comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 hours, 3 minutes ago
Mad how people just lie. Why lie on an Internet forum I don’t get it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's just become standard by many of the deadbeats on this site now Nick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you go to the Bonetti memorial BB?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Afraid not Quad!
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 10 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
This is such bollox. If I sold my car to you and said that I will sell it to you on the one condition that you buy new tyres every year there is nothing i can do to compell you to buy those tyres even if you promised you would
There is no sanction or covenant a seller can enforce on the future running of a club that they will have sold.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not the point. £1bn over 1,5,10,20, more, net, gross years? Neither article not OP is specific so it amounts to a lot of bollix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I smell fear
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate, seriously? I’m Celtic.
Now care to clarify the spending period so we can decide?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By end of August. We buy Mbappe VVD Lewa De Bruyne Dias and .... Mo Johnston
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Such important detail. Missing from your link too so loada scheite.
Ashley will say whatever he needs to
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 12 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 29 minutes ago
This is such bollox. If I sold my car to you and said that I will sell it to you on the one condition that you buy new tyres every year there is nothing i can do to compell you to buy those tyres even if you promised you would
There is no sanction or covenant a seller can enforce on the future running of a club that they will have sold.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, but if it is stated in a business proposal associated with a successful bid then its not great to walk it back afterwards. I don't think any owner will want to be hated by the fanbase......not straight away anyway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They won't walk it back, they'll just cook some books. Easy to do over a 10 year period and the money doesn't even have to all go to players.
They could build a new stadium, which is still to their advantage anyway.
People obsess over new stadium. When developing commercial side is just as important
Compare Chelsea and Arsenal revenue after Emirates opened
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 4 hours ago
People obsess over new stadium. When developing commercial side is just as important
Compare Chelsea and Arsenal revenue after Emirates opened
----------------------------------------------------------------------
with just 26k season ticket holders, you don't need a bigger stadium.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 4 hours ago
People obsess over new stadium. When developing commercial side is just as important
Compare Chelsea and Arsenal revenue after Emirates opened
----------------------------------------------------------------------
with just 26k season ticket holders, you don't need a bigger stadium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't really thought that comment through have you!
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 4 hours ago
People obsess over new stadium. When developing commercial side is just as important
Compare Chelsea and Arsenal revenue after Emirates opened
----------------------------------------------------------------------
with just 26k season ticket holders, you don't need a bigger stadium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't really thought that comment through have you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can basically write this under pretty much every other comment on this article..
My favourite one is "Where are we gonna find mug willing to invest ~£1billion with us"
I then wonder what rock this person has been under for the last week, like have you missed the whole process of us having over 20 bidders and then PICKING our preferred ones all with multi billion pound bids.
Honestly these poor spuddlings must be pulling their hair out
Then the second set of funny comments - "Oh OP you are such an attentionseeker" as they write their 3rd comment on the article
Think opposition fans will need some sort of therapy after this as they had a mantra of "Chelsea are going bankrupt, Chelsea are going bankrupt" and what happens is the exact opposite and we actually find ourselves in a better position financial to were we where a few weeks ago
*financially to where we were
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 4 hours ago
People obsess over new stadium. When developing commercial side is just as important
Compare Chelsea and Arsenal revenue after Emirates opened
----------------------------------------------------------------------
with just 26k season ticket holders, you don't need a bigger stadium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't really thought that comment through have you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to admit Brum that statement was comical!! Quad might have a point about smelling fear.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 day, 12 hours ago
No offence OP but what a scheite article and attention seeking headline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no offence OP...
Other fans...Spurs ones mostly, are absolutely fackin livid that we've not gone under a bus...
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.
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 ?
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 1 hour, 28 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 ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 4 hours, 3 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 ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good luck to City and Newcastle I say Sandy - if it stops the Red tops buying their way to success, when everyone was moaning about them, the better
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 18 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2016/17 +£15.3M
2017/18 +£62M
2018/19 -£96.6m
2019/20 + £32.5m
So profitable three seasons out four, pre 2020/21, a full year of Covid
You seem to be skewering the facts to fit your narrative.
We generate a lot of money and will continue to buy top players. Maybe even more so with a cash injection
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 6 hours, 28 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 ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian Sandy very bitter today
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 18 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2016/17 +£15.3M
2017/18 +£62M
2018/19 -£96.6m
2019/20 + £32.5m
So profitable three seasons out four, pre 2020/21, a full year of Covid
You seem to be skewering the facts to fit your narrative.
We generate a lot of money and will continue to buy top players. Maybe even more so with a cash injection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
skewing the narrative? says the guy ignoring the last set of figures showing losses of £146m.
I have already said CFC are well run...but losses are losses and the debt needs dealing with, and that has a cost associated with it. With Roman, your debt was free. That is unlikley with new ownership, and this cost is one of the realities CFc will probably have to deal with.
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.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 18 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2016/17 +£15.3M
2017/18 +£62M
2018/19 -£96.6m
2019/20 + £32.5m
So profitable three seasons out four, pre 2020/21, a full year of Covid
You seem to be skewering the facts to fit your narrative.
We generate a lot of money and will continue to buy top players. Maybe even more so with a cash injection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
skewing the narrative? says the guy ignoring the last set of figures showing losses of £146m.
I have already said CFC are well run...but losses are losses and the debt needs dealing with, and that has a cost associated with it. With Roman, your debt was free. That is unlikley with new ownership, and this cost is one of the realities CFc will probably have to deal with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said that we made money three seasons out of four pre 2020/21 which was hugely effected by Covid. CaN you not see why Covid might have had some effect on many clubs not just Chelsea.
And the fact that multiple billionaires want to buy us show we can break even AND win trophies, which is what we have done since 2016 until Covid struck.
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.
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 18 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2016/17 +£15.3M
2017/18 +£62M
2018/19 -£96.6m
2019/20 + £32.5m
So profitable three seasons out four, pre 2020/21, a full year of Covid
You seem to be skewering the facts to fit your narrative.
We generate a lot of money and will continue to buy top players. Maybe even more so with a cash injection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
skewing the narrative? says the guy ignoring the last set of figures showing losses of £146m.
I have already said CFC are well run...but losses are losses and the debt needs dealing with, and that has a cost associated with it. With Roman, your debt was free. That is unlikley with new ownership, and this cost is one of the realities CFc will probably have to deal with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said that we made money three seasons out of four pre 2020/21 which was hugely effected by Covid. CaN you not see why Covid might have had some effect on many clubs not just Chelsea.
And the fact that multiple billionaires want to buy us show we can break even AND win trophies, which is what we have done since 2016 until Covid struck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO if you are going to cherry pick the pre-covid years when talking about dealing with debt, dont accuse me of skewing the figures, because whether its covid related or not, it is a debt that needs dealing with.
Spurs had £150m debt from covid and have refinanced to pay it down....and this costs clubs normally unless your owner hands out a free loan. Roman will have covered it off at no cost probably....new owners may not cover your debts.
and lets not pretend Chelsea do not make losses:
14/15 -£25m
15/16 - £71m
16/17 +£15m
17/18 +£62m (selling hazard)
18/19 -£97m
19/20 +£35m (transfer ban)
20/21 -£145m (covid)
The 2 seasons in that lot where you have made reasonable profits have been when you sold Hazard for £135m and when you had a transfer ban so bought no one.
The point i have made is not that Cheslea are badly run or a loss making machine but that most clubs will not post huge losses because their owners will not let them spend that much if it will create big losses, Liverpool don't, Spurs don't, Arsenal don't. And where you do amount debt (and in the period above it shows +£225m losses) then that debt has a cost - either through financing or by paying off through reduced spending - These are normal financial realities CFC did not have to worry about with Roman, but may well have to under new ownership and if you look around at American or consortium ownership, rarely do they actively encourage loss making as a means to grow or cover those losses with owner cash injections.
It also makes decision making harder...the need to sell before you buy, having to consider selective large sales to raise money for a big signing, making room in the wage budget etc All stuff you barely had to worry about in the past, but is stuff that is a normal financial reality.
Chelsea will likely remain strong as fundamentally the finances are decent BUT they will have to work harder for it.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 50 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were unbeaten at Three Point Lane 1987-2003 before Roman joined.
And smashed you at the Bridge from 1990 until 2003 when our founding father joined
Sign in if you want to comment
£1 billlion minimum spend on Chelsea
Page 2 of 4
posted on 28/3/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 hours, 3 minutes ago
Mad how people just lie. Why lie on an Internet forum I don’t get it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's just become standard by many of the deadbeats on this site now Nick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you go to the Bonetti memorial BB?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Afraid not Quad!
posted on 28/3/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 10 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
This is such bollox. If I sold my car to you and said that I will sell it to you on the one condition that you buy new tyres every year there is nothing i can do to compell you to buy those tyres even if you promised you would
There is no sanction or covenant a seller can enforce on the future running of a club that they will have sold.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not the point. £1bn over 1,5,10,20, more, net, gross years? Neither article not OP is specific so it amounts to a lot of bollix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I smell fear
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate, seriously? I’m Celtic.
Now care to clarify the spending period so we can decide?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By end of August. We buy Mbappe VVD Lewa De Bruyne Dias and .... Mo Johnston
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Such important detail. Missing from your link too so loada scheite.
posted on 28/3/22
Ashley will say whatever he needs to
posted on 28/3/22
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 12 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 29 minutes ago
This is such bollox. If I sold my car to you and said that I will sell it to you on the one condition that you buy new tyres every year there is nothing i can do to compell you to buy those tyres even if you promised you would
There is no sanction or covenant a seller can enforce on the future running of a club that they will have sold.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, but if it is stated in a business proposal associated with a successful bid then its not great to walk it back afterwards. I don't think any owner will want to be hated by the fanbase......not straight away anyway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They won't walk it back, they'll just cook some books. Easy to do over a 10 year period and the money doesn't even have to all go to players.
They could build a new stadium, which is still to their advantage anyway.
posted on 28/3/22
People obsess over new stadium. When developing commercial side is just as important
Compare Chelsea and Arsenal revenue after Emirates opened
posted on 28/3/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 4 hours ago
People obsess over new stadium. When developing commercial side is just as important
Compare Chelsea and Arsenal revenue after Emirates opened
----------------------------------------------------------------------
with just 26k season ticket holders, you don't need a bigger stadium.
posted on 28/3/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 4 hours ago
People obsess over new stadium. When developing commercial side is just as important
Compare Chelsea and Arsenal revenue after Emirates opened
----------------------------------------------------------------------
with just 26k season ticket holders, you don't need a bigger stadium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't really thought that comment through have you!
posted on 28/3/22
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 4 hours ago
People obsess over new stadium. When developing commercial side is just as important
Compare Chelsea and Arsenal revenue after Emirates opened
----------------------------------------------------------------------
with just 26k season ticket holders, you don't need a bigger stadium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't really thought that comment through have you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can basically write this under pretty much every other comment on this article..
My favourite one is "Where are we gonna find mug willing to invest ~£1billion with us"
I then wonder what rock this person has been under for the last week, like have you missed the whole process of us having over 20 bidders and then PICKING our preferred ones all with multi billion pound bids.
Honestly these poor spuddlings must be pulling their hair out
Then the second set of funny comments - "Oh OP you are such an attentionseeker" as they write their 3rd comment on the article
Think opposition fans will need some sort of therapy after this as they had a mantra of "Chelsea are going bankrupt, Chelsea are going bankrupt" and what happens is the exact opposite and we actually find ourselves in a better position financial to were we where a few weeks ago
posted on 28/3/22
*financially to where we were
posted on 29/3/22
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 4 hours ago
People obsess over new stadium. When developing commercial side is just as important
Compare Chelsea and Arsenal revenue after Emirates opened
----------------------------------------------------------------------
with just 26k season ticket holders, you don't need a bigger stadium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't really thought that comment through have you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to admit Brum that statement was comical!! Quad might have a point about smelling fear.
posted on 29/3/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 day, 12 hours ago
No offence OP but what a scheite article and attention seeking headline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no offence OP...
posted on 29/3/22
Other fans...Spurs ones mostly, are absolutely fackin livid that we've not gone under a bus...
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.
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 ?
posted on 29/3/22
posted on 29/3/22
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 1 hour, 28 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 ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 29/3/22
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 4 hours, 3 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 ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good luck to City and Newcastle I say Sandy - if it stops the Red tops buying their way to success, when everyone was moaning about them, the better
posted on 29/3/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 18 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2016/17 +£15.3M
2017/18 +£62M
2018/19 -£96.6m
2019/20 + £32.5m
So profitable three seasons out four, pre 2020/21, a full year of Covid
You seem to be skewering the facts to fit your narrative.
We generate a lot of money and will continue to buy top players. Maybe even more so with a cash injection
posted on 29/3/22
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 6 hours, 28 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 ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian Sandy very bitter today
posted on 29/3/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 18 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2016/17 +£15.3M
2017/18 +£62M
2018/19 -£96.6m
2019/20 + £32.5m
So profitable three seasons out four, pre 2020/21, a full year of Covid
You seem to be skewering the facts to fit your narrative.
We generate a lot of money and will continue to buy top players. Maybe even more so with a cash injection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
skewing the narrative? says the guy ignoring the last set of figures showing losses of £146m.
I have already said CFC are well run...but losses are losses and the debt needs dealing with, and that has a cost associated with it. With Roman, your debt was free. That is unlikley with new ownership, and this cost is one of the realities CFc will probably have to deal with.
posted on 29/3/22
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.
posted on 30/3/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 18 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2016/17 +£15.3M
2017/18 +£62M
2018/19 -£96.6m
2019/20 + £32.5m
So profitable three seasons out four, pre 2020/21, a full year of Covid
You seem to be skewering the facts to fit your narrative.
We generate a lot of money and will continue to buy top players. Maybe even more so with a cash injection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
skewing the narrative? says the guy ignoring the last set of figures showing losses of £146m.
I have already said CFC are well run...but losses are losses and the debt needs dealing with, and that has a cost associated with it. With Roman, your debt was free. That is unlikley with new ownership, and this cost is one of the realities CFc will probably have to deal with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said that we made money three seasons out of four pre 2020/21 which was hugely effected by Covid. CaN you not see why Covid might have had some effect on many clubs not just Chelsea.
And the fact that multiple billionaires want to buy us show we can break even AND win trophies, which is what we have done since 2016 until Covid struck.
posted on 30/3/22
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.
posted on 30/3/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 18 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2016/17 +£15.3M
2017/18 +£62M
2018/19 -£96.6m
2019/20 + £32.5m
So profitable three seasons out four, pre 2020/21, a full year of Covid
You seem to be skewering the facts to fit your narrative.
We generate a lot of money and will continue to buy top players. Maybe even more so with a cash injection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
skewing the narrative? says the guy ignoring the last set of figures showing losses of £146m.
I have already said CFC are well run...but losses are losses and the debt needs dealing with, and that has a cost associated with it. With Roman, your debt was free. That is unlikley with new ownership, and this cost is one of the realities CFc will probably have to deal with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said that we made money three seasons out of four pre 2020/21 which was hugely effected by Covid. CaN you not see why Covid might have had some effect on many clubs not just Chelsea.
And the fact that multiple billionaires want to buy us show we can break even AND win trophies, which is what we have done since 2016 until Covid struck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO if you are going to cherry pick the pre-covid years when talking about dealing with debt, dont accuse me of skewing the figures, because whether its covid related or not, it is a debt that needs dealing with.
Spurs had £150m debt from covid and have refinanced to pay it down....and this costs clubs normally unless your owner hands out a free loan. Roman will have covered it off at no cost probably....new owners may not cover your debts.
and lets not pretend Chelsea do not make losses:
14/15 -£25m
15/16 - £71m
16/17 +£15m
17/18 +£62m (selling hazard)
18/19 -£97m
19/20 +£35m (transfer ban)
20/21 -£145m (covid)
The 2 seasons in that lot where you have made reasonable profits have been when you sold Hazard for £135m and when you had a transfer ban so bought no one.
The point i have made is not that Cheslea are badly run or a loss making machine but that most clubs will not post huge losses because their owners will not let them spend that much if it will create big losses, Liverpool don't, Spurs don't, Arsenal don't. And where you do amount debt (and in the period above it shows +£225m losses) then that debt has a cost - either through financing or by paying off through reduced spending - These are normal financial realities CFC did not have to worry about with Roman, but may well have to under new ownership and if you look around at American or consortium ownership, rarely do they actively encourage loss making as a means to grow or cover those losses with owner cash injections.
It also makes decision making harder...the need to sell before you buy, having to consider selective large sales to raise money for a big signing, making room in the wage budget etc All stuff you barely had to worry about in the past, but is stuff that is a normal financial reality.
Chelsea will likely remain strong as fundamentally the finances are decent BUT they will have to work harder for it.
posted on 30/3/22
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 50 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were unbeaten at Three Point Lane 1987-2003 before Roman joined.
And smashed you at the Bridge from 1990 until 2003 when our founding father joined
Page 2 of 4