Financial Fair Play

[didierforever 7,349]

Actually, Ian Herbert, who is usually reliable, the Luiz deal is included while the purchases of Cesc and Costa are not: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/chelsea-finances-highflying-blues-set-to-announce-record-20m-profits-9857395.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

That's rather worrying to be honest. If that is really the case, then I imagine we'll struggle to break even next season.

damn!!! it specifies 30th june 2014. the transfer of luiz officially happened on 13th june 2014. also, the transfer of cesc officially happened on 13th june 2014. so we will have to include it in. (http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2014/06/fabregas-signs-for-chelsea.html)

so all calculations can be offset by 23mil (luiz 50mil - cesc 27mil).

if we had not included these, we would have incurred a loss of 5mil (odd) for a total transfer activity of 37mil (60 for the 2013-14 season - 23mil for these 2 deals).

this season, so far we would have spent 23mil which is still less than the previous season's transfer rate. i think we will be fine. only thing it does is make me sure of NO PIQUE. :blue scalf: :blue scalf:

[Chelsea? 892]

damn!!! it specifies 30th june 2014. the transfer of luiz officially happened on 13th june 2014. also, the transfer of cesc officially happened on 13th june 2014. so we will have to include it in.

so all calculations can be offset by 23mil (luiz 50mil - cesc 27mil).

if we had not included these, we would have incurred a loss of 5mil (odd) for a total transfer activity of 37mil (60 for the 2013-14 season - 23mil for these 2 deals).

this season, so far we would have spent 23mil which is still less than the previous season's transfer rate. i think we will be fine. only thing it does is make me sure of NO PIQUE. :blue scalf: :blue scalf:

arent player sales amortized over the length of the players contract?

[didierforever 7,349]

arent player sales amortized over the length of the players contract?

no sales are not amortized.

[Jype 6,398]

no sales are not amortized.

Correct, but your figures are still somewhat off. You substracted the whole of Fabregas' £27m fee from the profits made on selling Luiz when it should have been amortised over the length of his contract and even if a part of the Fabregas deal was somehow included in the 13/14 finances because the transfer went through already in June it would not have been a significant amount because the amortised fee for half a month as well as two weeks worth of his wages do not count for much.

Also the Luiz deal, whether it was in these figures or the next year's, did not profit the club all of the £50m but rather somewhere around £36m when his remaining amortised book value became due.

No matter what Ian Herbert is saying in his article I'm still yet to be convinced that the Luiz money was really included here because it'd make no sense. The deal was announced in June before the deadline for the 13/14 financial year, that much is true, but it did not officially go through until the 1st of July when the transfer window opened in France and therefore any money gained from the sale should only affect the club's finances for the 14/15 season, which goes from the 1st of July 2014 to June 30th 2015. Guess we'll have to wait for one of the experts (The Swiss Ramble, Jake Cohen etc.) to put their minds to it and give us a proper answer on the matter.

[didierforever 7,349]

Correct, but your figures are still somewhat off. You substracted the whole of Fabregas' £27m fee from the profits made on selling Luiz when it should have been amortised over the length of his contract and even if a part of the Fabregas deal was somehow included in the 13/14 finances because the transfer went through already in June it would not have been a significant amount because the amortised fee for half a month as well as two weeks worth of his wages do not count for much.

Also the Luiz deal, whether it was in these figures or the next year's, did not profit the club all of the £50m but rather somewhere around £36m when his remaining amortised book value became due.

No matter what Ian Herbert is saying in his article I'm still yet to be convinced that the Luiz money was really included here because it'd make no sense. The deal was announced in June before the deadline for the 13/14 financial year, that much is true, but it did not officially go through until the 1st of July when the transfer window opened in France and therefore any money gained from the sale should only affect the club's finances for the 14/15 season, which goes from the 1st of July 2014 to June 30th 2015. Guess we'll have to wait for one of the experts (The Swiss Ramble, Jake Cohen etc.) to put their minds to it and give us a proper answer on the matter.

you were right. the luiz deal was probably not included.

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2014/11/13/7214597/chelsea-finances-future-ffp-fair-play

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

This damn thing, really make me confused. Whatever it is, we made a profit last season is what important. Next year we will get a much better prize money (hopefully), better sponsorship money, and hopefully we could have some profit again.

[Muzchap 8,966]

The amount of profit is almost irrelevant- the fact that we have turned around a loss making club into one breaking even is a testament to our advancement

We have a tiny stadium and are losing out on £30 million year in match day revenue

City - are REALLY struggling- when they shouldn't !

I'm impressed by our shrewd financial dealings - long may it continue - and if we do have to move to Twickenham then so be it for a few seasons. If we could get a 65k+ stadium - we would be in a great position. Think Bayern Munich - since the Allianz - their revenues have been extraordinary in the Bundesliga- even with the cheaper ticket prices. Stadium = sustainability

[iseah100 5,612]

Fuck FFP. Shit confuses the fuck out of me.

[didierforever 7,349]

irrespective of whether the luiz deal was included in the said profit or not is irrelevant when talking about FFP only. i am sure, the club would have thought it through completely before doing the deal.

anyways we have successfully "passed" the 1st 2 monitoring periods of FFP (2011-12 and 2012-14).

for the coming monitoring period (2013-15), we currently have

2012-13: -49.4 mil

2013-14: 18.4

means we have a combined loss of 31mil pounds. for the 2 past years.

we spend 8 mil on academy and infrastructure (according to WAGNH), so that takes our loss down to 15mil for FFP. 24 mil pounds is the breakeven value for this period which gives us a leeway of a 9mil + 8mil (exempted) = 17mil loss for the next season.

[Term-X 7,891]

And no it does not stop ambitious owners developing their clubs. Youth set ups, training facilities etc. are outside of the FFP remit, so don't come under consideration. Would just mean clubs could no longer buy ALL ready made stars any more, they'd either have to promote from within or sign young and cheap.

Well, that's rather naive.

Investing in an academy and relying solely on that to turn you into the next Chelsea would be a slow and laborious task, what investor would be interested in that?

[The Skipper 20,609]

means we have a combined loss of 31mil pounds. for the 2 past years.

How have you worked that out sorry? If we're in a profit of £18.4m it means we've made £59m more from 2012/13. There's no loss at all...

[didierforever 7,349]

How have you worked that out sorry? If we're in a profit of £18.4m it means we've made £59m more from 2012/13. There's no loss at all...

???

addition dude.

2012-13: -49.4mil

2013-14: 18.4mil.

[The Skipper 20,609]

???

addition dude.

2012-13: -49.4mil

2013-14: 18.4mil.

You do realise that profits and losses are just simply carried on from the previous years right?

[didierforever 7,349]

You do realise that profits and losses are just simply carried on from the previous years right?

sorry?

i thought the 18.4mil is the ANNUAL profit!!!

[Barbara 15,149]

sorry?

i thought the 18.4mil is the ANNUAL profit!!!

That's impossible. The way you end a fiscal year is how you start the following. We ended 2012 with an almost 50m loss, you don't start the following year on a clean slate. You go from there.

To reach +1.4 profit, first we overcame -49.4.

[Tautvix 1,321]

That's impossible. The way you end a fiscal year is how you start the following. We ended 2012 with an almost 50m loss, you don't start the following year on a clean slate. You go from there.

To reach +1.4 profit, first we overcame -49.4.

We ended 2013 with 50m loss. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2531810/Chelsea-announce-annual-loss-49-4million.html

We had a small profit in 2012 because we won CL.

[didierforever 7,349]

That's impossible. The way you end a fiscal year is how you start the following. We ended 2012 with an almost 50m loss, you don't start the following year on a clean slate. You go from there.

To reach +1.4 profit, first we overcame -49.4.

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2014/11/13/7214597/chelsea-finances-future-ffp-fair-play

everything is about the year. the fiscal year.

all the data that is given is said to be for the fiscal year. the calculations done are based on the revenues for the year, the matchday revenue, the tv revenue. so how does it include the last year?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/champions-league/10676021/FFP-How-Manchester-City-and-Premier-League-clubs-compare.html

this article should make it clearer. it treats the 1.4mil profit (2011-12) and the 49.4 mil loss (2012-13) per year and as separate entities.

dont know why u guys are getting it all jumbled or maybe i am way way way off my mark.

[Barbara 15,149]

We ended 2013 with 50m loss. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2531810/Chelsea-announce-annual-loss-49-4million.html

We had a small profit in 2012 because we won CL.

Yeah, I mixed the order... point remains that if the previous year you had -49.4 you start the following fiscal year at -49.4. To call it even, you need to have your revenue to overcome your expenses in -49.4.

[didierforever 7,349]

Yeah, I mixed the order... point remains that if the previous year you had -49.4 you start the following fiscal year at -49.4. To call it even, you need to have your revenue to overcome your expenses in -49.4.

i m sorry... but its all in the heading itself... http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2014/11/chelsea-fc-announces-annual-profit.html

"ANNUAL" profit.

if not that then This is the second profit in three years and the largest since Roman Abramovich became owner of the club in 2003.

should clear it up

or maybe this

The £18.4 million profit follows the £1.4 million generated two years ago. Strong revenue increases as well as a significant surplus on player sales during the 12-month period contributed.

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

I have to agree with didierforever, as that's what I think all this time. If we included all the previous years, no way we're even reach a break even.