Chelsea
Kenyon: Transfers, Debt and New Ground
PETER KENYON
By dixon9
November 10 2008
The Official Chelsea website has released Chief Executive Peter Kenyon’s view on the January transfer window, the nature of our “debt” compared to other clubs, the more recent burning issue of stadium development and the effect of the credit crunch on football and Abramovich´s future investment in Chelsea. Some interesting stuff and, in my opinion, some clever poker playing on transfer issues.
.
The January Transfer Window
'I have said before it is extremely unlikely we will spend in January and increase our squad. Felipe is on board with that. He has an excellent squad and he is doing a great job. We would have to sell someone if we decided to bring someone in to balance that situation, but at this stage we are not planning to bring anyone in.'
I reckon he’s making all the right noises here considering the current financial climate and for any possible selling clubs who are listening in. He can’t very well say we are looking to splash out can he? Scolari was also badly let down by events on the Robinho transfer saga so if Big Phil turns round in January and says “I need THAT player!” I don’t see how the club can refuse him. That said, we won’t be ripped off and we could well see 1-2 players sold to reduce the net spend anyway.
Buck and Kenyon said from the beginning that net spending would be progressively reduced through the seasons but that we would be prepared to go for the odd big fish if he was the right player and at a respectable price – so far, they’ve stuck to the script and the Alves and Robinho bids also support that argument.
.
The Debt
'A lot of people misunderstand debt. Chelsea are not in the same position as other clubs. We pay no interest on our debt as we have no external debt.
'Our "debt", such as it is, is to the owner. He has invested the money in the club. And while that is currently in the form of loans, this can be turned into equity. I think our financial structure does give us some strength and competitive advantage.
'There is nothing inherently bad in financing one's business through debt. It's the ability to make the repayments that is the issue. We don't have those repayment issues. Companies all over the world are financed predominantly by debt, this is normal in business.'
As most of us already realise, our “debt” is different from other clubs. The media love to lump us up there with Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal of course but that is only to be expected given the sensationalist agenda. Our “soft debt” can be essentially seen as equity in the club anyway – it cost Roman 140m and is now worth how much…..?!
Stadium Development
'We are not considering any advanced plans to move away from Stamford Bridge as recent reports have suggested. We get approached all the time about projects in west London especially where involving Chelsea could have a significant impact on that project or area. We get annoyed when our name is used to create a market for that property.
'In the current financial climate all stadium redevelopment discussions are naturally on the back burner and we are clear that only when all possibilities of redeveloping Stamford Bridge are exhausted will we seriously consider other alternatives.'
"In fact an immediate plan would be five or seven years away anyway,""At the same time we have been evaluating is there anywhere else in the locality, but looking for a 20 acre site close to Chelsea is never going to be easy.
"We get approached all the time - this is no more than one of those approaches.
"To say we have got plans or we are committed to moving away from Stamford Bridge is just incorrect.
"Stamford Bridge is unique in its location, it is the home of Chelsea and it would have to be very, very special to take us away from there."
Sticking pretty much to the script again here. There has been a lot of recent speculation in the media on this and one recent report citing a move has been denied by the club. There was also a rumour about a softening of the local council in allowing us to expand Stamford Bridge (most fans preferred option) but it is just a rumour…
My view is that Chelsea have worked hard at bringing the council round to allowing expansion - but we’re not quite got there yet. In the meantime, we can still wait to see what construction developments and possible new tube links make a new stadium project viable should any occur in the vicinity.
Roman and the Credit Crunch
'I am not going to talk about Roman's situation specifically. But what I can confirm is his ongoing commitment to Chelsea. It's no less now than it was. He has always supported our business objectives of being self funding, as well as our sporting objectives.
'What we are doing at Chelsea is what almost every other business must be doing in the current climate. It is just good management and being prudent by keeping an eye on costs and is consistent with our target to be operating profit break even by 2010.
"We are selling out matches as quickly as ever at the moment."
'In football much of our income is locked in for more than one season through television money and sponsorship, as well as season ticket and corporate revenue.
'Therefore while you have to plan for a negative impact, it is likely to be further in the future.'
Much has been speculated on the effect of the credit crunch upon Abramovich´s vast fortune – all of it negative and sensationalist (surprise surprise!). He also heavily invested in steel – which has gone up by 33% in value. He is also on the verge of another company buy out – but this stuff is barely reported.
I doubt that Roman would deviate from the script originally written. We will STILL bid for the odd big player – and we will continue with all the excellent work on youth development.
Scouting Network Reduction
'Much has been made about the re-structuring of the scouting network. This was part of a normal review. We wanted a more targeted approach rather than the wider one previously. '
Chelsea has invested significantly in our Academy infrastructure, so we are confident the more targeted approach will deliver better results.'
Sounds fair enough to me. We have released some 15 scouts from our network but are nevertheless at the same level as Arsenal and Man Utd on this. Some of these scouts were being paid over 100 grand a year and not all of them could have been producing results warranting this salary.
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponKenyon: Transfers, Debt and New Ground
Discussion started by 50 Years Over 100 Years , 10/11/2008 15:53
Kenyon, though, maintained that the club were in an “enviable” position in relation to some of their major rivals because their financial structure means that a loan of £578 million from Abramovich has no interest payments. It stands in contrast to Manchester United, whose American owners must service considerable debt, as well as Liverpool, whose owners plan to use the club’s profits to service interest on the loans they incurred to buy the club.
“I’m glad we are not in that position, it gives us some strength – it gives us a competitive advantage in the long run,” Kenyon said. “The investment has been over £500 million. That loan is non-interest. It can be converted into equity any time we want to.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
“I’m glad we are not in that position, it gives us some strength – it gives us a competitive advantage in the long run,” Kenyon said. “The investment has been over £500 million. That loan is non-interest. It can be converted into equity any time we want to.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Top rant Dixie.. just a few things though, firstly it has never been about the Roman debt and Kenyon has been pretty clever in explaining away what is in fact an irrelevence, I mean who has ever exoected him to be repaid anyway? You see the biggest problem with your club as has been pointed out to you repeatedly is the fact that the business model sucks and relies on your benefactor adding to his debt ie bailing you out to the tune of at least 50m quid a year.. yes I know there's them fanciful breakeven by 2010 comments and when we pick ourselves up off the floor from laughing ourselves stupid about that one we still ask who is going to foot the shortfall? thank god his support is no less than it was or is it? I mean he was throwing money around like confetti for years, now he is hardly ever there..
Next up is your silly assertion that your owner has invested in steel and that it has gone up 33%.. bit naive that Dixie I mean in fact he has invested in a steel company and in fact that company has has lost up to 90% of its value in the last six months but you keep spinning mate just like your comment that "he is on the verge of another company buy out –but this stuff is barely reported" well why don't you link us onto the interesting news so that we can decide for oursleves? cheers..
Next up is your silly assertion that your owner has invested in steel and that it has gone up 33%.. bit naive that Dixie I mean in fact he has invested in a steel company and in fact that company has has lost up to 90% of its value in the last six months but you keep spinning mate just like your comment that "he is on the verge of another company buy out –but this stuff is barely reported" well why don't you link us onto the interesting news so that we can decide for oursleves? cheers..
Well the stuff about steel etc is what I´ve been reliably informed. The company purchase he´s involved in I read about few weeks back (quite a hefty one). I don´t really care if you believe it or not - If you feel that the info is erreneous then feel free to post up the links that demonstrate this - you are "accusing" me after all.
You believe the business model sucks - I reckon that comment is borne out of biasedness more than anything.
There is such a thing as long term investment you know. How much did Roman buy the club for? How much is it worth now? How much will it be worth in the future? What has the club achieved on the field of play since he begun investing?
How concerned is he and what efforts is he making re bringing youth through eventually? (Have you seen Cobham!).
The man clearly is very serious about Chelsea and sees it as a family asset that he will take pride in (hence his son will eventually take over). He will also have an asset worth far far more than his investment eventually (and probably one of the most powerful football clubs in the world).
The proof is in the pudding of course - but I´ll doubt he´ll fail.
Then look at yourselves... You seem to have the attitude that the fact your money was lent from banks rather than an individual investor makes it more respectable - but when you consider just exactly how banks behave and what they are about in this world that idea becomes laughable.
Here we are in an era where you´ve got owners of top clubs such as Liverpool or Man Utd whose principle objective is to suck the life out of these clubs for all they can (and they hardly turn up to watch a game let alone youth or reserve matches - which Abramovich does). Balance that with what Abramovich does for Chelsea and it is truly laughable that he gets all the stick - by the media because they seem to find it more sensational - and by oppo fans out of pure envy.
Time will tell Woolwich....time will tell!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
You believe the business model sucks - I reckon that comment is borne out of biasedness more than anything.
There is such a thing as long term investment you know. How much did Roman buy the club for? How much is it worth now? How much will it be worth in the future? What has the club achieved on the field of play since he begun investing?
How concerned is he and what efforts is he making re bringing youth through eventually? (Have you seen Cobham!).
The man clearly is very serious about Chelsea and sees it as a family asset that he will take pride in (hence his son will eventually take over). He will also have an asset worth far far more than his investment eventually (and probably one of the most powerful football clubs in the world).
The proof is in the pudding of course - but I´ll doubt he´ll fail.
Then look at yourselves... You seem to have the attitude that the fact your money was lent from banks rather than an individual investor makes it more respectable - but when you consider just exactly how banks behave and what they are about in this world that idea becomes laughable.
Here we are in an era where you´ve got owners of top clubs such as Liverpool or Man Utd whose principle objective is to suck the life out of these clubs for all they can (and they hardly turn up to watch a game let alone youth or reserve matches - which Abramovich does). Balance that with what Abramovich does for Chelsea and it is truly laughable that he gets all the stick - by the media because they seem to find it more sensational - and by oppo fans out of pure envy.
Time will tell Woolwich....time will tell!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
I´ll humour you with a link to be getting in with....
LINK
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
LINK
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Quote:
thank you Dixie and firstly let me put you straight that I'm not 'accusing' you of anything, l asked you quite reasonably to put up a link which you did.. again thanks..
now according to this article its Abramovich's company that is supposedly buying some steel works and not him, there is a difference.. I don't know how accurate it all is but a couple of things would worry me from a business viewpoint and that is how a company such as Evraz with only a market capitalisation of 5.2Bn GBP now can afford a $50Bn USD deal unless it involves a hell of a lot of leveraging.. ie borrowing, this is one hell of a way to lose your shirt Dixie as you no doubt are aware especially in todays economic climate where margin calls are killing people..
look at Evraz's share price, off again today approximately 10%
[www.evraz.com]
I'm not making this up Dixie, the popular press are quite rightly reporting that he has dropped a bundle, your starting to feel the pinch at your club, in fact I bet if you were honest you'd admit to feeling the draft on your @#$%&.. I warned you it was coming and coming it is old son..
ps you might like to add a 'dance on grave' smiley
>>You believe the business model sucks - I reckon that comment is borne out of biasedness more than anything.
How can I be basing this on bias when I am basing it purely on the accounts your club is releasing? Am I making it up that you lost 75m last year? am l making it up that you have paid off two managers during that time that will add to the losses this year? Am l making it up that the Chelsea Village side of your clubs operations is losing money?
>>There is such a thing as long term investment you know. How much did Roman buy the club for? How much is it worth now? How much will it be worth in the future? What has the club achieved on the field of play since he begun investing?
No one is disputing the investment that he has made.. hasnt he poured in 578m GBP as of June 2007? thats undisputed and his business will be worth what he can get for it but whilst it is losing 50-75m a year Dixie he wont get a premium thats for sure but hey I'm not bothered as l said the debt he holds is irrelevent and the only thing that matters is his ability to stump up the minimum 50m a year to keep you going.. I dont think he can do it indefinately and depite all you;ve said you've offered no evidence that he can do so either..
>>How concerned is he and what efforts is he making re bringing youth through eventually? (Have you seen Cobham!).
yes l understand that its a great world class facility but as we well know the it takes years for these talents to come through, its not going to be any time soon old son and in the meantime you'll need to spend more in the market if you can afford it..
>>The man clearly is very serious about Chelsea and sees it as a family asset that he will take pride in (hence his son will eventually take over). He will also have an asset worth far far more than his investment eventually (and probably one of the most powerful football clubs in the world).
Never disputed that he wasnt a fan of yours and that he hasnt until recently put his money where his mouth is but now that he may have been burnt badly in the markets we'll see exactly how much more he is willing to bail you guys out for.. in the meantime you have your breakeven dream..
>>The proof is in the pudding of course - but I´ll doubt he´ll fail.
It sure is Dixie old son and your leading men are coming out saying the belts been tightened..
>>Then look at yourselves... You seem to have the attitude that the fact your money was lent from banks rather than an individual investor makes it more respectable - but when you consider just exactly how banks behave and what they are about in this world that idea becomes laughable.
Haha laughable, this debate is nothing about 'respectability' stop doing the shuffle here Dixie and stick to the script which is that your benefactor and his ability to continue pouring money down the drain on your club..
>>Here we are in an era where you´ve got owners of top clubs such as Liverpool or Man Utd whose principle objective is to suck the life out of these clubs for all they can..
Yep hopefully they'll get their cumuppance too..
>>Time will tell Woolwich....time will tell!
It certainly will Dixie me old mucker..
How can I be basing this on bias when I am basing it purely on the accounts your club is releasing? Am I making it up that you lost 75m last year? am l making it up that you have paid off two managers during that time that will add to the losses this year? Am l making it up that the Chelsea Village side of your clubs operations is losing money?
>>There is such a thing as long term investment you know. How much did Roman buy the club for? How much is it worth now? How much will it be worth in the future? What has the club achieved on the field of play since he begun investing?
No one is disputing the investment that he has made.. hasnt he poured in 578m GBP as of June 2007? thats undisputed and his business will be worth what he can get for it but whilst it is losing 50-75m a year Dixie he wont get a premium thats for sure but hey I'm not bothered as l said the debt he holds is irrelevent and the only thing that matters is his ability to stump up the minimum 50m a year to keep you going.. I dont think he can do it indefinately and depite all you;ve said you've offered no evidence that he can do so either..
>>How concerned is he and what efforts is he making re bringing youth through eventually? (Have you seen Cobham!).
yes l understand that its a great world class facility but as we well know the it takes years for these talents to come through, its not going to be any time soon old son and in the meantime you'll need to spend more in the market if you can afford it..
>>The man clearly is very serious about Chelsea and sees it as a family asset that he will take pride in (hence his son will eventually take over). He will also have an asset worth far far more than his investment eventually (and probably one of the most powerful football clubs in the world).
Never disputed that he wasnt a fan of yours and that he hasnt until recently put his money where his mouth is but now that he may have been burnt badly in the markets we'll see exactly how much more he is willing to bail you guys out for.. in the meantime you have your breakeven dream..
>>The proof is in the pudding of course - but I´ll doubt he´ll fail.
It sure is Dixie old son and your leading men are coming out saying the belts been tightened..
>>Then look at yourselves... You seem to have the attitude that the fact your money was lent from banks rather than an individual investor makes it more respectable - but when you consider just exactly how banks behave and what they are about in this world that idea becomes laughable.
Haha laughable, this debate is nothing about 'respectability' stop doing the shuffle here Dixie and stick to the script which is that your benefactor and his ability to continue pouring money down the drain on your club..
>>Here we are in an era where you´ve got owners of top clubs such as Liverpool or Man Utd whose principle objective is to suck the life out of these clubs for all they can..
Yep hopefully they'll get their cumuppance too..
>>Time will tell Woolwich....time will tell!
It certainly will Dixie me old mucker..
You say that you are "worried from a business viewpoint" re Abramovich´s latest investment - I would imagine that Abramovich and his army of top financial experts probably know what they´re doing.
The popular press are usually a very poor reference to reality - they do tend to "exaggerate". In fact, what´s the betting that Abramovich´s personal fortune will have increased in say 3 years time? I would bet YES. Would you bet NO?
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
The popular press are usually a very poor reference to reality - they do tend to "exaggerate". In fact, what´s the betting that Abramovich´s personal fortune will have increased in say 3 years time? I would bet YES. Would you bet NO?
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
btw Dixie old son that link to the article was dated August 4th mate.. I'm sure you are aware quite a bit has happened since then old son and I doubt very much whether Evraz are pursuing this business anymore..
as a matter of interest these shares were trading at 87 pounds that day and at 14 this morning..
as a matter of interest these shares were trading at 87 pounds that day and at 14 this morning..
Latest investment? What the Aug 4th one? lol.. you better hope it didnt go through old son.. seriously mate who is feeding you this bilge Chelsea PR? ![[:wor kid:]](/phorum-5.1.15/mods/smileys/images/13.gif "[:wor kid:]")
We do seem to go round and round in circles a bit (enjoyable though it is).
From what I can tell, your "problem" seems to be that Abramovich´s investment is rediculous because he will never recoup it - or at least end up with a business that will end up turning a profit (whilst presumably having success on the field)???
Time is the only true manner of answering if you are wrong or I am right - so whilst we debate this until the cows come home this debate won´t be resolved until the future.
In the meantime, my opinion is that IT WILL WORK.
Here´s why:
(1) Buck and Kenyon said right from the off that the plan is to gradually reduce our net transfer spend and partially through youth development, also reduce the wages to turnover ratio. To be fair, they did also say that if a big fish player was available and right for us then we would bid (without getting ripped off).
It´s plain to see that the clubs actions are sticking to this script.
(a) Our net transfer spend has reduced significantly (especially during the last 3-4 windows).
(b) The wages to turnover ratio also (although tbf, last accounts, not by much - but next accounts this will have improved again).
(c) Youth development continues - very impressive facilities, new state of the art academy and Brendan Rogers reckons in 2 more seasons the first youth product will start breaking through. (personally I reckon next season we will see 1-2 getting fairly regular run outs).
(d) Despite the press saying from more than 2 years back that Roman was cutting funds we have bid nearly 30m for Daniel Alves and the same again for Robinho! However, we weren´t going to be ripped off like we were the first few seasons (Buck said this was unavoidable). This is also backed up when one January we refused to pay over the top for Ben Haim, Baros and some CB for Deportivo.
What you gleefully latch onto from the popular press I see as in the script anyway!
I mean, we recently offloaded 15 scouts - yet we are still at the level of Man Utd and Arsenal (that bit was left out).
-------------------------------------------------------------
Turnover has more than doubled since Roman took over and will no doubt rise again for the next few seasons (wether turnover for all european clubs bottoms out eventually we will have to see - but if success on the field continues then we shoudl still be taking a major slice of the pie).
Roman has an asset worth much much more than what he origonally paid for it (140m) How much is it worth now? How much will it be worth in the future?
Slowly but surely the plan does seem to be working and I just cant see round it failing. I also don´t see what your problem is with Roman´s medium/long term strategy. Sure, success on the field is KEY - but so it is for yourselves and EVERY other club!
You baulk at the size of Romans investment, yet I wouldn´nt mind betting that by the time you´ve paid off the stadium that amount alone will be around the same as Roman´s in Chelsea? What do you reckon?!
There is also another KEY point to Roman´s aggressive investment in Chelsea - that is that it makes it that more difficult for the old guard of clubs to retain their share of the football financial pie (the root of years of attacks on us from these clubs and their fans - insecurity) and therefore to keep up in many respects due to wages - it makes it that much more difficult to retain key players. How many have you lost so far? Do you reckon, for example, Fabregas will still be at Arsenal next season? Perhaps..but perhaps not - but I´m sure this is a concern for Arsenal fans and the club.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:11:11:12:20:51 by dixon9.
From what I can tell, your "problem" seems to be that Abramovich´s investment is rediculous because he will never recoup it - or at least end up with a business that will end up turning a profit (whilst presumably having success on the field)???
Time is the only true manner of answering if you are wrong or I am right - so whilst we debate this until the cows come home this debate won´t be resolved until the future.
In the meantime, my opinion is that IT WILL WORK.
Here´s why:
(1) Buck and Kenyon said right from the off that the plan is to gradually reduce our net transfer spend and partially through youth development, also reduce the wages to turnover ratio. To be fair, they did also say that if a big fish player was available and right for us then we would bid (without getting ripped off).
It´s plain to see that the clubs actions are sticking to this script.
(a) Our net transfer spend has reduced significantly (especially during the last 3-4 windows).
(b) The wages to turnover ratio also (although tbf, last accounts, not by much - but next accounts this will have improved again).
(c) Youth development continues - very impressive facilities, new state of the art academy and Brendan Rogers reckons in 2 more seasons the first youth product will start breaking through. (personally I reckon next season we will see 1-2 getting fairly regular run outs).
(d) Despite the press saying from more than 2 years back that Roman was cutting funds we have bid nearly 30m for Daniel Alves and the same again for Robinho! However, we weren´t going to be ripped off like we were the first few seasons (Buck said this was unavoidable). This is also backed up when one January we refused to pay over the top for Ben Haim, Baros and some CB for Deportivo.
What you gleefully latch onto from the popular press I see as in the script anyway!
I mean, we recently offloaded 15 scouts - yet we are still at the level of Man Utd and Arsenal (that bit was left out).
-------------------------------------------------------------
Turnover has more than doubled since Roman took over and will no doubt rise again for the next few seasons (wether turnover for all european clubs bottoms out eventually we will have to see - but if success on the field continues then we shoudl still be taking a major slice of the pie).
Roman has an asset worth much much more than what he origonally paid for it (140m) How much is it worth now? How much will it be worth in the future?
Slowly but surely the plan does seem to be working and I just cant see round it failing. I also don´t see what your problem is with Roman´s medium/long term strategy. Sure, success on the field is KEY - but so it is for yourselves and EVERY other club!
You baulk at the size of Romans investment, yet I wouldn´nt mind betting that by the time you´ve paid off the stadium that amount alone will be around the same as Roman´s in Chelsea? What do you reckon?!
There is also another KEY point to Roman´s aggressive investment in Chelsea - that is that it makes it that more difficult for the old guard of clubs to retain their share of the football financial pie (the root of years of attacks on us from these clubs and their fans - insecurity) and therefore to keep up in many respects due to wages - it makes it that much more difficult to retain key players. How many have you lost so far? Do you reckon, for example, Fabregas will still be at Arsenal next season? Perhaps..but perhaps not - but I´m sure this is a concern for Arsenal fans and the club.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:11:11:12:20:51 by dixon9.
Talking of press distortion - here´s an "unedited" quote from Kenyon which the press conveniently ommitted - surprise surprise!!!
Chelsea chief Peter Kenyon hasn't totally shut the door on major signings being made in January.
"We need to invest continually but not at the levels we used to," Kenyon said. "We are not stopping transfers or anything drastic of that nature but we want to develop our own talent.
"I'm not sure there are major players available in January, that's the reality.
"What is the point in bringing players in - and Felipe (Scolari) is completely on board with this - if the only ones available are not good enough to improve what we've got?
"January is the wrong time to bring players in for the long term. Anything we do will be against the backdrop of a need to, rather than a desire to, like we reacted by bringing in Mineiro after Michael Essien's injury.
Any comments Woolwich?!! ;-)
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Chelsea chief Peter Kenyon hasn't totally shut the door on major signings being made in January.
"We need to invest continually but not at the levels we used to," Kenyon said. "We are not stopping transfers or anything drastic of that nature but we want to develop our own talent.
"I'm not sure there are major players available in January, that's the reality.
"What is the point in bringing players in - and Felipe (Scolari) is completely on board with this - if the only ones available are not good enough to improve what we've got?
"January is the wrong time to bring players in for the long term. Anything we do will be against the backdrop of a need to, rather than a desire to, like we reacted by bringing in Mineiro after Michael Essien's injury.
Any comments Woolwich?!! ;-)
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
In fact, what´s the betting that Abramovich´s personal fortune will have increased in say 3 years time? I would bet YES. Would you bet NO?
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Quote:The N5er
Latest investment? What the Aug 4th one? lol.. you better hope it didnt go through old son.. seriously mate who is feeding you this bilge Chelsea PR?
Chelsea PR? Does the link say "Chelsea"???
The fact that the article is dated a few months ago doesn´t mean that he was buying it EXACTLY then does it?
Could it be that he knew the price would go down significantly, buy the shares dirt cheap, turn the company around and later have as asset worth infinitely more?
I mean THINK!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Quote:THINKing? now there would be a change for you Dixie mate.. don't you think that in this mystic moment you are waffling on about above where he knew the markets would drop, he may have sold out his shares in Evraz at the top instead of taking a $20Bn dump?dixon9Quote:The N5er
Latest investment? What the Aug 4th one? lol.. you better hope it didnt go through old son.. seriously mate who is feeding you this bilge Chelsea PR?
Chelsea PR? Does the link say "Chelsea"???
The fact that the article is dated a few months ago doesn´t mean that he was buying it EXACTLY then does it?
Could it be that he knew the price would go down significantly, buy the shares dirt cheap, turn the company around and later have as asset worth infinitely more?
I mean THINK!
.
Quote:dixon9
In fact, what´s the betting that Abramovich´s personal fortune will have increased in say 3 years time? I would bet YES. Would you bet NO? .
Hang on are you including the $20Bn he dumped here or from now?
And the rest of your recent posts have just been regurgitating your article.. what I want to know Dixie is how your club is going to get anywhere near breaking even because thats the main crux of my debate here, I'm not interested in what Roman is owed, we both know he wont get that back whatever happens and I'm not interested what the club is supposedly worth because if he was to sell it then you really would be up the creek as no new owner could possibly stake you for what he has as your business model just doesn't work without a huge annual injection from your owner which may or may not continue to be forthcoming.
What I am saying and what Kenyon has intimated is that your benefator is now pulling in his financial reigns.. what you haven't explained to me yet is how you are going to make up the shortfall in your profitability which has been consistently between 80-100m quid a year. It's all very well having this aggressive investment stance as long as he keeps it going and that as you have seen doesn't appear to be happening. In the meantime you have just about reached saturation level, as you rightly said your turnover has more than doubled but you are no closer to showing a profit than at any time this century so again I ask you how you believe that new revenue streams will come on board (and what they will be) especially in the current economic climate that will negate the need for Abramovich to stick his hands in his pocket.
I keep regurgiatating because you keep IGNORING it! I´ve explained point by point just how I believe Roman/Chelsea will succeed above.
PLEASE READ what I´ve said.
In summary
I´m saying that:
(a) Chelsea will break even (probably around 2011) and thereafter make a profit.
(b) That Romans investment in Chelsea (approx 570m) is probably already recouped in the vlaue of the asset (Chelsea)now (which he bought for 140m)
(c) That all the measures set out to make the club break even have been pretty much adhered to from the beginning and ARE WORKING
(d) That you seem to blatantly ignore the reasoning behind the medium/long term strategy for Chelsea - ironic when you consider that´s what Arsenal are also doing (or are you going to pay off all your substantial debt tomorrow?!)
(e) That by the time you have paid off the Emirates etc the total cost will probably be around the same - if not more - than Romans current investment in Chelsea.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
PLEASE READ what I´ve said.
In summary
I´m saying that:
(a) Chelsea will break even (probably around 2011) and thereafter make a profit.
(b) That Romans investment in Chelsea (approx 570m) is probably already recouped in the vlaue of the asset (Chelsea)now (which he bought for 140m)
(c) That all the measures set out to make the club break even have been pretty much adhered to from the beginning and ARE WORKING
(d) That you seem to blatantly ignore the reasoning behind the medium/long term strategy for Chelsea - ironic when you consider that´s what Arsenal are also doing (or are you going to pay off all your substantial debt tomorrow?!)
(e) That by the time you have paid off the Emirates etc the total cost will probably be around the same - if not more - than Romans current investment in Chelsea.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
AND...
We´ll keep an eye on Romans latest possible company buy out - I notice you have ignored the possible reasoning I suggested behind that (buy when shares are low etc).
That Romans worth will be MORE than what it is now (say 13bn which is approx what the media said it was a few months ago - before any recession) in 3 years time.
Prepared to put your money where your mouth is on that last point?
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
We´ll keep an eye on Romans latest possible company buy out - I notice you have ignored the possible reasoning I suggested behind that (buy when shares are low etc).
That Romans worth will be MORE than what it is now (say 13bn which is approx what the media said it was a few months ago - before any recession) in 3 years time.
Prepared to put your money where your mouth is on that last point?
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
I keep regurgiatating because you keep IGNORING it! I´ve explained [b]point by point just how I believe Roman/Chelsea will succeed above.
PLEASE READ what I´ve said.
In summary
I´m saying that:
(a) Chelsea will break even (probably around 2011) and thereafter make a profit.[/b]
I'm not ignoring it Dixie, ok lets go by this one by one.. this is a statement, it's like me saying we will win the Premiership in 2011.. What I have asked is how you are going to break even by 2011? Bearing in mind that you have lost 80m last year and more than that on average I would like to know where you are going to be deriving these new revenue streams from or where you will be cutting costs from to achieve what you say..
(b) That Romans investment in Chelsea (approx 570m) is probably already recouped in the vlaue of the asset (Chelsea)now (which he bought for 140m)
for a start it was 578m as of June 2007, your last years accounts haven't been released yet so I make that his investment will be well over 600m but anyway this is an irrelevence because he has already said that he will be cutting back on his investment so again what I want to know is how your club intends to make up the shortfall in revenues so that you can compete as previously, its not rocket science Dixie, you have competed up until now because of Abramovich's subsidies, if this is coming to an end what is it being replaced with?
(c) That all the measures set out to make the club break even have been pretty much adhered to from the beginning and ARE WORKING
What measures? That you have doubled turnover and yet still lose 80m? I think you need more evidence than that Dixie..
(d) That you seem to blatantly ignore the reasoning behind the medium/long term strategy for Chelsea - ironic when you consider that´s what Arsenal are also doing (or are you going to pay off all your substantial debt tomorrow?!)
No I'm not ignoring anything old son, Arsenal have got debt that their accounts clearly show that they can service, it's a completely di9fferent scenario, if you want to argue this same point about United or Liverpool thats a completely seperate debate but I debating Chelseas finances with you and I want to know the questions I have asked above with regard your revenues and profitability and what is going to replace Abramovich's subsidies.. as yet you haven't given me any answers whatsoever..
(e) That by the time you have paid off the Emirates etc the total cost will probably be around the same - if not more - than Romans current investment in Chelsea.
So what? Our business model is paying for itself, can you not see the difference?
Keep plugging away in ignorance Dixie old mate, you are deluding no one here except yourself..
PLEASE READ what I´ve said.
In summary
I´m saying that:
(a) Chelsea will break even (probably around 2011) and thereafter make a profit.[/b]
I'm not ignoring it Dixie, ok lets go by this one by one.. this is a statement, it's like me saying we will win the Premiership in 2011.. What I have asked is how you are going to break even by 2011? Bearing in mind that you have lost 80m last year and more than that on average I would like to know where you are going to be deriving these new revenue streams from or where you will be cutting costs from to achieve what you say..
(b) That Romans investment in Chelsea (approx 570m) is probably already recouped in the vlaue of the asset (Chelsea)now (which he bought for 140m)
for a start it was 578m as of June 2007, your last years accounts haven't been released yet so I make that his investment will be well over 600m but anyway this is an irrelevence because he has already said that he will be cutting back on his investment so again what I want to know is how your club intends to make up the shortfall in revenues so that you can compete as previously, its not rocket science Dixie, you have competed up until now because of Abramovich's subsidies, if this is coming to an end what is it being replaced with?
(c) That all the measures set out to make the club break even have been pretty much adhered to from the beginning and ARE WORKING
What measures? That you have doubled turnover and yet still lose 80m? I think you need more evidence than that Dixie..
(d) That you seem to blatantly ignore the reasoning behind the medium/long term strategy for Chelsea - ironic when you consider that´s what Arsenal are also doing (or are you going to pay off all your substantial debt tomorrow?!)
No I'm not ignoring anything old son, Arsenal have got debt that their accounts clearly show that they can service, it's a completely di9fferent scenario, if you want to argue this same point about United or Liverpool thats a completely seperate debate but I debating Chelseas finances with you and I want to know the questions I have asked above with regard your revenues and profitability and what is going to replace Abramovich's subsidies.. as yet you haven't given me any answers whatsoever..
(e) That by the time you have paid off the Emirates etc the total cost will probably be around the same - if not more - than Romans current investment in Chelsea.
So what? Our business model is paying for itself, can you not see the difference?
Keep plugging away in ignorance Dixie old mate, you are deluding no one here except yourself..
Quote:I haven't ignored anything.. for a start it is Evraz and not him personally that was going to buy those steel works and I read later that the whole deal has been put on hold.. of course there will be some bargains to be had in the market place but now probably isn't the time to buy anyway, its probably going to get worse before it gets better but who is to say Abramovich has got the readies to buy? you dont know the specifics of his business dealing as I admit I don't either but what I do know is that his net wealth based on the market capitalisation of his assets has decreased by $20Bn USD in the past six months and that is a fact..if he still has billions to burn then fair play but it doesn't seem like much is heading your way from now on ;_)dixon9
AND...
We´ll keep an eye on Romans latest possible company buy out - I notice you have ignored the possible reasoning I suggested behind that (buy when shares are low etc).
That Romans worth will be MORE than what it is now (say 13bn which is approx what the media said it was a few months ago - before any recession) in 3 years time.
Prepared to put your money where your mouth is on that last point?
Re his overall wealth. Tell you what, lets go by the Forbes list rich which has him on $23.5Bn USD as of 2008.. so to get this right, you are saying that he will be worth more than this on this same rich list in 2011? OK mate, what do you want to bet? Whoever loses writes out a cheque for the others charity, that putting my money where my mouth is and fair enough by you?
[www.forbes.com]
hey Dixie mate, whens the soup kitchen coming to Cobham old son? ;_)
Evraz share down to a new low of $9.50 today..
[markets.ft.com]
pop!
Evraz share down to a new low of $9.50 today..
[markets.ft.com]
pop!
forgive me for being the bearer of bad news Dixie old son but Evraz reported this morning and it aint good.. here are the highlights and the clue is the short term debt..
[steelguru.com]
happy reading ;_)
[steelguru.com]
happy reading ;_)
As I said to you before, we´ll just have to see where Roman comes out in all this (Evraz and his own fortune). My betting is on him.
Meanwhile, I´d look closer to home rather persistantly poking your head over the fence at the Jones´s ;-)
Concentrate on what happens with the Highbury development, your board (who will almost certeinly sell you down the river soon) and of course, that all important 4th spot.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:11:17:13:33:08 by dixon9.
Meanwhile, I´d look closer to home rather persistantly poking your head over the fence at the Jones´s ;-)
Concentrate on what happens with the Highbury development, your board (who will almost certeinly sell you down the river soon) and of course, that all important 4th spot.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:11:17:13:33:08 by dixon9.
$8.50 now dixie old son.. and about that bet? ;_) maybe we can double up and who gets new owners first? never mind though old Capn Birdseye is likely to be richer than Roman by the time this washes through, maybe he'll have you back? 
Bates? For all his faults I quite liked him!
Going to be an interesting year or so coming up.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Going to be an interesting year or so coming up.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
and the banter and comedy swipes at each other
CLASSIC
You two should replace Richard and Judy on Watch!!!
Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free
CLASSIC
You two should replace Richard and Judy on Watch!!!
Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
hey Dixie if your site wants a reral sccop how about telling your fans how it really is out there for Uncle Roman? ;_)
Troika today lowered its recommendation on Evraz to ``hold'' from ``buy'' and reduced the target price to $15.50 a share from $123, citing the company's ``highest short-term debt among Russian steelmakers'' and vulnerability to a decline in investment spending.
Separately, Citigroup Inc. cut its rating to ``sell'' from ``buy,'' citing lower steel prices and concern about the company's ``high levels of intangibles and goodwill.''
``If its auditors critically reevaluate the goodwill on Evraz's balance sheet, this could lead to writedowns,'' Citigroup analyst Daniel Yakub wrote in a report dated Nov.14.
[www.bloomberg.com]
this Company aint bouncing back in a hurry buddy and it certainly aint paying him a $1.3Bn dividend so as he can bank roll himself, his buddies and your football club..
psst anyone want a knock down price on that 200m yacht he has a deposit on?
Troika today lowered its recommendation on Evraz to ``hold'' from ``buy'' and reduced the target price to $15.50 a share from $123, citing the company's ``highest short-term debt among Russian steelmakers'' and vulnerability to a decline in investment spending.
Separately, Citigroup Inc. cut its rating to ``sell'' from ``buy,'' citing lower steel prices and concern about the company's ``high levels of intangibles and goodwill.''
``If its auditors critically reevaluate the goodwill on Evraz's balance sheet, this could lead to writedowns,'' Citigroup analyst Daniel Yakub wrote in a report dated Nov.14.
[www.bloomberg.com]
this Company aint bouncing back in a hurry buddy and it certainly aint paying him a $1.3Bn dividend so as he can bank roll himself, his buddies and your football club..
psst anyone want a knock down price on that 200m yacht he has a deposit on?
$6.66 this morning Dixie old son, another coupla hundred million down the swanny, oops that that new yacht isn't it I just seen float past? they say the last billion is the hurts the hardest..
it's gone up a bit since this morning, he might be able to afford hot dogs all round for Christmas dinner 
I´m sure Roman is regretting not taking you on board as one of his financial advisors Woolwich - after all, he obviosuly doesn´t know what he´s doing does he and wont come out of this on top will he?
Please!
Now about Arsenal´s situation....
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Please!
Now about Arsenal´s situation....
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
I reckon N5er is a 'son of an anorak.'
I reckon N5er has got more to lose than Mr A
I reckon N5er is a financial whizz kid who is just about to lose his job in the City
Credit crunch you know,
and his two bob house in N5 which a few weeks ago was worth 1/2 million - he's gonna lose that too
N5er - keep me up to date with the dollar... please
Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free
I reckon N5er has got more to lose than Mr A
I reckon N5er is a financial whizz kid who is just about to lose his job in the City
Credit crunch you know,
and his two bob house in N5 which a few weeks ago was worth 1/2 million - he's gonna lose that too
N5er - keep me up to date with the dollar... please
Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free
well some could say he is just getting his comeuppance after acquiring his wealth in a very dubious manner.. I'm sure you dont need me to point out the specifics of his wrong doings but he seems to be paying the price now doesnt he Dixie? come on old son you can admit you are slightly worried what with your benefactor unable to subsidise the gracy train anymore and an aging squad that will soon need massive investment.. as for us, yeah pretty poor year, ah well we have your lot soon and we are just as likely to turn you lot as we are to go out at Burnley, go figure.. but at least our financial future is assured.. 
Quote:The N5er
well some could say he is just getting his comeuppance after acquiring his wealth in a very dubious manner.. I'm sure you dont need me to point out the specifics of his wrong doings but he seems to be paying the price now doesnt he Dixie? come on old son you can admit you are slightly worried what with your benefactor unable to subsidise the gracy train anymore and an aging squad that will soon need massive investment.. as for us, yeah pretty poor year, ah well we have your lot soon and we are just as likely to turn you lot as we are to go out at Burnley, go figure.. but at least our financial future is assured..
They say someone who constantly whitters on about where the sun is is because they are standing in the shadow.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
or because the sun has gone or is going down.. nice analogy though Dixie.. still, I notice you have no answers..
Oh yes I do (Having me dinner at the moment).
Trouble is - you always divert onto something else anyway.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Trouble is - you always divert onto something else anyway.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
dont think so son, have been pretty consistent.. it's you that trys to deflect the argument, mine has stayed the same.. anyway seeing as you have all the answers maybe you can answer my previous.. humour me and assume Roman couldn't subsidise your club anymore and then answer how you will cash flow the deficit (last year 80m).. humour me and tell me where the investment will come from in the next eighteen months to replace a great many of your players that have either passed 30 or will do by the end of this season.. cheers..
How you, an Arsenal fan can criticise Abrmovich is beyond me when your own past and present is littered with examples of immorality.
Norris was as corrupt as they come as was Chapman and that´s in your history. Remind me of how the briitsh aristocracy got their money? Then you´ve got today´s owners Fizman - just how are conflict diamonds mined? Remind me! What about Usmanov (your other major shareholder). Care to enlighten us on his past? Thought not!
Sure, the Russian government turning part of their industry over to the Ogilarchs wasn´t exactly a the best example in morality but then the Russian government didn´t have the money to finance these industries - they couldn´t even afford the tooling for many of them. So Abramovich took advantage .. but then he is not the first rich businessman to do such a thing nor will he be the last. At least he is putting money back into the country.
There are plenty of other examples; how about the morality of the Pools and Moores (Everton/Liverpool)? All the working class trying to get rich whilst they made him rich?
Yuo just sound naive - but even worse, being an Arsenal fan and all your club stands for and has stood for, hypocritical.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Norris was as corrupt as they come as was Chapman and that´s in your history. Remind me of how the briitsh aristocracy got their money? Then you´ve got today´s owners Fizman - just how are conflict diamonds mined? Remind me! What about Usmanov (your other major shareholder). Care to enlighten us on his past? Thought not!
Sure, the Russian government turning part of their industry over to the Ogilarchs wasn´t exactly a the best example in morality but then the Russian government didn´t have the money to finance these industries - they couldn´t even afford the tooling for many of them. So Abramovich took advantage .. but then he is not the first rich businessman to do such a thing nor will he be the last. At least he is putting money back into the country.
There are plenty of other examples; how about the morality of the Pools and Moores (Everton/Liverpool)? All the working class trying to get rich whilst they made him rich?
Yuo just sound naive - but even worse, being an Arsenal fan and all your club stands for and has stood for, hypocritical.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Quote:The N5er
dont think so son, have been pretty consistent.. it's you that trys to deflect the argument, mine has stayed the same.. anyway seeing as you have all the answers maybe you can answer my previous.. humour me and assume Roman couldn't subsidise your club anymore and then answer how you will cash flow the deficit (last year 80m).. humour me and tell me where the investment will come from in the next eighteen months to replace a great many of your players that have either passed 30 or will do by the end of this season.. cheers..
Why assume that Roman wont be with us now? He has invested so much in infrastructure (not just players) and eventually his son will take over the reigns.
In any case, it wont be long now before we break even. Chelsea represents a very small percentage of his portfolio anyway (which is why all your recession points and the impact on his finances are so laughable).
I could ask you if you feel that we are less secure than you are? How about the impact of the recession on your own situation? How about the banks already having to be propped up by government, the highbury development, your team getting weaker and your players leaving? Success is key to your survival don´t forget.
Even worse, how long before Bracewell-Smith and co sell you down the river (Dein ALREADY has!) and you become another Man Utd franchise (but without the income of Man Utd).
You really should stop throwing stones in glass houses old son!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:11:18:23:12:53 by dixon9.
Quote:that simple hey? I'm sure you dont really believe that Since, I mean I'll go into the Arsenal accounts if you really want but theres a huge difference between our clubs financial affairs and yours.. for a start the only way your audited accounts can be signed off by the auditors is if they are convinced Roman can cover the clubs debt (thats a fact Jack..) without this there are doubts whether your club is a going concern, so I'm just wondering what plan B is if roman cant stump up the 80m (or whatever) shortfall in your books.. it's easy really mate and I'm sure they'll be lots of auditors asking exactly the same questions as me, if not now then pretty soon..Since 66
You owe the banks
We don't
Simple really
I´ve told you once, I´ve told you a thousand times - the club will gradually make us break even and we will be self-sufficient.
Oh by the way, I forgot about you lot caught out with that 12m tax fraud not so long ago!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Oh by the way, I forgot about you lot caught out with that 12m tax fraud not so long ago!
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Woolwich play at Corporate City - you owe the banks, Man Utd/double glaziers owe the banks and Liverpool (the best a man can get) owe the banks.
Chelsea owe Mr A
Simple really
And I am getting
Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free
Yep me too.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Quote:Oh dear Dixie, scraping the barrel here son, please remind me what crimes Norris and Chapman were guilty of? and poor old Fiszman just because he was involved in diamonds.. will give you Usmanov is a c*** of the highest order but find me an Arsenal fan that wants him or his money anywhere near us.. as for Roman I could go into a deep and meaningful about him but to be honest mate I don't really give a monkies where his money comes from.. that it is drying up is the only issue that should really come into the debate and no amount of deflecting from this will allow you to escape the fact that you lot are in a precarious position..dixon9
How you, an Arsenal fan can criticise Abrmovich is beyond me when your own past and present is littered with examples of immorality.
Norris was as corrupt as they come as was Chapman and that´s in your history. Remind me of how the briitsh aristocracy got their money? Then you´ve got today´s owners Fizman - just how are conflict diamonds mined? Remind me! What about Usmanov (your other major shareholder). Care to enlighten us on his past? Thought not!
Sure, the Russian government turning part of their industry over to the Ogilarchs wasn´t exactly a the best example in morality but then the Russian government didn´t have the money to finance these industries - they couldn´t even afford the tooling for many of them. So Abramovich took advantage .. but then he is not the first rich businessman to do such a thing nor will he be the last. At least he is putting money back into the country.
There are plenty of other examples; how about the morality of the Pools and Moores (Everton/Liverpool)? All the working class trying to get rich whilst they made him rich?
Yuo just sound naive - but even worse, being an Arsenal fan and all your club stands for and has stood for, hypocritical.
Why assume that Roman wont be with us now? He has invested so much in infrastructure (not just players) and eventually his son will take over the reigns.
Such lovely sentiments there Dixie, his son will one day take over the reigns? Somehow I really doubt it but anyway, lets keep this little fantasy going and say that he will.. in the meantime though your club has to come back to the land of reality and make the club work.. you say Roman has invested heavily in infrasture and I guess you are talking about your academy and thats fair enough, no one is denying that but how is that seriously going to make much of a difference? please explain that one to me mate, l mean with all due respect your academy is no better than ours and all we have produced is one Ashley Cole and a few other players that have gone on to make a career elsewhere, if you think you are going to find the next generation of Chelseas first team there you are making a mistake..
In any case, it wont be long now before we break even. Chelsea represents a very small percentage of his portfolio anyway (which is why all your recession points and the impact on his finances are so laughable).
Here we go again, say it a bit slower and you might just believe in Dixie.. here I'll try it, we are going to win the Champions League this year.. see easier said than done mate, you have no chance of breaking even any time soon and especially at the levels you are paying out.. we've been here before mate, tell me how you are going to break even and how you are going to make up the 80m of losses you have incurred on average for the past 4 years.. it's too easy mate, satisfy me by bandying some figures around and i'll go away but make the fugures work Dixie mate otherwise I'll bury you in your BS ;_)
I could ask you if you feel that we are less secure than you are? How about the impact of the recession on your own situation? How about the banks already having to be propped up by government, the highbury development, your team getting weaker and your players leaving? Success is key to your survival don´t forget.
Why would I (as an Arsenal fan) feel we would be in a less secure financial position than your club.. with all due respect Dixie take time out to read your financials vs ours and you will see that we have made a 60m profit last year compared to your 80m loss, now I'm not so silly as to believe that the recession wont hit football or potentially Arsenal but I can say with a lot of confidence that even if it did it would be like for like.. by that I mean that ours would be hit as much as yours and anyone elses (fair enough?) so why when we have a fairly robust model would l feel that we would be less secure than yourselves when you are losing money hand over fist? it doesnt make sense mate..
You mention the Highbury redevelopment and maybe we even caught a break there but as we are speaking those flats are being moved into and the deal will be fairly profitable, the loan is well covered whatever happens and our main finance is the 260m bond which isnt secured by banks at all.. if you know how them instruments work then you'll know that the bond holders hold the dent and are paid fixed interest over many years, the only way they can cash in is to sell on the open market and we have no obligation to rebuy that debt before the end of its term so you are mistaken if you think we are beholding to banks, we arent..
Our team getting weaker, yeah well consistent I'll give you, lets wait to see how bad we are when we play in a few weeks hey? players come and go mate its the nature of the beast as you know and success is important, I'll admit but its marginal at the very top, I mean how much less than United did your lot get for coming runners up to them in both comps? Commensuartely we weren't too far behind..
Even worse, how long before Bracewell-Smith and co sell you down the river (Dein ALREADY has!) and you become another Man Utd franchise (but without the income of Man Utd).
This ones been done to death too mate and you'd think that even if they did sell up, the new owners would have their business plan and want to get in for the right reasons but again what relevance has this got to anything? And its not happened has it? Lets argue that point when and if it happens.
You really should stop throwing stones in glass houses old son!
I dont believe so unless you can find me any tangible evidence other than what I have shown you over time and theres plenty of it mate out there and no doubt I've linked you to it all at some time or other.
Keep trying to deflect though mate, the facts are our club is not dependent on its owners to sustain our business and even you must admit that yours is and if as a lot of evidence points to your sugar daddys dough is drying up then I only think it fair to either acknowledge that without it you are going to have problems or else prove to me why you wont..
Such lovely sentiments there Dixie, his son will one day take over the reigns? Somehow I really doubt it but anyway, lets keep this little fantasy going and say that he will.. in the meantime though your club has to come back to the land of reality and make the club work.. you say Roman has invested heavily in infrasture and I guess you are talking about your academy and thats fair enough, no one is denying that but how is that seriously going to make much of a difference? please explain that one to me mate, l mean with all due respect your academy is no better than ours and all we have produced is one Ashley Cole and a few other players that have gone on to make a career elsewhere, if you think you are going to find the next generation of Chelseas first team there you are making a mistake..
In any case, it wont be long now before we break even. Chelsea represents a very small percentage of his portfolio anyway (which is why all your recession points and the impact on his finances are so laughable).
Here we go again, say it a bit slower and you might just believe in Dixie.. here I'll try it, we are going to win the Champions League this year.. see easier said than done mate, you have no chance of breaking even any time soon and especially at the levels you are paying out.. we've been here before mate, tell me how you are going to break even and how you are going to make up the 80m of losses you have incurred on average for the past 4 years.. it's too easy mate, satisfy me by bandying some figures around and i'll go away but make the fugures work Dixie mate otherwise I'll bury you in your BS ;_)
I could ask you if you feel that we are less secure than you are? How about the impact of the recession on your own situation? How about the banks already having to be propped up by government, the highbury development, your team getting weaker and your players leaving? Success is key to your survival don´t forget.
Why would I (as an Arsenal fan) feel we would be in a less secure financial position than your club.. with all due respect Dixie take time out to read your financials vs ours and you will see that we have made a 60m profit last year compared to your 80m loss, now I'm not so silly as to believe that the recession wont hit football or potentially Arsenal but I can say with a lot of confidence that even if it did it would be like for like.. by that I mean that ours would be hit as much as yours and anyone elses (fair enough?) so why when we have a fairly robust model would l feel that we would be less secure than yourselves when you are losing money hand over fist? it doesnt make sense mate..
You mention the Highbury redevelopment and maybe we even caught a break there but as we are speaking those flats are being moved into and the deal will be fairly profitable, the loan is well covered whatever happens and our main finance is the 260m bond which isnt secured by banks at all.. if you know how them instruments work then you'll know that the bond holders hold the dent and are paid fixed interest over many years, the only way they can cash in is to sell on the open market and we have no obligation to rebuy that debt before the end of its term so you are mistaken if you think we are beholding to banks, we arent..
Our team getting weaker, yeah well consistent I'll give you, lets wait to see how bad we are when we play in a few weeks hey? players come and go mate its the nature of the beast as you know and success is important, I'll admit but its marginal at the very top, I mean how much less than United did your lot get for coming runners up to them in both comps? Commensuartely we weren't too far behind..
Even worse, how long before Bracewell-Smith and co sell you down the river (Dein ALREADY has!) and you become another Man Utd franchise (but without the income of Man Utd).
This ones been done to death too mate and you'd think that even if they did sell up, the new owners would have their business plan and want to get in for the right reasons but again what relevance has this got to anything? And its not happened has it? Lets argue that point when and if it happens.
You really should stop throwing stones in glass houses old son!
I dont believe so unless you can find me any tangible evidence other than what I have shown you over time and theres plenty of it mate out there and no doubt I've linked you to it all at some time or other.
Keep trying to deflect though mate, the facts are our club is not dependent on its owners to sustain our business and even you must admit that yours is and if as a lot of evidence points to your sugar daddys dough is drying up then I only think it fair to either acknowledge that without it you are going to have problems or else prove to me why you wont..
In any case, it wont be long now before we break even. Chelsea represents a very small percentage of his portfolio anyway (which is why all your recession points and the impact on his finances are so laughable).
btw this is simply not true Dixie, the vast majority of his wealth is or was tied up with Evraz, he has some minor shareholdings with Highland Gold and I dare say even more minor holdings elsewhere but Evraz was his main money earner ($1.3Bn of dividends last year) and the main source of his overall wealth with over $20Bn of his previous stated wealth having been tied up in it.. surely this loss will have hurt him, I mean they'll be no dividend payment this year from them for a start this year.. I dont think you treuly appreciate the money that would wash through this guy including the annual $150m USD that he has been pumping your way..
btw this is simply not true Dixie, the vast majority of his wealth is or was tied up with Evraz, he has some minor shareholdings with Highland Gold and I dare say even more minor holdings elsewhere but Evraz was his main money earner ($1.3Bn of dividends last year) and the main source of his overall wealth with over $20Bn of his previous stated wealth having been tied up in it.. surely this loss will have hurt him, I mean they'll be no dividend payment this year from them for a start this year.. I dont think you treuly appreciate the money that would wash through this guy including the annual $150m USD that he has been pumping your way..
Quote:Yes you can say it till you are blue in the face Dixie but all I ask is for you to give me examples of how that is going to happen? Not too much to ask is it? Tell me where the extra 80m is going to come from to make you 'break even'.. oh and tax fraud hey? good onedixon9
I´ve told you once, I´ve told you a thousand times - the club will gradually make us break even and we will be self-sufficient.
Oh by the way, I forgot about you lot caught out with that 12m tax fraud not so long ago!
I'm sure if it was as underhand as you suggest that more would have come out of it.. Quote:see my above, we actually owe the banks very little and its diminishing all the time as these properties complete.. we do have a bond loan though but nothing to do with the banks.. yep your fortunate to owe no one but Abramovich anything and no one suggests this money will need to be repaid.. but I'm sure if you have followed the debate you will know that isnt my point at all..Since 66
Woolwich play at Corporate City - you owe the banks, Man Utd/double glaziers owe the banks and Liverpool (the best a man can get) owe the banks.
Chelsea owe Mr A
Simple really
And I am getting
Chelsea News 24/7
More Chelsea headlines
- Man City 5-3 Chelsea: Ultimate Respect from City
- Chelsea 3-4 Man City: Fatty Shuffles Wrong Pack
- Jose to Leave Real Madrid
- Chelsea 2-1 Everton: 23 Travel to America
- Everton Preview: Last Day - Finally!!
- Benfica 1-2 Chelsea: Super Frank Signs New Deal
- FA Youth Cup Final 2nd Leg v Norwich City LIVE from 7.45pm
- Aston Villa 1-2 Chelsea: 'Super 203 Goal Frankie Lampard'
- Aston Villa Preview: Will It Be Done Today?
Chelsea latest threads
- Man City 5-3 Chelsea: Ultimate Respect from City
- Chelsea 3-4 Man City: Fatty Shuffles Wrong Pack
- Jose to Leave Real Madrid
- Chelsea 2-1 Everton: 23 Travel to America
- Everton Preview: Last Day -Finally!!
- Benfica 1-2 Chelsea: Super Frank Signs New Deal
- FA Youth Cup Final 2nd Leg v Norwich City LIVE from 7.45pm
- Aston Villa 1-2 Chelsea: 'Super 203 Goal Frankie Lampard'
- Aston Villa Preview: Will It Be Done Today?
- Chelsea 2-2 Spurs: Says It All Really!