What happens to Chelsea if they miss out on top 4 spot?

[SWP's back]

It's interesting that they say Di Matteo looks to suit Chelsea well yet he wasn't good enough for West Brom! What happens to Chelsea? Nothing. They'll have a season outside of the Champions League and look to get back in to the Top 4. Wankers like Terry and Lampard are far too loyal to their Club to look to move elsewhere.

Terry? lol, Chelsea gave him a huge payrise to stop him from coming to City or he'd have been here a couple of years ago.

They call him Mr Chelsea, they should save themselves the trouble and just call him Mr Terry, because John Terry is John Terry through and through. He cares about one person and that's John Terry.

I'm 99% confident he'd never have signed for City regardless of how much we'd offered him. He's a hero at Chelsea and will finish his career there.

The 1% won in this instant mate.

 

[intheknow!]

The only way I can see Chelsea meeting FFP is in this complex way:

1. Any money spent on infrastructure, ie a new ground, expansion of existing ground, a new training ground etc, is exempt from being counted as spending in FFP. So if Roman pays for a new ground to be built it doesn't count as expenditure. So I think that is why they want to build a new 60,000 plus ground (possibly Battersea power station)

2. A new ground will raise more revenue ala Arsenal. More revenue is what they need.

3. Abramovich is currently trying to buy Stamford Bridge from the CPO. If he buys it for a low price, then he can sell it on and raise a huge amount of money. Stamford Bridge is probably located on one of the worlds most expensive Land Value areas (West London etc). So the money raised can be put back into the club as revenue, in the same way as the flats Arsenal had built on their old ground were then sold and the money made was counted as Arsenal revenue.

4. A lot of players will leave the club this summer. If they sell or let leave approx 10 players (Drogba, Kalou, Malouda, Miereles, Fererra, Benyoun, Essien, Lampard, Bosingwa, Mikel) some of whom are on big wages. They only need to bring in 5 players (RB, Winger, 2x Midfielders, Striker) and their wage bill will be lower but with some better quality players.

 

[Deleted member 14625]

And who is going to be the next coach?

Theyll go for Lauren Blanc, they'll sack him; then they'll get Josep Guardiola, they'll sack him; then they'll get Roberto de Matteo, they'll sack him; they'll get Kerry Didon and they'll get relegated, they'll sack him; then they'll get...

 

[OB1]

Chelsea are in an even better position than us.

They have an owner who can get the Stamford Bridge site for £2m, redevelop the land out of his own pocket and make half a billion on some of richest real estate in world.

Incidentally, he won't give a fuck if he also has to spend another £300m building a new stadium at Olympia or Battersea, it doesn't count to FFPR!

Yet the revenue from apartments/hotels/business premises, Chelsea can show as profits from a sale to a developer.

Arsenal did this with Highbury. Ambramovich is no mug, he's looking at a mammoth pay day for a nominal fees to the Chelsea pitch owners.

Tantamount to get half of his entire investment so far, back.

I expect them to again be the biggest spenders in football again at some point.

We have land worth fuck all trying to increase its value, they already retain it in west London.

Are you 100% sure on this? I can't be bothered to do a Prestwich Blue and actually study the FFPR (too much of a busman's...) but I'm sure that I've read in the past that Arsenal cannot include Highbury related revenue for FFPR.

Then again, I've also read that UEFA believe that FFPR is compliant with European Law but I believe there is a good case, in general, to say that it is actually anti-competitive and, if I had Mansour's money, I'd be gearing up to challenge it, should the need arise. I'm a simple soul and do not see how a team can be prevented from adopting a long-term investment strategy to be competitve with the existing elite by short-term restrictions that favour the elite: that is oligopilistic, IMO.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Chelsea are in an even better position than us.

They have an owner who can get the Stamford Bridge site for £2m, redevelop the land out of his own pocket and make half a billion on some of richest real estate in world.

Incidentally, he won't give a fuck if he also has to spend another £300m building a new stadium at Olympia or Battersea, it doesn't count to FFPR!

Yet the revenue from apartments/hotels/business premises, Chelsea can show as profits from a sale to a developer.

Arsenal did this with Highbury. Ambramovich is no mug, he's looking at a mammoth pay day for a nominal fees to the Chelsea pitch owners.

Tantamount to get half of his entire investment so far, back.

I expect them to again be the biggest spenders in football again at some point.

We have land worth fuck all trying to increase its value, they already retain it in west London.

Are you 100% sure on this? I can't be bothered to do a Prestwich Blue and actually study the FFPR (too much of a busman's...) but I'm sure that I've read in the past that Arsenal cannot include Highbury related revenue for FFPR.

Then again, I've also read that UEFA believe that FFPR is compliant with European Law but I believe there is a good case, in general, to say that it is actually anti-competitive and, if I had Mansour's money, I'd be gearing up to challenge it, should the need arise. I'm a simple soul and do not see how a team can be prevented from adopting a long-term investment strategy to be competitve with the existing elite by short-term restrictions that favour the elite: that is oligopilistic, IMO.

Why do you think Abramovich is pushing the Chelsea pitch holders so hard?

Arsenal were able to show the sale of the flats at Highbury as profits on their balance sheet.

They made millions from it, difference between them and Chelsea is that they had no option but to use the monies to try and pay down the debt on the Emirates loan ASAP.

After all, the club owned the stadium outright, an asset.

Abramovich can afford to build a new stadium out of his own pocket and won't infringe any rules.

He can even have an easy life and just sell the site to a developer for a one-off fee, rather than derive an income from it.

That site is worth easily £500m

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

It's Abramovich, they're fine.

 

[alky313]

They'll need reinforcements. They have De Bruyne on the way and might sign Willian. But their most dire issue is someone stepping up at CF. I just don't see Torres ever returning to form and I'm not too high on Lukaku as a Premier League player. I think Lukaku would be best suited in Spain or Germany. As a physical specimen he is something else. But his size and speed are wasted in a league full of hacking central defenders. The biggest myth in English football is that big strong players get it done. In fact these players have the toughest time as they are often faced with playing their back to the defender. The most successful strikers in English football are involved with build up play and play off of the shoulder of the defender hoping to go unmarked.

 

[OB1]

Why do you think Abramovich is pushing the Chelsea pitch holders so hard?

Arsenal were able to show the sale of the flats at Highbury as profits on their balance sheet.

They made millions from it, difference between them and Chelsea is that they had no option but to use the monies to try and pay down the debt on the Emirates loan ASAP.

After all, the club owned the stadium outright, an asset.

Abramovich can afford to build a new stadium out of his own pocket and won't infringe any rules.

He can even have an easy life and just sell the site to a developer for a one-off fee, rather than derive an income from it.

That site is worth easily £500m

This guy thinks property development profits are excluded for FFP:

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/arsenals-mystery-dance.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/ ... dance.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YKq5LvtnXRQ/T0yRY5r5iNI/AAAAAAAAFRQ/11j3NmZWzoM/s400/22%2BArsenal%2BFFP%2BExclusions.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YKq5LvtnXRQ/T ... usions.jpg</a>

Not exactly sure what you mean by this:
"Arsenal were able to show the sale of the flats at Highbury as profits on their balance sheet." The profit increases shareholders' funds and any cash generated will help to reduce net debt but that is different to FFPR defined break even.

As I said, I've not read FFPR: I've read enough "accounting" rules to last me a lifetime so I don't know the answer but I am interested to know, without having to check for myself, if property development profits count towards FFPR break even?

There's plenty of reasons for RA to want to buy and sell the land at the Bridge and build a big new stadium and facilities elsewhere that will generate profits that do count, even if the sale of the Bridge does not.

 

[Castiel]

Will not hurt us. Its not even a concern for me having spent a weekend researching exactly where we stand according to the rules. Finishing 5th would just wound our pride, not our pockets.

Though, it is another incentive to win the CL. Spurs manage 4th and don't get to qualify.

 

[LoveCity]

Roman's shopping list according to the Mail. Obviously not all of them but even a selection of them could bring Chelsea back into title contendership.