Genuinley pleased for the

I genuinely believe if chelsea made more money than sales since boehly came in people would still bang on about the money we spent

They forget all the fees we recoup and all the loan deals which are hugely profitable.

comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 11 minutes ago
I genuinely believe if chelsea made more money than sales since boehly came in people would still bang on about the money we spent

They forget all the fees we recoup and all the loan deals which are hugely profitable.


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

You can’t deny it’s a risky strategy though, spreading the cost over 6/7/8 years, it hampers you in future markets.

Also there is only so many youngsters you can sell at 100% profit.

I mean if this bad start lasts the whole season and you are 9/10th at the end, what are you gonna do next summer - spend more money whilst amortising over the best off of a decade?

The thing with Chelsea these days, a bit like United, you spend loads of money but it’s more miss than hit, at some point the well will run dry and you’re left with £100m purchases you would struggle to recoup a quarter of that for.

comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 25 minutes ago
It's been a good week for you in your pursuit of the "thickest khunt on the forum" award StrikeMug.

It will be three years on the trot won't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Only because they retired you from the competition, unfair on the other competitors.

comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 11 minutes ago
I genuinely believe if chelsea made more money than sales since boehly came in people would still bang on about the money we spent

They forget all the fees we recoup and all the loan deals which are hugely profitable.


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

You can’t deny it’s a risky strategy though, spreading the cost over 6/7/8 years, it hampers you in future markets.

Also there is only so many youngsters you can sell at 100% profit.

I mean if this bad start lasts the whole season and you are 9/10th at the end, what are you gonna do next summer - spend more money whilst amortising over the best off of a decade?

The thing with Chelsea these days, a bit like United, you spend loads of money but it’s more miss than hit, at some point the well will run dry and you’re left with £100m purchases you would struggle to recoup a quarter of that for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a lot of risk to it but that's not the point you was making. And you can make more than 100% on player profits too. We have done in the past and will do again im sure.

I don't agree with much of what the new ownership does. However (not including loan fees) we have only spent about £140/£150m more than spurs over the last 5 years.

Everyone focuses on the spend but we needed to shift a lot of dead weight.

Havertz, werner, ziyech, pulisic (injuries), RLC (injuries) and many more all have left which was needed.

comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 11 minutes ago
I genuinely believe if chelsea made more money than sales since boehly came in people would still bang on about the money we spent

They forget all the fees we recoup and all the loan deals which are hugely profitable.


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

You can’t deny it’s a risky strategy though, spreading the cost over 6/7/8 years, it hampers you in future markets.

Also there is only so many youngsters you can sell at 100% profit.

I mean if this bad start lasts the whole season and you are 9/10th at the end, what are you gonna do next summer - spend more money whilst amortising over the best off of a decade?

The thing with Chelsea these days, a bit like United, you spend loads of money but it’s more miss than hit, at some point the well will run dry and you’re left with £100m purchases you would struggle to recoup a quarter of that for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a lot of risk to it but that's not the point you was making. And you can make more than 100% on player profits too. We have done in the past and will do again im sure.

I don't agree with much of what the new ownership does. However (not including loan fees) we have only spent about £140/£150m more than spurs over the last 5 years.

Everyone focuses on the spend but we needed to shift a lot of dead weight.

Havertz, werner, ziyech, pulisic (injuries), RLC (injuries) and many more all have left which was needed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In transfer fees maybe, but add wages in and the figure is closer to £1bn more

comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 22 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by kloppites (U13373)
posted 2 hours, 54 minutes ago
Yes if any fan base deserves success it’s them tbf

Hope they win it …….man
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why? Not saying yourself but a lot of people had issues with chelsea and man citys success after years (atleast for city) in the duldrums and city were getting thousands at maine road and chelsea taking 15k fans away from home in div 2 during the 80s...

just curious why newcastle fans deserve success over any others...like lets say...port vale
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So true Nick, it does make me laugh on here when plastic fans label us and City as “Plastics” but the Geordie’s are perceived as proper (which they definitely are IMO) but choose to ignore that we are also properly big Clubs also. The Geordies themselves have always conceded that our away support is some of the best that they have ever seen. I have been there a few times myself and even they have always brought large numbers to us, we have taken even more to them. I still remember the 6,000 we took in a second division game in ‘84. City it has to be said have always had great support also if you remember that they were getting 30K in the third tier of English football. Nobody would be happier than me to see the long-suffering Geordie fans win something but my point is that City and us also have proper fans despite some of the jealous bollox that gets spoken on here.

comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 22 hours ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 11 minutes ago
I genuinely believe if chelsea made more money than sales since boehly came in people would still bang on about the money we spent

They forget all the fees we recoup and all the loan deals which are hugely profitable.


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

You can’t deny it’s a risky strategy though, spreading the cost over 6/7/8 years, it hampers you in future markets.

Also there is only so many youngsters you can sell at 100% profit.

I mean if this bad start lasts the whole season and you are 9/10th at the end, what are you gonna do next summer - spend more money whilst amortising over the best off of a decade?

The thing with Chelsea these days, a bit like United, you spend loads of money but it’s more miss than hit, at some point the well will run dry and you’re left with £100m purchases you would struggle to recoup a quarter of that for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a lot of risk to it but that's not the point you was making. And you can make more than 100% on player profits too. We have done in the past and will do again im sure.

I don't agree with much of what the new ownership does. However (not including loan fees) we have only spent about £140/£150m more than spurs over the last 5 years.

Everyone focuses on the spend but we needed to shift a lot of dead weight.

Havertz, werner, ziyech, pulisic (injuries), RLC (injuries) and many more all have left which was needed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In transfer fees maybe, but add wages in and the figure is closer to £1bn more
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really hard to take you seriously as a poster when you constantly put your foot in your mouth. Wage bills per club.

1. Manchester United – £200,996,000
2. Manchester City – £192,712,000
3. Arsenal – £155,896,000
4. Liverpool – £134,940,000
5. Chelsea – £128,804,000
6. Aston Villa – £99,840,000
7. Tottenham – £91,000,000
8. West Ham United – £90,480,000
9. Newcastle United – £85,800,000
10. Everton – £74,662,000

Oh, you're not trying to take StrikemugMuppet seriously are you?

Schoolboy error, right there.

I know he's a bit of a donut but I will treat everyone with some level of maturity if possible

comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
I know he's a bit of a donut but I will treat everyone with some level of maturity if possible


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

I understand where you’re coming from, and it’s admirable that you have the patience to try and communicate with him on a rational level.

However, as you rightly say, he’s a bit of a donut to put it mildly and he’ll always bring the debate back down to his level. 👍