Vienna_70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 45,331
- Location
- 100, 32, 106, +79, 19
- Team supported
- Treble Winners 2022/23.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chelsea Thread - 2021/22
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Really?
As you’re on this forum, you don’t have to look very hard.
Well put it this way, I wouldn't swap owners with City if the chance was offered to me at any point in the last 15 years.
Asa's left peg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 4,609
- Location
- Sandbach via Rusholme
- Team supported
- Some team in the CFG
I'm not sure how Chelsea will spend 200m in the transfer market (given their recent outlay) Surely they will have to at least pretend its come from 'income', unless that's just us.
I'm not sure how Chelsea will spend 200m in the transfer market (given their recent outlay) Surely they will have to at least pretend its come from 'income', unless that's just us.
There was a 1.75bn pledge as part of the sale to be spent on investing in the team and infrastructure. I suppose the plan eventually will be scale down spending from that pot as revenue grows. Also keep in mind that we will likely sell at least a player or two.
There was a 1.75bn pledge as part of the sale to be spent on investing in the team and infrastructure. I suppose the plan eventually will be scale down spending from that pot as revenue grows. Also keep in mind that we will likely sell at least a player or two.
Over ten years period wasn’t it?
Over ten years period wasn’t it?
Correct, and you'd imagine close to 1bn of that will be allocated to redeveloping the Bridge, but these guys have big dreams about growing revenue in Asia and America. At the moment we have the 8th highest revenue in Europe, there's absolutely room for growth.
Correct, and you'd imagine close to 1bn of that will be allocated to redeveloping the Bridge, but these guys have big dreams about growing revenue in Asia and America. At the moment we have the 8th highest revenue in Europe, there's absolutely room for growth.
So 750m over ten years works out as 75m a season or can chelsea spend say 200m this season and a lot less next few also they have sales to throw in the mix.
What will be interesting is will the new owners be taking there cut out the business like the glazers?
So 750m over ten years works out as 75m a season or can chelsea spend say 200m this season and a lot less next few also they have sales to throw in the mix.
What will be interesting is will the new owners be taking there cut out the business like the glazers?
Yeah but I don't think it's as black and white as that. The idea is that the revenue will continue to grow, and it isn't a must that we spend 100m every summer. If the team is in good shape that just need tweaking here and there, plus there will always be player sales. We have one of the lowest net spends out of all the big clubs in Europe because we're good at selling players. It'll definitely be interesting to follow. It's a completely different model than the splashing the cash of Abramovich.
As for the owners taking their cut, supposedly there is a clause in the agreement quite literally called the 'anti-Glazers clause' which prohibits them from taking dividends, loading the club with debt etc - a clause they have agreed to, and which was a big part of the reason the Rickett family were rejected, because their model was similar to what the Glazers were doing at United.
Asa's left peg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 4,609
- Location
- Sandbach via Rusholme
- Team supported
- Some team in the CFG
Didn't understand how that injection can be classed as income in relation to ffp, but ffp is a joke anyway.
But but but, his money is filthy oil money…….oh, as you were…he is not an Arab or a Muslim. Just ordinary oil money, then.Purely in terms of football ownership, ignoring all the poltical stuff, you'd be hard pressed to find better football owners out there.
But but but, his money is filthy oil money…….oh, as you were…he is not an Arab or a Muslim. Just ordinary oil money, then.
I mean, it's not like the origins of his money hasn't been criticised for pillar to post. It's not like Chelsea's success hasn't been dismissed by supposed football purists. Yeah sure the attention on Chelsea has diminished over the year due to the focus on City and PSG, I accept that but trust me, Chelsea fans have to take the same lumps City fans have over the years.
Gray
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2004
- Messages
- 28,820
- Team supported
- ABU & The Bus Wreckers
You liked the mate of Putin then? He was nothing more than a member of the Russian Mafia.Well put it this way, I wouldn't swap owners with City if the chance was offered to me at any point in the last 15 years.
Absolute bollocks that, just someone put it on twtter. Leicester owe £70m, PSG £80m, Bayern M, Villa, Leeds Zero as examples with hundreds of other clubs.Should also say, the only debt free clubs in Europe is PSG, City, Leicester, and now Chelsea :)
Not really. UEFA did not concoct a fake case against Chelsea. You should read the comments by CAS on the conduct of the enquiry. “Manchester City have no chance of a fair hearing“I mean, it's not like the origins of his money hasn't been criticised for pillar to post. It's not like Chelsea's success hasn't been dismissed by supposed football purists. Yeah sure the attention on Chelsea has diminished over the year due to the focus on City and PSG, I accept that but trust me, Chelsea fans have to take the same lumps City fans have over the years.
You liked the mate of Putin then? He was nothing more than a member of the Russian Mafia.
Come on, did you miss the bit where I said purely in terms of football ownership? Please read the context the post was written in before chiming in :)
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 33,615
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I mean, it's not like the origins of his money hasn't been criticised for pillar to post. It's not like Chelsea's success hasn't been dismissed by supposed football purists. Yeah sure the attention on Chelsea has diminished over the year due to the focus on City and PSG, I accept that but trust me, Chelsea fans have to take the same lumps City fans have over the years.
Did you get banned from Europe? Even though your owner was a bona fida member of the Russian mafia.
You were most certainly not treated the same by the FA UEFA and the press.
Not really. UEFA did not concoct a fake case against Chelsea. You should read the comments by CAS on the conduct of the enquiry. “Manchester City have no chance of a fair hearing“
Oh sorry, I thought you just meant the public opinion and the media agendas/talking points. You're right about the football authorities. We've had next to no issues with them, that's true
Did you get banned from Europe? Even though your owner was a bona fida member of the Russian mafia.
You were most certainly not treated the same by the FA UEFA and the press.
Apologies, I didn't think of the authorities. You're both right. I think on the press front, we've taken similar lumps but it's a matter of degree I suppose/
Fair enough, it was just that one twitter post I saw to be fair.Absolute bollocks that, just someone put it on twtter. Leicester owe £70m, PSG £80m, Bayern M, Villa, Leeds Zero as examples with hundreds of other clubs.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.