spending is sustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 2 minutes ago, HKP90 said: If only there were a set of rules whose aim is to make sure that a club's spending is sustainable. Well yeah, there are. And we know they scraped by PSR, by a] selling two hotels to themselves, a deal which is now being examined, and b] selling Mason Mount in the days before the accounting deadline. They desperately squeaked it, but there's plenty of reason for their fans to be worried they won't be able to keep pulling those moves off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: Well yeah, there are. And we know they scraped by PSR, by a] selling two hotels to themselves, a deal which is now being examined, and b] selling Mason Mount in the days before the accounting deadline. They desperately squeaked it, but there's plenty of reason for their fans to be worried they won't be able to keep pulling those moves off. I would be surprised if they break PSR this season. They have too many assets they can dispose of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 4 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: I would be surprised if they break PSR this season. They have too many assets they can dispose of. Before June 30th? More than £50m of them? It's possible, but it's far from guaranteed IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 Interesting quotes here from Kieran Maguire “My concern is more for the three-year reporting period ending in this season because they have not had the benefits of European football. We had all been told that the wage bill will go down under Clearlake Capital, but the fact it shot up has taken me back. It will drop this season because they will not be paying European bonuses, for example. The amortisation charge is completely out of control and that is with their eight-year contracts applied. It is £50million more than Manchester City. They are going to have to work extremely hard to keep within PSR by June 30.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 39 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Before June 30th? More than £50m of them? It's possible, but it's far from guaranteed IMO. Unless entire football world conspires and literally nobody buys their players before 30th June, they will scrape enough funds. There will always be enough clubs eager for a bargain purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts