£1 billlion minimum spend on Chelsea

comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 day ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯✯ (U1561)
posted 13 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 9 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
I am sure if Spurs were in the same situation Chelsea fans would be wishing us well

NO one really expects CFC to go bust out of this situation, its just wishful thinking and banter but if you want to get all hot and bothered about it then that's fine.

I think Chelsea are in a for a more normalised financial reality, where losses and borrowing are not simply hoovered up by your owners, you will either have to cut your cloth or borrow accordingly.

Chelsea are well run but Roman has been your safety net and over the last three financial years you have made over £200m in losses, about £150m over 4, which RA covers off. no need to borrow or spend less to reduce debt.

What CFC do well is sell academy players and recoup money spent but the figures over the last three years have also been boosted by a couple of big player sales, esp. Hazard, and this is not always a possibility so will not always be a factor in your yearly figures.

Where a new owner is less willing to cover off losses/debt, (and Americans tend to run a pretty tight ship without incurring losses or putting in big sums themselves) you will face the same financial reality as Spurs and Liverpool et al where your spending & wages have to be very carefully managed, and where debt will incur costs.

If you wanted to build a £1bn stadium for example, be prepared to pay +£60m a year in interest.

I personally would like the playing field levelled across the whole league. Chelsea really have gone through their "doping cycle" years ago and are pretty self-sufficient now, albeit with that safety net. City's spending and manipulation of their revenues , which belies their (limited) global appeal, aggravates me.

I do find the financial side of football quite fascinating and I will watch with interest how CFCs new owners, whoever they are, approach things. One thing is for certain is that they will be investors and not philanthropists and will have a different approach to RA..

As much as I dislike Chelsea, I would like us to have a much closer rivalry because its that sort of thing that gets the passion going and makes football what it is IMO.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good article. Well said. Being a football fan now has become, for some sets of fans ( City & Chelsea ) like existing in a twilight world that is detached from the normal financial normality. Having owners with unlimited funds to plough into their club every time it is needed, with absolutely no consideration for any sort of balancing of the books, is seen by them as a given.
It's like "well I have this big ars* gas bill to pay. Oh I know, I will just go down the garden and pluck some money off my money tree"
They also develop this "we are entitled to outspend everyone. What is wrong with that ? mentality" like it is just normal and how dare anyone else have a go at us for it.
As said above, Chelsea fans will need to stop gloating and start getting used to how things work under a consortium, especially an American one. This never ending money pit will not continue and that "oh look City just spent £100m, but don't worry, our owners will just match it" will no longer happen.

Whatever happens, it should be fun to see the realisation set in for them. They will be joining the rest of us in moaning about City and Newcastle ruining football and stopping everyone else from winning things.
Still, chin up, at least you will lose the term "plastics" eh ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, I'm not sure that i can go back to the bad old days of not being able to lose at White Hart Lane in the League from 1987 to 2006 (19 years!!) or having to settle for a poxy 1-6 win there in 1997 for which I was happily present for!!

It's not gonna worry fans like me if we don't spend as much money in future, for even with all what is going on at the moment, I would still fancy us to win another trophy before the perennial failures, Spurs do. You lot couldn't handle the likes of Kerry Dixon & Co. let alone the sort of players that we have recruited since then.

I'd worry about your own Club if I were you Steve rather than trying to tell us our business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh come on Summer, Spurs came out on top of pretty well every big game pre Abramovich. 1967 Cup Final, 1974 Relegation game at WHL, 1982 Cup QF at Stamford Bridge. You are making it like Chelsea have always beaten Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So your argument is based on a whole 3 games!

Oh, and the relegation game was 75 not 74, details Sandy, details!

comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 55 minutes ago
Chelsea`s average for the Prem this season is 37,900, which is way below 99.9 per cent bollox posted by West.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which includes reduced capacity Covid rules games!

Come one Sandy, you've got to do better than this to stay current!

comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
Chelsea`s average for the Prem this season is 37,900, which is way below 99.9 per cent bollox posted by West.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

More lies from Russian Sandy

It is 39932

https://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/premier-league/attendances

West Ham average more than Spurs in a ground the fans hate

comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Simon West (U1830)
posted 11 hours, 9 minutes ago
And watch poor la la bring into matches when we have had some external restriction that we have nothing to do with and ignoring the last 15+ years of 99.9% capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL no way do Cheksea have 99.9 per cent bums on seats for the past 15 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/1754629-premier-league-attendances-how-full-has-each-stadium-been-this-season

95% this season...& considering Covid we're playing at least twice a week - that's damned decent

we have been up at 98%
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That story is from September, we are up to late 97.9 now and Spurs are down to 89!

Is lá lá still struggling with reality? Really sucks to be him tbh, again this article has been terrible by him. Though most are to be fair when it comes to CFC, haven't seen a non fan obsessed with us since Wahl The only person who says " You're wrong cos my feelings"

comment by Simon West (U1830)
posted 32 seconds ago
Is lá lá still struggling with reality? Really sucks to be him tbh, again this article has been terrible by him. Though most are to be fair when it comes to CFC, haven't seen a non fan obsessed with us since WahlThe only person who says " You're wrong cos my feelings"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

He just makes things up. Here he has confused Chelsea's attendance against Spurs in Carling Cup (37900) with out Prem average (40k). Spurs only sold 4k out of 6k in their end, but I think it was a police issue as other clubs have had full 6k

comment by ●Billy The Spur● 20*21*22* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted on 27/3/22
Good luck finding a mug prepared to do that, on top of the purchase price and massive debt
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted on 27/3/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Prankster - Aka Stiffler (U22336)
posted 18 minutes ago
You must be gutted about your preferred Saudi bidders shiiiiiting out
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It was the right decision. Part of their bid was based on debt finance Glazer style. Not for us.

It went under the radar that David Barnard has joined the board deciding our next owners. That is a smart move.

So far, the board is doing a good job.

We have some very interesting bidders, who could take Chelsea to the next level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Next level?

Irony of the statement!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Really?

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted on 29/3/22
I am sure if Spurs were in the same situation Chelsea fans would be wishing us well

NO one really expects CFC to go bust out of this situation, its just wishful thinking and banter but if you want to get all hot and bothered about it then that's fine.

I think Chelsea are in a for a more normalised financial reality, where losses and borrowing are not simply hoovered up by your owners, you will either have to cut your cloth or borrow accordingly.

Chelsea are well run but Roman has been your safety net and over the last three financial years you have made over £200m in losses, about £150m over 4, which RA covers off. no need to borrow or spend less to reduce debt.

What CFC do well is sell academy players and recoup money spent but the figures over the last three years have also been boosted by a couple of big player sales, esp. Hazard, and this is not always a possibility so will not always be a factor in your yearly figures.

Where a new owner is less willing to cover off losses/debt, (and Americans tend to run a pretty tight ship without incurring losses or putting in big sums themselves) you will face the same financial reality as Spurs and Liverpool et al where your spending & wages have to be very carefully managed, and where debt will incur costs.

If you wanted to build a £1bn stadium for example, be prepared to pay +£60m a year in interest.

I personally would like the playing field levelled across the whole league. Chelsea really have gone through their "doping cycle" years ago and are pretty self-sufficient now, albeit with that safety net. City's spending and manipulation of their revenues , which belies their (limited) global appeal, aggravates me.

I do find the financial side of football quite fascinating and I will watch with interest how CFCs new owners, whoever they are, approach things. One thing is for certain is that they will be investors and not philanthropists and will have a different approach to RA..

As much as I dislike Chelsea, I would like us to have a much closer rivalry because its that sort of thing that gets the passion going and makes football what it is IMO.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning DevSpurs

comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted on 29/3/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
I am sure if Spurs were in the same situation Chelsea fans would be wishing us well

NO one really expects CFC to go bust out of this situation, its just wishful thinking and banter but if you want to get all hot and bothered about it then that's fine.

I think Chelsea are in a for a more normalised financial reality, where losses and borrowing are not simply hoovered up by your owners, you will either have to cut your cloth or borrow accordingly.

Chelsea are well run but Roman has been your safety net and over the last three financial years you have made over £200m in losses, about £150m over 4, which RA covers off. no need to borrow or spend less to reduce debt.

What CFC do well is sell academy players and recoup money spent but the figures over the last three years have also been boosted by a couple of big player sales, esp. Hazard, and this is not always a possibility so will not always be a factor in your yearly figures.

Where a new owner is less willing to cover off losses/debt, (and Americans tend to run a pretty tight ship without incurring losses or putting in big sums themselves) you will face the same financial reality as Spurs and Liverpool et al where your spending & wages have to be very carefully managed, and where debt will incur costs.

If you wanted to build a £1bn stadium for example, be prepared to pay +£60m a year in interest.

I personally would like the playing field levelled across the whole league. Chelsea really have gone through their "doping cycle" years ago and are pretty self-sufficient now, albeit with that safety net. City's spending and manipulation of their revenues , which belies their (limited) global appeal, aggravates me.

I do find the financial side of football quite fascinating and I will watch with interest how CFCs new owners, whoever they are, approach things. One thing is for certain is that they will be investors and not philanthropists and will have a different approach to RA..

As much as I dislike Chelsea, I would like us to have a much closer rivalry because its that sort of thing that gets the passion going and makes football what it is IMO.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good article. Well said. Being a football fan now has become, for some sets of fans ( City & Chelsea ) like existing in a twilight world that is detached from the normal financial normality. Having owners with unlimited funds to plough into their club every time it is needed, with absolutely no consideration for any sort of balancing of the books, is seen by them as a given.
It's like "well I have this big ars* gas bill to pay. Oh I know, I will just go down the garden and pluck some money off my money tree"
They also develop this "we are entitled to outspend everyone. What is wrong with that ? mentality" like it is just normal and how dare anyone else have a go at us for it.
As said above, Chelsea fans will need to stop gloating and start getting used to how things work under a consortium, especially an American one. This never ending money pit will not continue and that "oh look City just spent £100m, but don't worry, our owners will just match it" will no longer happen.

Whatever happens, it should be fun to see the realisation set in for them. They will be joining the rest of us in moaning about City and Newcastle ruining football and stopping everyone else from winning things.
Still, chin up, at least you will lose the term "plastics" eh ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi SteveF. Thanks for your expert financial analysis