Good, give up then. Ok>

The papers are always quoting City's wage-bill but they convieniently omit to mention the figures include everyone on the payroll from the cleaners upwards and that accounts for the wages of 500 people.

Still can't get my head around Torres costing 50 million to be honest.

Makes RVP look like he cost a packet of peanuts and a can of Fanta.

Don't forget the pikey costing roughly the same as Aguero,at least Torres has been a class act

Boris to make it clear, you haven't made me give up I just can't be bothered.

You obviously aren't one to listen or in this case read what others say.

Please feel free to beleive that Utd pay Rooney 250k per week and RVP 220k per week

That's down to you.

But even seeing it written down makes me laugh, the Glazers would never sanction this.

From what I can gather so far Darren we've spent £11m this summer than last

Don't forget the pikey costing roughly the same as Aguero,at least Torres has been a class act

---

Torres class act ?

Who's the pikey Paul?

"Has Roman covered losses made in previous years with his own money?"

According to you, yes.

You have stated that the club has had at least 8 yrs of annual losses. And that the club has no "debt" (ie at the end of EVERY business yr, the P/L sheet has a MINUMUM VALUE of zero) .

So we assume that share equity to the value of each annual debt is being issued by the club, and then purchased by the existing shareholders. And that Roman is the effective total shareholder.

If this is NOT the case, then please feel free to educate us specifically how each annual loss (ie creditors owing) has been cleared.

Okay RODB


Will the debt collector be knocking on our door asking for that £500m or so we've not paid?

"Will the debt collector be knocking on our door asking for that £500m or so we've not paid?"

WHY would that happen ??
YOU have claimed the club has NO "debt" .

Is this still your claim ??

Who's the pikey Paul?

Tall scruffy greasy longhaired west ham forward

I looked it up and including the Jan transfer window Chelsea spent a net of £40m (£60 out £20 in) whereas this summer it's £74m net (£82m out £8m in).

So £34m difference, plus the wages of these players and loss of CL football money, no way will Chelsea post a profit again. Not unless there is a huge sponsorship deal negotiated.

Torres class act

I'd say he was before his injuries and losing pace & confidence

"WHY would that happen ??
YOU have claimed the club has NO "debt" .

Is this still your claim ??
"

No it is your claim that the losses posted in the past 8 years still carry on

I claimed that Roman had covered these debts but apparently you thought I was wrong

Oh you mean the horse Paul

"So £34m difference, plus the wages of these players and loss of CL football money, no way will Chelsea post a profit again. Not unless there is a huge sponsorship deal negotiated."

So what ??

According to Fat Ron, Roman will order the issuance of new share capital to the value of the loss, and then purchase it himself (as an "investment" ) .

"According to Fat Ron, Roman will order the issuance of new share capital to the value of the loss, and then purchase it himself (as an "investment" ) .
"


Nice twist my words. I said that we are starting to become self sufficient I did not say Roman covering our losses was a sufficient business model

"I claimed that Roman had covered these debts but apparently you thought I was wrong"

Not so.

I am asking for some more information on what the value of the annual losses were (1 quid, 1m, 100m etc) . And how they were cleared (so that the NET debt on the clubs' books is a MINIMUM of zero) .

All I have is your word.
When similar things are claimed about Spurs, I am at least able to refer people to specific annual accounts, 5 yr historic records etc.

I did here once that any losses paid off by Roman were taken as non-interest loans by the club in a private company. I doubt that's true, but if it were then were Roman to sell that would make Chelsea in about £500m debt to him.

"And how they were cleared"

They weren't "cleared" in the ffp sense they were "covered"

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

Obviously not with a stingy ass git in control of your club

"Nice twist my words."

NO twist.

If you understood what was written, you would know my comment on whether the player costs this season results in a LOSS is (to use a phrase) "not relevant" , since that loss will be paid off (in a manner to be confirmed) after the end of that business yr.

Oh you mean the horse Paul

Fecking shergar wouldn't cost 35 mill

I'm just wondering how Chelsea's inevitable losses will be covered within the rules of ffp? Same with City, who posted about a £90m loss.

"since that loss will be paid off (in a manner to be confirmed)"

WILL suggests in the future future. Were paid off is the correct phase. (but 200 comments on you still haven't understood that a loss made in 2005 is irrelevant to the figures of 2012)

Ooh great, a financial article! They NEVER get boring....