@merrysupersteve
"You aren't even close to meeting regulations"
what exactly are you basing that one on?
@maestro - thanks i was feeling a bit peckish.
The fact that when the data wa slast published, only 4 PL teams were profitable by the criteria laid down by FFP. Guess who the top 2 worst offending clubs were? And these results were based on the period before your ridiculous expenditure over the last 18 months.
Lets just wait for our new end of year financial report, and when the FFP comes in to play in 2015, and see what happens. Everything else till then is just pure assumptions.
Bah, specious logic. There's loads of nuances and loopholes in FFP. I trust Roman's henchmen.
''1) CFC 10/11 loss (last year before FFP) was £67m, but that included exceptional items of £42m, so underlying loss was “only" £25m.''
''2) FFP allows some costs to be excluded (youth, depreciation, community), estimated at £18m, so CFC 10/11 loss was just £7m (in FFP terms).''
''3) FFP allows total losses of €45m (£36m) for first 2 years (11/12 + 12/13), if benefactor covers losses, so clubs have some leeway.''
''4) 11/12 CFC revenue boosted by CL win (£12m more prize money + gate receipts + sponsor bonuses), tho partly offset by player/coach bonuses.''
''5) CFC 11/12 PL revenue was £3m lower (6th place), but more from FA Cup win. Profit on player sales also likely to be lower than 10/11.''
''6) CFC 11/12 commercial revenue should have increased, not just from main Adidas & Samsung deals, but also secondary sponsors.''
''7) CFC 11/12 will be hit by pay-off to AVB (£12m) and higher player amortisation, due to other purchases, e.g. Mata, Lukaku, Meireles, etc.''
''8) FFP allows exclusion of wages for players signed before June 2010, if break-even deficit only due to this factor, which will help CFC.''
''9) All in all CFC 11/12 per FFP rules still a loss, but within striking distance of FFP.''
''10) CFC 12/13 Hazard £32m & Hulk £38m obvs hurt FFP, but if 5 year contracts, annual impact only £12m player amortisation (£70m / 5 years).''
''11) CFC higher wages also a factor, but offset by departures (Anelka, Drogba, Kalou, Malouda?, Boswinga, Ferreira?, etc).''
''12) CL money up 20% in 12-15 cycle. CFC got £49m from CL last season – they (& others) simply cannot afford to miss out on qualification.''
''13) CFC could still pull a few irons out of the fire, e.g. stadium naming rights.''
''14) So Hazard & Hulk obviously make it more difficult for CFC to meet FFP (it was already a struggle), but may be closer than most believe.''
Merry or whatever your name is. You are beginning to annoy me. Why are you taking pills for someone else's headache? You can go and celebrate. We don't care about any god damn rules. Maybe you are too scared of our latest dealings. Just go and hide your face.
Maybe is not about buying success, is now FFP rules right?
Bitter fans, always have something to say
Why are you taking pills for someone else's headache?
------------------------------------
I like this.
that gives no indiciation as to how close we are, so you are just making assumptions. let me hit you with some facts to make you look a little silly:
last year we made an operating loss of around £68m, down from £71m the previous year. this is according to our statutory accounts, and about 1/3 of that loss is expenditure on youth development and on fixed assets which are not accounted for in the FFP break-even calculations.
our turnover has also been increasing year on year at a rate of about £20m a year.
if at worst both those trends continue, and I have no reason to presume they wont, then the by the end of next year our FFP relevant loss will be around £20m, and breaking even the year after. well within the deadline. couple that with the fact that FFP allows a loss of around £40m over the next 3 years, I think we are safe. I trust this allays your previous concerns and that we will be hearing no more of it.
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/chelseas-financial-fair-play-challenge.html?m=1
Here is an interesting article. Bare in mind how much you have spent since. Yeah, good luck with FFP.
Hers's an idea steve, why don't you actually read the comments we have posted, instead of randomly searching "Chelsea FFP" on Google and the posting the link here, and just merely mentioning FFP.
I've read the posts you made, but they all seem to think that the near 200 million you have spent on players in the last 18 months won't affect you. And the link i posted was actually rather informative, and certainly addressed issues that you guys, accidentally I presume, overlooked.
merry
labelled a $pud...oh the shame..
worse things happen at s......oh no actually they don't
If you bothered to read the article that you posted the link to, you would've come across this:
"So, adding up all those ups and downs brings us (spookily) to break-even. The key point here is that all of these actions have already happened with the sole exception of the naming rights, so it is little wonder that Chelsea’s officials demonstrated such confidence when announcing their latest loss. Of course, there may be other factors affecting the club’s financials, but remember that the acceptable deviations will give them plenty of room to manoeuvre."
As for the increased expenditure, we won the CL and FA cup this year, so we benefit from the prize money/tv money, and the countless number of plastic fans, we'll be playing in more tournaments, we've signed a deal with Sauber.
I don't know where you've got the £200m from, as the Torres and Luiz deals were included in the article you kindly posted the link to.
"the near 200 million you have spent on players in the last 18 months won't affect you"
if you actually understood anything about the rules you are harping on about instead of just google knowledge you wouldn't be continuing to defend your position.
for example you (and the article you have now based all your knowledge on) probably don't know that transfer fees are usually amortised across the length of a players contract.
to help you understand this, as you clearly struggle, i will use a very simple example:
we hypothetically buy Hulk for £40m on a 5 year contract. this shows up on our financial statement as £8m per year (which is 40/5 if you havent done your maths GCSE yet).
and if you actually read the article you posted, (which i admit i just skimmed too) the theme seems to be how Roman and his team will use all the legal tricks in the book to enable the statements to look favourable and allow us to meet the rules. and if so, so what? all big corporations do the same and if you look at their management accounts the story will be completely different.
bottom line is, once again, we will meet the reg's. you can't seem to accept that or any logical reasoning we have provided.
Surely spending 50m on torres is a lesson on why u shouldnt blow 40 odd million on hulk.
U could buy 2 or 3 top class players for that sort of money instead of taking a masdive gamble on 1 player.
Im not going to pretend i watch a lot of portugese football. I dont. All i see of hulk is his champions league games. To me he looks very inconsistent. Incosistency is surely not something u pay 40m for!
To me most of u are probably basing ur opinions on you tube clips and the fact he has a cool sounding name. For me, if he was that good he wouldnt be still playing in portugal at the age of 25.
All clubs fans are the same though. We have fans proclaiming gaston ramirez is the best thing since sliced bread. All i can think is where are all these fans watching bologna games!
you make some good points mellor but just to retort: i'd like you to give examples of the "2 or 3 top class players" that we could get for £40m - especially with the Chelsea tax on top?
as to you saying he wouldn't be still playing in portgual at 25 - that's just a silly comment.
a) 25 is still young for a typical football player's development curve - it is generally thought that players peak between 27-30.
b) many players also bloom late. Didier Drogba only signed his first professional contract at 21 and was playing in france until 26.
c) Hulk has been subject to bids from clubs from "bigger leagues" for the last 3 seasons so it's not for the want of trying.
but i agree many fans do base their knowledge on youtube, bandwagon jumping and most awfully Football Manager. this annoys me as do the fans who say "should we buy x, y or z? why not all 3! and get rid of all the players i dont like!" completely unrealistic.
You's have been linked with jovetic, a very classy player who would cost half the price of hulk. The young lad munain at bilbao is another top class talent that could be picked up for about 20m. There are players out there, much cheaper than what porto are asking for hulk.
The other clubs that have shown intersst in him cant of been that interested or they would have signed him. Your not telling me that madrid, man city, milan, bayern etc dont have the cash to go out and buy a player if they really want him.
Anyway im not knocking the lad. Hes a good player and if you get him im sure he'll have a decent impact on your team, but for me 35-40m is far too much for him.
Your squad needs a good bit of work to catch up with the manchester clubs, thats my opinion anyway. 40m on 2 or 3 players would be more beneficial than just bringing in hulk.
fair enough i actually agree that 40m would be too much... not seen much of jovetic or munain but even if we did sign both we would then get panned for spend so much for a player on the bench.
IMO, and contrary to popular belief, even in Ambramovich era we've not been a club that stock piles players (a la Man C). And apart from the first season spending to fast track us up to the level on Man U/ Arsenal, we have actually only bought 3 or 4 1st team squad players a season, more often than not replacing some outgoing players. this is normal.
as to him not moving, porto have been holding fast especially with his release clause. and, something that i agree with- just flashing the cash doesnt always work and if porto wanted to keep him and he didn't mind continuing his development at a club he feels he owes loyalty to for plucking him out of japanese obscurity , why should he leave?
Sign in if you want to comment
Torres and Hulk
Page 2 of 2
posted on 15/6/12
@merrysupersteve
"You aren't even close to meeting regulations"
what exactly are you basing that one on?
@maestro - thanks i was feeling a bit peckish.
posted on 15/6/12
The fact that when the data wa slast published, only 4 PL teams were profitable by the criteria laid down by FFP. Guess who the top 2 worst offending clubs were? And these results were based on the period before your ridiculous expenditure over the last 18 months.
posted on 15/6/12
Lets just wait for our new end of year financial report, and when the FFP comes in to play in 2015, and see what happens. Everything else till then is just pure assumptions.
posted on 15/6/12
Bah, specious logic. There's loads of nuances and loopholes in FFP. I trust Roman's henchmen.
posted on 15/6/12
''1) CFC 10/11 loss (last year before FFP) was £67m, but that included exceptional items of £42m, so underlying loss was “only" £25m.''
''2) FFP allows some costs to be excluded (youth, depreciation, community), estimated at £18m, so CFC 10/11 loss was just £7m (in FFP terms).''
''3) FFP allows total losses of €45m (£36m) for first 2 years (11/12 + 12/13), if benefactor covers losses, so clubs have some leeway.''
''4) 11/12 CFC revenue boosted by CL win (£12m more prize money + gate receipts + sponsor bonuses), tho partly offset by player/coach bonuses.''
''5) CFC 11/12 PL revenue was £3m lower (6th place), but more from FA Cup win. Profit on player sales also likely to be lower than 10/11.''
''6) CFC 11/12 commercial revenue should have increased, not just from main Adidas & Samsung deals, but also secondary sponsors.''
''7) CFC 11/12 will be hit by pay-off to AVB (£12m) and higher player amortisation, due to other purchases, e.g. Mata, Lukaku, Meireles, etc.''
''8) FFP allows exclusion of wages for players signed before June 2010, if break-even deficit only due to this factor, which will help CFC.''
''9) All in all CFC 11/12 per FFP rules still a loss, but within striking distance of FFP.''
''10) CFC 12/13 Hazard £32m & Hulk £38m obvs hurt FFP, but if 5 year contracts, annual impact only £12m player amortisation (£70m / 5 years).''
''11) CFC higher wages also a factor, but offset by departures (Anelka, Drogba, Kalou, Malouda?, Boswinga, Ferreira?, etc).''
''12) CL money up 20% in 12-15 cycle. CFC got £49m from CL last season – they (& others) simply cannot afford to miss out on qualification.''
''13) CFC could still pull a few irons out of the fire, e.g. stadium naming rights.''
''14) So Hazard & Hulk obviously make it more difficult for CFC to meet FFP (it was already a struggle), but may be closer than most believe.''
posted on 15/6/12
Merry or whatever your name is. You are beginning to annoy me. Why are you taking pills for someone else's headache? You can go and celebrate. We don't care about any god damn rules. Maybe you are too scared of our latest dealings. Just go and hide your face.
Maybe is not about buying success, is now FFP rules right?
Bitter fans, always have something to say
posted on 15/6/12
posted on 15/6/12
Why are you taking pills for someone else's headache?
------------------------------------
I like this.
posted on 15/6/12
that gives no indiciation as to how close we are, so you are just making assumptions. let me hit you with some facts to make you look a little silly:
last year we made an operating loss of around £68m, down from £71m the previous year. this is according to our statutory accounts, and about 1/3 of that loss is expenditure on youth development and on fixed assets which are not accounted for in the FFP break-even calculations.
our turnover has also been increasing year on year at a rate of about £20m a year.
if at worst both those trends continue, and I have no reason to presume they wont, then the by the end of next year our FFP relevant loss will be around £20m, and breaking even the year after. well within the deadline. couple that with the fact that FFP allows a loss of around £40m over the next 3 years, I think we are safe. I trust this allays your previous concerns and that we will be hearing no more of it.
posted on 15/6/12
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/chelseas-financial-fair-play-challenge.html?m=1
Here is an interesting article. Bare in mind how much you have spent since. Yeah, good luck with FFP.
posted on 15/6/12
Hers's an idea steve, why don't you actually read the comments we have posted, instead of randomly searching "Chelsea FFP" on Google and the posting the link here, and just merely mentioning FFP.
posted on 15/6/12
* Here's
posted on 15/6/12
Merry! Thanks too
posted on 15/6/12
I've read the posts you made, but they all seem to think that the near 200 million you have spent on players in the last 18 months won't affect you. And the link i posted was actually rather informative, and certainly addressed issues that you guys, accidentally I presume, overlooked.
posted on 15/6/12
merry
labelled a $pud...oh the shame..
worse things happen at s......oh no actually they don't
posted on 15/6/12
If you bothered to read the article that you posted the link to, you would've come across this:
"So, adding up all those ups and downs brings us (spookily) to break-even. The key point here is that all of these actions have already happened with the sole exception of the naming rights, so it is little wonder that Chelsea’s officials demonstrated such confidence when announcing their latest loss. Of course, there may be other factors affecting the club’s financials, but remember that the acceptable deviations will give them plenty of room to manoeuvre."
As for the increased expenditure, we won the CL and FA cup this year, so we benefit from the prize money/tv money, and the countless number of plastic fans, we'll be playing in more tournaments, we've signed a deal with Sauber.
I don't know where you've got the £200m from, as the Torres and Luiz deals were included in the article you kindly posted the link to.
posted on 15/6/12
"the near 200 million you have spent on players in the last 18 months won't affect you"
if you actually understood anything about the rules you are harping on about instead of just google knowledge you wouldn't be continuing to defend your position.
for example you (and the article you have now based all your knowledge on) probably don't know that transfer fees are usually amortised across the length of a players contract.
to help you understand this, as you clearly struggle, i will use a very simple example:
we hypothetically buy Hulk for £40m on a 5 year contract. this shows up on our financial statement as £8m per year (which is 40/5 if you havent done your maths GCSE yet).
and if you actually read the article you posted, (which i admit i just skimmed too) the theme seems to be how Roman and his team will use all the legal tricks in the book to enable the statements to look favourable and allow us to meet the rules. and if so, so what? all big corporations do the same and if you look at their management accounts the story will be completely different.
bottom line is, once again, we will meet the reg's. you can't seem to accept that or any logical reasoning we have provided.
posted on 16/6/12
Surely spending 50m on torres is a lesson on why u shouldnt blow 40 odd million on hulk.
U could buy 2 or 3 top class players for that sort of money instead of taking a masdive gamble on 1 player.
Im not going to pretend i watch a lot of portugese football. I dont. All i see of hulk is his champions league games. To me he looks very inconsistent. Incosistency is surely not something u pay 40m for!
To me most of u are probably basing ur opinions on you tube clips and the fact he has a cool sounding name. For me, if he was that good he wouldnt be still playing in portugal at the age of 25.
All clubs fans are the same though. We have fans proclaiming gaston ramirez is the best thing since sliced bread. All i can think is where are all these fans watching bologna games!
posted on 16/6/12
you make some good points mellor but just to retort: i'd like you to give examples of the "2 or 3 top class players" that we could get for £40m - especially with the Chelsea tax on top?
as to you saying he wouldn't be still playing in portgual at 25 - that's just a silly comment.
a) 25 is still young for a typical football player's development curve - it is generally thought that players peak between 27-30.
b) many players also bloom late. Didier Drogba only signed his first professional contract at 21 and was playing in france until 26.
c) Hulk has been subject to bids from clubs from "bigger leagues" for the last 3 seasons so it's not for the want of trying.
but i agree many fans do base their knowledge on youtube, bandwagon jumping and most awfully Football Manager. this annoys me as do the fans who say "should we buy x, y or z? why not all 3! and get rid of all the players i dont like!" completely unrealistic.
posted on 16/6/12
You's have been linked with jovetic, a very classy player who would cost half the price of hulk. The young lad munain at bilbao is another top class talent that could be picked up for about 20m. There are players out there, much cheaper than what porto are asking for hulk.
The other clubs that have shown intersst in him cant of been that interested or they would have signed him. Your not telling me that madrid, man city, milan, bayern etc dont have the cash to go out and buy a player if they really want him.
Anyway im not knocking the lad. Hes a good player and if you get him im sure he'll have a decent impact on your team, but for me 35-40m is far too much for him.
Your squad needs a good bit of work to catch up with the manchester clubs, thats my opinion anyway. 40m on 2 or 3 players would be more beneficial than just bringing in hulk.
posted on 16/6/12
fair enough i actually agree that 40m would be too much... not seen much of jovetic or munain but even if we did sign both we would then get panned for spend so much for a player on the bench.
IMO, and contrary to popular belief, even in Ambramovich era we've not been a club that stock piles players (a la Man C). And apart from the first season spending to fast track us up to the level on Man U/ Arsenal, we have actually only bought 3 or 4 1st team squad players a season, more often than not replacing some outgoing players. this is normal.
as to him not moving, porto have been holding fast especially with his release clause. and, something that i agree with- just flashing the cash doesnt always work and if porto wanted to keep him and he didn't mind continuing his development at a club he feels he owes loyalty to for plucking him out of japanese obscurity , why should he leave?
Page 2 of 2