" do you understand the word "covering" or an owner "writing off" "

Debts are to creditors.
Creditors expect to be paid, sooner or later.

Be specific as to what you mean by "covering" .

Do you mean CREDIT WORTHINESS, as in the ability of the debtor to pay all creditors if they called in their debts forthwith ??

If you do mean this, then are you saying that Chelsky ARE in debt (on paper) . In which case I will ask what is the TOTAL AMOUNT of that debt.

"but 200 comments on you still haven't understood that a loss made in 2005 is irrelevant to the figures of 2012"

200 comments shows that you don't understand that ANNUAL LOSSES ACCUMULATE on the balance sheets of a business.

If I make a loss of 1m one yr, and 10m the next, that is NO DIFFERENT from making a 10m loss one yr and 1m the next.

The NET (cumulative) debt on the books is still 11m.

If our figures suggest we made a profit this year then why were the previous years of cumulative losses not included. Was there some sort of "investor" that "invested" money into the club so these "losses" disappeared?

Lets say I own a company RODB and its £60 in debt. How could I get rid of it from this company? Perhaps I could "invest" money into it?

Man United are in debt and still make profits.

"If our figures suggest we made a profit this year then why were the previous years of cumulative losses not included."

They ARE.

All Ltd companies will show their NET LIABILITIES in the ANNUAL accounts.

I only have to pick up my own company accounts to see the CUMULATIVE profits/losses for the company to date of business yr end.

And BIG Ltd companies, in their ANNUAL financial reports, provide at least a 5 yr window chart on annual/net profits/losses.


"Was there some sort of "investor" that "invested" money into the club so these "losses" disappeared? "

You tell us.
You're the one who is claiming Chelsky has no "debt" .
So for a 5 yr window on net losses, I expect to see a value of ZERO in the boxes, for each of those yrs.

Well if we've made losses of £500m or so shouldn't we have been liquidated by now? After all these magical "investors" are a pure fantasy so I'm led to believe.

"Man United are in debt and still make profits."

So are Spurs. The issue is credit worthiness.

If all those debts were called in now, Man Utd owners can get the money. Similarly for Spurs.

The phrase "soft debt" is sometimes used to describe this scenario.

So if you were in £500m debt you'd be able to repay it on the spot?

Chelsea aren't in debt because their owner makes outside investment. The clubs accounts have been running at a loss but I'm assuming the outside investment is not included in the accounts? It hasn't been relevant until now. These measures are taken to effectively stop outside investments.

ding ding ding we have a winner

"Well if we've made losses of £500m or so shouldn't we have been liquidated by now?"

1. Have Chelsky made NET losses of 500m ??
2. Only if nobody is paying off the debts


If the answer to 1 is no, then the situation may be akin to Spurs ( "soft" debt etc) .

If the answer is yes, then somebody is paying off the debts. If so, given that you are apparently ITK, feel free to tell us who has been paying off the debts.

See above

"So if you were in £500m debt you'd be able to repay it on the spot?"

If you were Roman, or the Sheikh, I reckon you could mobilise that sort of capital reasonably quickly (liquid assets etc) .

No you can't all losses are cumulative which can only be repaid by the company not by any outside investor

"Chelsea aren't in debt because their owner makes outside investment. The clubs accounts have been running at a loss but I'm assuming the outside investment is not included in the accounts? It hasn't been relevant until now. These measures are taken to effectively stop outside investments."

The measures are to stop ARTIFICIAL "outside" investments.
If the investor was something not linked to the owner (pension fund mgmt etc) , then there are no grounds for complaint.

Right, I'm out.

Yeah you know what I meant.

"No you can't all losses are cumulative which can only be repaid by the company not by any outside investor"

Again :

If you were Roman, or the Sheikh, I reckon you could mobilise that sort of capital reasonably quickly (liquid assets etc) .

Or are you stating that neither could mobilise that amount of capital within a few days of demand ( "on the spot" being a figure of speech etc) ??

No it can't happen as it is not possible to put money in or out of a company

Me too.

Not that Fat Ron is wrong.

Just that as of now, he cannot cite any source material (Chelsky annual financial reports etc) that corroborates how the net debt is always zero.

Perhaps for tomorrow he would have dug up such info.

"For you I cannot be bothered to look for it, but it was confirmed that Rooney signed the "original" contract offered to him which was 160k per week."

VCD,

Be honest, you were lying when you said this weren't you, there isn't actually a link you could provide me for it, is there?

Our financial report says we posted a profit so it can't have just disappeared

"Our financial report says we posted a profit so it can't have just disappeared"

Again :

NET liabilities (creditors owing etc) for previous yr = 10m.
Profit for CURRENT yr = 1m.
Net profit = 1 + -10 = -9m.

Net liabilities for previous yr = 0.
etc etc.

Is Chelsea FC in debt? Yes or no