Spurs-The bitterness is reaching dipperlike proportions

[Sugarloaf]

I think 'Sugarhips' is a rag mate.

Well he had me fooled, Jesus.

I see that this thread has evolved somewhat. The original statement was that Spurs fans are saying that they are a bigger club than Chelsea.

I agree that they are. I also commute to London on a regular basis and have lots of colleagues and friends/family in the big smoke. I have never ever met a Chelsea fan. I don't know anyone who supports them. I have never seen a kid in the park wearing their strip, although I have seen fakes in Thailand. I have no reason to lie to you. IMHO I would put Chelsea on a par with West Ham in terms of fan base and actual status.

I stated that if RA decided to call it a day, your club would drop like a stone. I still stand by this. Players and fans would leave and you'd return to mid-table mediocrity, playing infront of 25-30k. So in my opinion, a club that's status is only guaranteed at the whim or depths of the owners pockets, is living a lie.

This is a facade that clubs like Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, Aston Villa and Everton do not have to hide behind, regardless of current success or failure.

 

[Worst Case Ontario]

Sugarmoron please go on, you are pure comedy gold

 

[Castiel]

I think 'Sugarhips' is a rag mate.

Well he had me fooled, Jesus.

I see that this thread has evolved somewhat. The original statement was that Spurs fans are saying that they are a bigger club than Chelsea.

I agree that they are. I also commute to London on a regular basis and have lots of colleagues and friends/family in the big smoke. I have never ever met a Chelsea fan. I don't know anyone who supports them. I have never seen a kid in the park wearing their strip, although I have seen fakes in Thailand. I have no reason to lie to you. IMHO I would put Chelsea on a par with West Ham in terms of fan base and actual status.

I stated that if RA decided to call it a day, your club would drop like a stone. I still stand by this. Players and fans would leave and you'd return to mid-table mediocrity, playing infront of 25-30k. So in my opinion, a club that's status is only guaranteed at the whim or depths of the owners pockets, is living a lie.

This is a facade that clubs like Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, Aston Villa and Everton do not have to hide behind, regardless of current success or failure.

I think you'll find that Man United are on the brink of fundamental financial collapse on par with what happened to Leeds. That club is living on the absolute edge of bankruptcy from where there can be no recovery. Chelsea and City are in no such danger.

If RA decided to leave, the club wouldn't have the financial power it does now. But it would not drop like a stone as you imagine purely because its no longer operating at a loss or at the mercy of crushing debts. The club pays its own bills and isn't propped up by flimsy debts to banks and 3rd party corporations. The only money Roman has reinvested directly into the club's bank account since his initial take over was to buy Torres. In time, the same will be true of City. We're in FAR healthier financial situations than anyone else in the league.

Your personal experiences of who you meet are completely irrelevant. On what planet do you consider personal observation in passing a justifiable source to gauge a clubs relative fan base? I sincerely hope you don't work in a technical or financial field.

The bottom line is, Chelsea and City bring money into football. Man United, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal are some of the biggest culprits of leeching money from football. Yet somehow, the blue clubs are labelled the enemies of football. The logic is flawed on every level. This has been going on for decades, and it isn't exclusive to this country. Real Madrid and Barcelona are even worse which is why their league is the sum total of 2 clubs. That is not a healthy environment and without the investments in City and Chelsea, our league would be the same.

I can't argue around your self imposed ignorance over the subtle differences in the financing of different clubs, and now what the red clubs have been doing is a cancer on the economy of the country and the sport. However if and when the day comes that the debt finally implodes on you, and you end up next to Leeds, we'll see if you have the same opinion.

 

[Sugarloaf]

Well he had me fooled, Jesus.

I see that this thread has evolved somewhat. The original statement was that Spurs fans are saying that they are a bigger club than Chelsea.

I agree that they are. I also commute to London on a regular basis and have lots of colleagues and friends/family in the big smoke. I have never ever met a Chelsea fan. I don't know anyone who supports them. I have never seen a kid in the park wearing their strip, although I have seen fakes in Thailand. I have no reason to lie to you. IMHO I would put Chelsea on a par with West Ham in terms of fan base and actual status.

I stated that if RA decided to call it a day, your club would drop like a stone. I still stand by this. Players and fans would leave and you'd return to mid-table mediocrity, playing infront of 25-30k. So in my opinion, a club that's status is only guaranteed at the whim or depths of the owners pockets, is living a lie.

This is a facade that clubs like Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, Aston Villa and Everton do not have to hide behind, regardless of current success or failure.

I think you'll find that Man United are on the brink of fundamental financial collapse on par with what happened to Leeds. That club is living on the absolute edge of bankruptcy from where there can be no recovery. Chelsea and City are in no such danger.

If RA decided to leave, the club wouldn't have the financial power it does now. But it would not drop like a stone as you imagine purely because its no longer operating at a loss or at the mercy of crushing debts. The club pays its own bills and isn't propped up by flimsy debts to banks and 3rd party corporations. The only money Roman has reinvested directly into the club's bank account since his initial take over was to buy Torres. In time, the same will be true of City. We're in FAR healthier financial situations than anyone else in the league.

Your personal experiences of who you meet are completely irrelevant. On what planet do you consider personal observation in passing a justifiable source to gauge a clubs relative fan base? I sincerely hope you don't work in a technical or financial field.

The bottom line is, Chelsea and City bring money into football. Man United, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal are some of the biggest culprits of leeching money from football. Yet somehow, the blue clubs are labelled the enemies of football. The logic is flawed on every level. This has been going on for decades, and it isn't exclusive to this country. Real Madrid and Barcelona are even worse which is why their league is the sum total of 2 clubs. That is not a healthy environment and without the investments in City and Chelsea, our league would be the same.

I can't argue around your self imposed ignorance over the subtle differences in the financing of different clubs, and now what the red clubs have been doing is a cancer on the economy of the country and the sport. However if and when the day comes that the debt finally implodes on you, and you end up next to Leeds, we'll see if you have the same opinion.

Dunno what any of that has to do with being bigger than Spurs, but...

Chelsea announce annual loss of £70.9m

Chelsea finally conceded defeat in their oft-repeated ambition to break even by 2010, announcing a £71m loss for the year even as owner Roman Abramovich authorised a £50m deal to prize Fernando Torres from Anfield.
The losses mark a £27m increase on the 2008-09 season when player sales reduced the figure to £44m, the lowest loss recorded by the club in the seven full years since Abramovich took control.


The club has been engaged in cost-cutting for more than two years in an attempt to meet former chief executive Peter Kenyon’s promise that it would be free of its reliance on Abramovich by 2010.


Yesterday’s figures underline the continued reliance on the Russian’s largesse however, taking the total losses under his ownership to more than £550m.


A club source said that while the intention was still to reduce the burden on the owner and the would seek to develop their own talent, the Torres deal demonstrated Abramovich was still willing to invest to improve the team.


The figures will also raise questions as to whether it will be able to comply with the financial fair play rules being introduced by Uefa.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/13/manchester-united-financial-figures

 

[Nascent Blues]

Well he had me fooled, Jesus.

I see that this thread has evolved somewhat. The original statement was that Spurs fans are saying that they are a bigger club than Chelsea.

I agree that they are. I also commute to London on a regular basis and have lots of colleagues and friends/family in the big smoke. I have never ever met a Chelsea fan. I don't know anyone who supports them. I have never seen a kid in the park wearing their strip, although I have seen fakes in Thailand. I have no reason to lie to you. IMHO I would put Chelsea on a par with West Ham in terms of fan base and actual status.

I stated that if RA decided to call it a day, your club would drop like a stone. I still stand by this. Players and fans would leave and you'd return to mid-table mediocrity, playing infront of 25-30k. So in my opinion, a club that's status is only guaranteed at the whim or depths of the owners pockets, is living a lie.

This is a facade that clubs like Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, Aston Villa and Everton do not have to hide behind, regardless of current success or failure.

I think you'll find that Man United are on the brink of fundamental financial collapse on par with what happened to Leeds. That club is living on the absolute edge of bankruptcy from where there can be no recovery. Chelsea and City are in no such danger.

If RA decided to leave, the club wouldn't have the financial power it does now. But it would not drop like a stone as you imagine purely because its no longer operating at a loss or at the mercy of crushing debts. The club pays its own bills and isn't propped up by flimsy debts to banks and 3rd party corporations. The only money Roman has reinvested directly into the club's bank account since his initial take over was to buy Torres. In time, the same will be true of City. We're in FAR healthier financial situations than anyone else in the league.

Your personal experiences of who you meet are completely irrelevant. On what planet do you consider personal observation in passing a justifiable source to gauge a clubs relative fan base? I sincerely hope you don't work in a technical or financial field.

The bottom line is, Chelsea and City bring money into football. Man United, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal are some of the biggest culprits of leeching money from football. Yet somehow, the blue clubs are labelled the enemies of football. The logic is flawed on every level. This has been going on for decades, and it isn't exclusive to this country. Real Madrid and Barcelona are even worse which is why their league is the sum total of 2 clubs. That is not a healthy environment and without the investments in City and Chelsea, our league would be the same.

I can't argue around your self imposed ignorance over the subtle differences in the financing of different clubs, and now what the red clubs have been doing is a cancer on the economy of the country and the sport. However if and when the day comes that the debt finally implodes on you, and you end up next to Leeds, we'll see if you have the same opinion.

I'd just like to say that I throughly enjoy reading your posts Castiel.

With regards to Sugarloaf and his ilk, I really don't think that they're blind, but instead purposely refuse to open their eyes and actually see - the reality would be just too much for them. It's like choosing to ignore a mole that's getting darker, angrier and bigger. Going to the doctors would be sensible, but hearing the bad news (about the thing that deep down you already know), for some people, is actually worse.

 

[Castiel]

Dunno what any of that has to do with being bigger than Spurs, but...

Chelsea announce annual loss of £70.9m

Chelsea finally conceded defeat in their oft-repeated ambition to break even by 2010, announcing a £71m loss for the year even as owner Roman Abramovich authorised a £50m deal to prize Fernando Torres from Anfield.
The losses mark a £27m increase on the 2008-09 season when player sales reduced the figure to £44m, the lowest loss recorded by the club in the seven full years since Abramovich took control.


The club has been engaged in cost-cutting for more than two years in an attempt to meet former chief executive Peter Kenyon’s promise that it would be free of its reliance on Abramovich by 2010.


Yesterday’s figures underline the continued reliance on the Russian’s largesse however, taking the total losses under his ownership to more than £550m.


A club source said that while the intention was still to reduce the burden on the owner and the would seek to develop their own talent, the Torres deal demonstrated Abramovich was still willing to invest to improve the team.


The figures will also raise questions as to whether it will be able to comply with the financial fair play rules being introduced by Uefa.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/13/manchester-united-financial-figures

The 2010 losses were a direct result of the Torres (being the largest chunk) investment and several Brazilian youths. Also including Ramires and Luiz surmounts to a rather large investment by Roman, for the first time since his take over.

Chelsea's 07-08 accounts show the club falling short of its goal of financial sufficiency. The accounts also showed a debt of £488m to its owner, Roman Abramovich. But last December the club released a statement revealing that this had been converted to equity, leaving the club virtually debt-free. Those same results also featured an exceptional payment of £12.6m to Luiz Felipe Scolari and three coaching staff following the Brazilian's sacking as manager.

In the 2009 financial year the club announced profits. Due to 2010 investments in aforementioned players it'll be a loss again purely because of the signings. Short of a huge spending spree which I can't foresee, 2011 will be another year of profits - either way we're looking at a discrepancy of a few million. Comparatively Man United reported debts of £1.1bn in 2010. Would consider +/- £50m debt to your owner in a financial year more dangerous than £1.1bn debt to various banks and corporate bonds?

I also don't know how this became the focal point of this thread, perhaps there should be 2.

Also, thanks Uber Blue.

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: Wish spurs fans would get a sense of perspective

It has been well documented in the press that Chelsea tried to pool fans from the US, but toured to mainly empty stadiums. When they played other European sides, all the fans were there to see the opposition. Abramovich wants Chelsea to be a self sufficient club, who can generate funds from the demand for shirts and matchday tickets. Six years in, he's still bank rolling them. The demand isn't there.

IMO, Spurs are much bigger interms of fanbase and longterm sustainability.

The US market is a different kettle of fish really, but I'd say given the choice of cracking it or being better supported throughout Europe than both Milan clubs, I know which I'd choose.

Maybe Chelsea just aren't monetising that enough at the moment, who knows. Nonetheless Spurs are simply not bigger in terms of global fanbase, this is well documented.

I don't see how all this links to 'soullessness'. A club's business plan has nothing to do with this. Alienating its core fans, and especially excluding them, does. So would you say Arsenal are soulless?

Where are you getting this info from? Chelsea aren't even well supported in England, nevermind Europe or globally. They are on a par with West Ham and Millwall.

It's a façade, all paid for by Roman. Arsenal and Spurs are proper clubs with history and real fans.

You are so far up your own arse,its impossible to have a good debate, without you realising that even a Chicken Farmer thinks Blackburn are a better Club to purchase.
Cluck fucking cluck !!

 

[Sugarloaf]

The 2010 losses were a direct result of the Torres (being the largest chunk) investment and several Brazilian youths. Also including Ramires and Luiz surmounts to a rather large investment by Roman, for the first time since his take over.

Chelsea's 07-08 accounts show the club falling short of its goal of financial sufficiency. The accounts also showed a debt of £488m to its owner, Roman Abramovich. But last December the club released a statement revealing that this had been converted to equity, leaving the club virtually debt-free. Those same results also featured an exceptional payment of £12.6m to Luiz Felipe Scolari and three coaching staff following the Brazilian's sacking as manager.

In the 2009 financial year the club announced profits. Due to 2010 investments in aforementioned players it'll be a loss again purely because of the signings. Short of a huge spending spree which I can't foresee, 2011 will be another year of profits - either way we're looking at a discrepancy of a few million. Comparatively Man United reported debts of £1.1bn in 2010. Would consider +/- £50m debt to your owner in a financial year more dangerous than £1.1bn debt to various banks and corporate bonds?

I also don't know how this became the focal point of this thread, perhaps there should be 2.

Also, thanks Uber Blue.

So Chelsea didn't break even? And they have an ageing squad that needs replacing.

I don't know where the 1.1bn figure came from. The Glazers gross debt is £477.7m. If the club was to carry on making profits of 100 million every season, they could have it paid off in 6 years, give or take signings. This is the fundamental reason why they are in no hurry to pay it off or sell. It makes money and doubles in price from their original investment.

 

[Castiel]

So Chelsea didn't break even? And they have an ageing squad that needs replacing.

I don't know where the 1.1bn figure came from. The Glazers gross debt is £477.7m. If the club was to carry on making profits of 100 million every season, they could have it paid off in 6 years, give or take signings. This is the fundamental reason why they are in no hurry to pay it off or sell. It makes money and doubles in price from their original investment.

On the debts, which you should know about if you're a United fan:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10237268" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10237268</a>

One of many comprehensive articles about the house of cards you're standing on. If you're really interested in it you should look through the Glazers history in the US. Last I checked they've liquidated 4 different multi million dollar businesses for personal gain. Man United is the next in line. Its good business, but terrible for football and catastrophic for you. Why do you think your real fans, the real Manchester fans that were there before your glory days are out parading this green and gold red Knights campaign?

The ageing squad argument is a media induced myth. For a start, the reason the club didn't break even this financial year was because of the replacement of older squad players like Ballack. Man United's average squad age is higher than Chelsea's. You have a 40 year old goal keeper, a 38 year old winger and a 36 year old midfielder. Our oldest is 33 this year.

I've yet to hear a single substantiated claim from you. Just subjective observation and media induced fallacies. There is no argument that United is a sound business, because its a house of cards. There is no argument that Spurs is a "bigger" club, because its ridiculous. There is no argument that what City are doing, and what Chelsea have done is destroying football; because what we've done in 5 years has helped football more than a century of what Man United and Liverpool have done.

 

[mancboy123]

Im assuming when you say they could pay it off in 6 years, in those 6 years you will not sign any players, there will not be any interest on the loans, there will be no renegotiated contracts for any players, you will win the league, fa cup and champions league each season and you will sell out your ground for every single game yes?