Chelsea lost £50m last year

In doing so they commented that the youthful profile of their squad means they will benefit from that large investment for years to come....so they went and spent £21m on someone they sold for £3m a few years back and will no doubt spend mega money on a striker this year.

so in answer to your question....FFP seems to count for sweet FA

Yea but we sold De Bruyne which went a long way to offset that.

you telling me that De Bruyne, bought for £7m more, sat on your bench for the last 6 months has gone for anywhere near £20m

Devon

Think he went for around £16millon

You're right

100,000,000 is like a telephone number isn't it

that much spent and you're only how many points ahead of the club that only signed facking fellaini in the summer? Quit yer crying

Iron man, Our net spend in the summer was one of the lowest in the league. If you don't understand FFP I'm sure someone will be happy to break it down for you.

And we're six points ahead of you. Same gap as Chelsea have above us.

"I cannot see any sign of it making the slightest difference to the biggest and richest clubs on the planet, who still seem to be talking in telephone numbers when making offers for players.
"

Probably because they make the most revenue which is that funny thing you use to balance the books

Yes, the fee is suppose to be around £17 million.

The ultimate punishment for falling foul of FFP rules is being excluded from UEFA competitions, as far as I'm aware none of the big European clubs have been penalised at all.. Monaco probably should be made an example of but it's easy to see why it all goes quiet when there's that much cash around.

FFP is a myth, the more you earn the more you can spend.

In simple terms Spurs cannot spend as much as Chelsea because you do not make as much revenue as Chelsea, that is not a fair or level playing field is it?

Iron Man.. Utd Man

Don`t you support a club that is something like half a billion in debt, so what would you know about finance.

comment by Iron Man.. Utd Man (U17162)
posted 9 hours, 28 minutes ago
You're right

100,000,000 is like a telephone number isn't it

that much spent and you're only how many points ahead of the club that only signed facking fellaini in the summer?Quit yer crying
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another dimwit that doesn't understand net spend.

"FFP is a myth, the more you earn the more you can spend."

The UEFA FFP has requirements on the TOTAL DEBT accrued by a club
Earn 100m, spend 100m, total debt = 0 : no problem.
Earn 300m, spend 400m, total losses = 100m : oh dear.

I think even the chavvies are struggling now, they know they cannot buy without selling, so they are trying to raise money by selling their prize assets to United. How the mighty have fallen.

comment by The RDBD (demoted to supporting the team managed by Pep Guardiola) (U1062)
posted 18 seconds ago
"FFP is a myth, the more you earn the more you can spend."

The UEFA FFP has requirements on the TOTAL DEBT accrued by a club
Earn 100m, spend 100m, total debt = 0 : no problem.
Earn 300m, spend 400m, total losses = 100m : oh dear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure or look at it this way

Earn 100m, spend 100m, total debt = 0 : no problem.
Earn 300m, spend 300m, total debt = 0 : no problem.

No wait, that's 200m more than the team that earns 100m can spend, oh dear, how is that fair?

FFP is a myth

This is about controlling debt, limiting a club that gets investment of competing with larger clubs.

As much as you like to think this will hinder Chelsea, it will actually hinder clubs trying to challenge the likes of Chelsea because whilst we spend more than most we also earn more than most and even if we cut back we will still be able to spend more than most.

Once Chelsky hit the total debt red line (which won't take too long at the current rate) , then UEFA will have to beat up for violating the FFP.

Whether they do beat you up significantly, is the acid test (same for Barca and Madrid) .

comment by The RDBD (demoted to supporting the team managed by Pep Guardiola) (U1062)
posted 18 seconds ago
Once Chelsky hit the total debt red line (which won't take too long at the current rate) , then UEFA will have to beat up for violating the FFP.

Whether they do beat you up significantly, is the acid test (same for Barca and Madrid) .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Truly you believe this, bless.

"Truly you believe this, bless."

Believe what ??

What I quoted you on, every aspect of it but particularly the Chelsea debt bit.

"What I quoted you on, every aspect of it but particularly the Chelsea debt bit."

1. The most recent Chelsky financial report shows an annual loss of 50m.
So in one season your club has made a loss that is close to half of Spurs' total debt (as of the last financial report) .
And in a year when Chelsky claimed record revenues.

Not the sign of a club that is managing itself as a going concern, is it.


2. Please feel to show us how the other part of my comment constitutes "belief" .

comment by The RDBD (demoted to supporting the team managed by Pep Guardiola) (U1062)
posted 40 seconds ago
"What I quoted you on, every aspect of it but particularly the Chelsea debt bit."

1. The most recent Chelsky financial report shows an annual loss of 50m.
So in one season your club has made a loss that is close to half of Spurs' total debt (as of the last financial report) .
And in a year when Chelsky claimed record revenues.

Not the sign of a club that is managing itself as a going concern, is it.


2. Please feel to show us how the other part of my comment constitutes "belief" .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Incorrect, we made a profit the previous year, we made a 50 million loss for the year, an annual loss is 50 million every year. The "FFP" rules allow for this.

Sure we made a loss on record revenues but the fact we made a profit on lower revenues the year before should tell you at least one thing. That is that football finances are not as simple as you think. A bit like football in general.

2. I assumed that because you wrote it, that it was your belief, if you have chosen to write things that you do not believe I have made a mistake, I would not feel awkward about that.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

Those are the losses allowed.
The UEFA edicts are more stringent than the PL.


"Sure we made a loss on record revenues but the fact we made a profit on lower revenues the year before should tell you at least one thing."

It tells me that Chelsky is a high cost enterprise.
And that even in the face of increasing revenues, the enterprise is spending 50m more than it earns.

comment by The RDBD (demoted to supporting the team managed by Pep Guardiola) (U1062)
posted 1 minute ago
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

Those are the losses allowed.
The UEFA edicts are more stringent than the PL.


"Sure we made a loss on record revenues but the fact we made a profit on lower revenues the year before should tell you at least one thing."

It tells me that Chelsky is a high cost enterprise.
And that even in the face of increasing revenues, the enterprise is spending 50m more than it earns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All football teams are high cost enterprises. And yes we lost 50m last year but that brings me back to my original response.

"All football teams are high cost enterprises."

Some are very high cost compared to their market peers.
And the total debt they have accumulated too.

Of course, it costs to compete at the highest level. High risk, high rewards, low risk low rewards.