1051 replies to this topic

[richard]

It is an interesting point and one in which Liverlad, in an earlier thread, asked what seemed to be a very simple question.

The concensus of opinion in the thread seemed to be that we're not ruining football, in fact we're improving the game by spending big money on players. The money is spread around for other teams to buy other big named players.

However on closer examination, the question posed by Liverlad is far more complex than we think and requires more research to be better informed of the financial future of football as a whole.

The question shouldn't polarise around CFC and RA having lots of money to spend. It should address ALL big spenders in the Premiership who have the monopoly on TV rights etc. and who are businesses floated on the stock market. Above all, the question also raises points around our footballing roots, culture AND our cousins in the lower divisions, struggling for survival.

As we look at this part of the question, do we give a stuff about them and, if we do, is there a way richer clubs can help? After all, we've spent time in the lower divisions too.

So here's another question; is the answer a moral one or is it one of survival of the richest or the greediest? (Whichever way you want to look at it).

Of course it isn't just about the lower divisions being in trouble.

Another facet to the question is this; If we have too few teams able to compete against the richest clubs in the Premiership, will we see, in the not too distant future, the formation of an elite Euro league? If that happens, what will become of English football?

We then come back to the original and very justifiable question, Are we (all the rich clubs) ruining football?

There are sites that provide information about the financial future of football. Every fan should be aware that as much as CFC is on a financial high, the burden of debt in football in England & Scotland is enourmous.

Here are some sites to get you going if you're interested.

There is an excellent paper addressing these issues on the Independent Manchester United Supporters Association website: http://www.imusa.org/campaigns/ownership/o...nership06.shtml

Other sites:

http://www.accountan...pecials/1134436

http://www.bized.ac.uk/stafsup/options/arg...ument/arg10.htm

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/2940593.stm

http://www.pkf.co.uk...tballsurvey.pdf

Or just put 'Financial future of football' in your search engine and away you go.

[blakey]

Who cares whether or not some chinese person is wearing a Chelsea shirt in some remote part of the Middle East? What difference would it make to Chelsea's already astronomical wealth if Chelsea are the most supported club worldwide? Do we really need to have our kits made by a recognisable global brands such as nike?
Due to the fact we have so much money, I could design the kit, be the sponsor on the team shirt (Blakey), and be the only supporter in Stamford Bridge at home games and the club would still be the richest in the world! (thanks to RA)

The only reason why the hierachy at Chelsea want to make the club a global brand is purely to make themselves more money, strictly business. The only people who benefit from this, are those at the highest echelons of our club. I've noticed lately that the prawn sandwich brigade are moving into the Bridge and many of you guys aren't happy about it, because quite frankly they have no positive affect on a saturday afternoon between 3 and 5pm. The 'prawn sandwich supporter' is essentially the same as a 'Global Supporter', they only benefit the few in power at a football club, not the supporters or the team on a matchday. Manchester UTD needed this kind of support to generate revenue, Chelsea on the other hand don't need this.
My point is; why do people on this board care about making Chelsea a global brand when it has no direct impact on themselves or on the team?

[Founding Member]

The ever reliable Evening standard printed a nice article about a "Record loss for Chelsea" adding that; "Sources say their losses could be between £50 million and £60m. That would dwarf the previous record loss of £33.8m posted by Leeds in 2002, but Chelsea's spending over the last 18 months has been unprecedented."

Full article here; http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/footba...?source=Evening

However the Club has issues the following statement;

"Media reports this morning are speculating about the financial figures to be filed by Chelsea Village plc. The figures in the reports are incorrect. The correct, and complete, financial picture of the company will become clear when the accounts are made public."

http://www.chelseafc.com/article.asp?hlid=...sub=latest+news

[linton]

Just heard on BBC news that Chelsea have made British football history - losing the most money in one year! £87.8million to be exact. For any other club and it's fans this would mean disaster, but for us chelsea fans it is nothing suprising.

From BBC's official website:

"Premiership club Chelsea's wild spending on transfer fees is over after making a record pre-tax loss for last year of £88m.
The club spent £175m on new players last season, more than doubling its annual payroll to £115m."

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/4219397.stm

Is anyone the least bit bothered by this? na, didn't think so! :)

[Raymond Liu]

I am quite glad Peter Kenyon has spoken of limiting spending on players and wages, there is no way any club can go on spending £100 million a year on transfer fees and still sustain itself. I just hope to make more profits the club doesn't keep raising ticket prices. We could definitely expand Stamford Bridge as one of the reasons we couldn't knock down the hotel and build another tier was because Ken Bates still lived there, but now he's at Leeds I'm sure he would sell his property at Chelsea. If we had a 50,000 seater stadium we could make an extra £10million+ a season on ticket sales and can attract extra sponsorship. I also suggest we set up official fan clubs in foreign countries and charge fans money to be part of the fan club. Just out of interest does any one know exact figures for Mourinho's wages? Because I don't believe reports that he is on £100,000 a week, I would reckon about £60,000-£70,000 a week

[Rod Crowley]

Can anyone with access to Chelsea full results for the last financial year, either post them here, provide a link or email them to me please? Many thank in advance.

[linton]

I was having a conversation/argument with my lecturer earlier (who incidentally is a Gooner) and he seems to think that we are in £200m+ debt. I tried to tell him that Roman has paid off all our debt and that Arsenal are more financially fragile than Chelsea, but he wasn't having it.

Surely we aren't in debt, are we? I would just like to clear this up. Can anyone help?

[Dan Davies]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/busines...238?source=This

quote:

---

Beware Roman's riches
Chris Blackhurst, Evening Standard,
10 June 2005

THERE is a story doing the rounds about how Roman Abramovich wanted a house near his football club. Not just any old house, you understand, but a grand, spectacular affair in prestigious Eaton Square.

Thing was, the owner, a well-known company boss, hadn't even put his home on the market.


Such a detail didn't stop the Abramoviches. The businessman was rung up and asked if he would mind if Irina Abramovich and three companions came round for a look. Bemused, he shrugged and let them tour. Later, his phone went.

She liked the house and its art collection so much that she would take them, for £40m. He said they weren't for sale.

A few days later, he was called again. Would he accept £60m? Same negative answer. Some time went by. The phone went again. The Russians wanted to make him an offer he couldn't refuse: £100m. Exasperated, he told the Abramoviches' representative that there had clearly been a misunderstanding: he loved living there and had no intention of moving, not even for £100m (he is extremely wealthy).

He thinks they've gone away but he isn't sure. As he says, they have a problem understanding one of the most basic words in the English language: 'No'.

Whenever this story is told - and I have heard something very similar now several times - listeners nod their heads. No matter if it's true or not. They can just imagine the billionaire football boss behaving in such a fashion. After all, he's been doing the same in the Premiership for the past two seasons, and in the process he is destroying our national game.

It may seem excessive to accuse one man of ruining the pleasure of millions but that is the effect Abramovich is having.

His vast resources are strangling the life out of soccer. Not content to wield an almighty chequebook, he and those around him have thrown the rules of normal decency out of the window, not just the actual code governing the hiring of players and managers but the spirit that surrounds them. And it's all being done with a gracelessness that even by the standards of professional football is breathtaking.

MONEY men throwing their vast egos around in the name of sport isn't new. But what sets Abramovich and his henchmen apart is their ruthless determination - and their contempt for the laws, published and unpublished, that bind.

As far as the internal affairs of Chelsea are concerned, Abramovich is entitled to do as he chooses. So when the team's popular manager, Claudio Ranieri, fails to deliver the Premiership by finishing second and is sacked, that is the Russian's business. Likewise, if he chooses to replace Ranieri with the brilliant but occasionally preposterous Jose Mourinho, that's his affair. {2}

Similarly, the snaffling of Peter Kenyon, the hardball commercial brain from Manchvintage-ester United, is his call. And if he wants to spend hundreds of millions on acquiring the best players, that's down to him too.

It doesn't help that much of this occurs without charm or concern for others. Chelsea think they can get more money out of their kit sponsors so they terminate their contract. Chelsea want Scott Parker, a revered and valued figure at a comparatively small club, Charlton, so they get him - and then choose not to play him.

After Ranieri and before Mourinho, Abramovich thought he'd like to recruit Sven-Goran Eriksson, the England coach. Who cares that he was running the national side - Abramovich wanted him and they met and held talks. In the end, Eriksson stayed, but with an extended contract and an extra £1m a year.

In Premiership boardrooms they shake their heads at the disdainful antics of Abramovich and his pals, and their disregard for camaraderie. A senior Manchester United adviser told me how the northern club's directors looked on aghast as Abramovich and his entourage swept into their dining room, virtually ignored the lavish pre-match spread (it included Bollinger) and spent much of the time talking on their mobile phones.

When Abramovich wanted to visit the lavatory he was accompanied by one of his bodyguards who stood by the door in case he was attacked. But by whom? All the people present were directors and staff of two of England's proudest and most respected clubs. Abramovich, it seems, trusts nobody.

This may seem trivial but bear in mind these same people are also powers in the game, sitting on professional bodies and doing deals together. Lack of trust and respect does not stop with the directors' silver service. It permeates through the organisation, to the changing room and on to the pitch, and to the executive desks and telephones. {3}

It's here that the attitude of Abramovich, aided and abetted by Kenyon and Mourinho, should cause concern. Not once but twice, they have been accused of disregarding the regulations governing the sport by 'tapping up': first, a player from one of their nearest rivals; then, a sporting director from a London club credited with spearheading its possible revival.

Incredibly, the free-spending Chelsea bulldozer was under investigation for the first episode, involving Arsenal defender Ashley Cole, when the second, for Tottenham's Frank Arnesen, allegedly occurred (Chelsea dispute they acted improperly). Unfortunately - witness Lord Burns's report into the Football Association's structure today - in the game's ruling councils, the sport is served by groups as spineless as Chelsea is uncompromising.

WHAT was the response to the Premier League inquiry that found them guilty of an illegal approach to Cole? A fine - for a club belonging to someone richer than Croesus. Madness. And pathetic.

They received a suspended sentence as well, of the deduction of three points if they commit the same offence next season. This, ultimately, may be football's salvation. Not content with running away with the Premiership last season - the lack of serious competition depressed gates and television audiences for some matches - Chelsea want to do so again, and again.

Abramovich, said to be consumed by football - he spends hours watching matches on TV - would suffer if points were forfeited. He could, of course, take umbrage and withdraw completely - a threat that hangs over Chelsea until they fulfil his aim of becoming financially self-sufficient by 2010 - but that is unlikely.

His desire to be based away from Russia, where he can never be sure who President Vladimir Putin targets next, and the red-carpet treatment afforded him here (it is hard to imagine another state being so welcoming to someone whose finances remain such a mystery) mean he is almost certainly in Britain for the long term.

But before it's too late, the football authorities need to follow the Chelsea houseowner and impress upon him that 'no' really can mean 'no'.

---

What a pile of unmittigated tripe!

Dan.

[Portugeezer]

... according to Alan Curbishley. He is complaining that predictability will kill football. Well done for stating the obvious. He then insinuates that Chelsea is the root of this, which is hysterical nonsense on so many levels.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/e...rem/4255262.stm

As I seem to keep saying, and I apologise if I'm repeating myself like a 90-year old granny, but the reason the Prem is predictable is because of the financial disparity that has been caused by the creation of the Premiership and the Champions League. But to say Chelsea are the problem is absurd - we are a symptom, not the cause.

Is it good for football that we are significantly wealthier than the rest. Of course it isn't. But since when have ANY of the big clubs shown concern about the small ones. The Premiership and the Champions League were specifically designed to make the Man Utd's, Arsenal's, Liverpool's, - and the Barca's, Madrid's, Juve's, Milan's, etc - even richer and protect their position at the top (but not the Chelsea's of this world, we weren't big enough in those days). It's also why the G14 was created, this body of big clubs effectively forced UEFA to create the Champions League under the threat of breaking away to create their own European Super-League. Remember that?

In other words, these revamped tournaments were created to lessen the competition around them and prevent things happening like Watford or Southampton finishing second in the league (which happened in the 80s), prevent a team like Wimbledon from climbing from the depths of non-league to the heights of the top flight (yes there's Wigan, but they don't count as they couldn't have done it without the money from JJB - they are the 'Championship Chelsea'), or prevent teams from Eastern Europe from ever winning the European Cup again. So the purpose of the Premiership and the Champions League was to INCREASE predictability to protect those 'big' clubs. Do you see where I'm going with this?! The rich were protecting their position and wealth, while the poor suffered.

The last team, other than Man Utd and Arsenal, to genuinely challenge for the Premiership was Newcastle in 1996 (Liverpool in 2002 doesn't count - they finished 2nd by stealth and never challenged Arsenal for the top spot). Since then, no one has come close to knocking the two 'Reds' from their perch. What I can't understand is why Curbishley and his ilk weren't complaining about predictability back in 2003 because nothing has changed in the last couple of years, other than there's now three teams competing for the Prem not two.

After all, before Roman, only 3 teams had won the Prem. Moneybags Blackburn (now that IS buying the league) being the other. So predictability has been an issue for over a decade. For further evidence of that you need only look at the winners of the past 10 FA Cup Finals, and compare it to a list of the previous 10 to that. The truth is, even if Roman had not invested in Chelsea in 2003, predictability in football would still be a significant issue that would desperately need addressing. I wonder who they would've blamed it on instead though - my vote would go against David Dein of Arsenal, who's filthy little hands were all over the G14, PL and CL (though I doubt the media would be brave, honest or intelligent enough to dare).

There's also no mention of the inequality in the other European leagues. La Liga is a battle between Barca and Real Madrid, as teams like Valencia and La Coruna have faded away. Serie A will be fought out between Milan, Juventus and Inter - as in the last few years Lazio, Roma, Sampdoria, Parma, Fiorentina and others have suffered serious financial problems simply trying to compete (another symptom of the post-Prem/CL era, and one that nearly bankrupted CFC). Lyon have won the French league for the last four seasons, and look set to do it again. In Germany, as ever, Bayern Munich are the out-and-out favourites for the title. And who can name the last time either Ajax, PSV or Feyenoord failed to win the Dutch championship. Clearly, predictability is not an English disease.

Let's also remember that the top Italian and Spanish clubs negotiate their own TV deals to further line their pockets, leaving the remaining 16-20 clubs scraping around for whatever money they can get. Imagine how teams like Charlton would REALLY struggle if us, Arse and Utd went our own seperate TV ways.

This is a hugely complex issue but it seems to have been reduced by the media and non-Chelsea fans, into a 'Chelsea have ruined football' rant. Unless there is a willingness on all sides to engage in genuine dialogue for the good of the game, and an end to the blame culture which continues to point the finger at my club (who I have supported through thick and, let's face it, mainly thin over the past 30 years) then the media and other teams' fans who continue to criticise us out of spite, jealousy and ignorance can, quite frankly, f**k off.

[DavidStephens]

Real Madrid spend much more than Chelsea, but there is not much complaint about that because people feel comfortable with the thought of Madrid winning, even though their money has not brought much recent success.

ManU, over the last 5 years have spent similar money to what Chelsea have.

Rio Ferdinand (£29.1m) 2002: to Man Utd
Wayne Rooney (£27m) 2004: to Man Utd
Louis Saha (£12.8m) 2004: to Man Utd
Ruud van Nistelrooy 2001(£19m): to Man Utd
Juan Sebastian Veron (£28.1m) 2001: to Man Utd

Up until last year, ManU have been buying the best players around for as long as I care to remember, but again, no talk of restricting them.

In 2003/4, Chelsea spent a lot of money with CR, but we were nowhere near the team we are today. The truth is that it is not the money that is being spent, but the control over the team that makes the difference. The real reason we are so ...ing good is because of Jose, not the money.

[nona_valente]

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id...=356472&cc=5901

Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck has revealed the club are to announce further huge financial losses on Friday.

I am quite nervous about the financial losses by the team, but I'm pleased that the chairman, Bruce Buck, has said that they have a business plan to get Chelsea into profit-making in a five years.

Just in case anyone misses it, the losses won't take into account the revenue gained by the Samsung and adidas contracts.

[Peebles]

Is winning the Premiership not something of a hollow victory when there is such a disparity financially with other clubs? Money is no object, running a viable business is not necessary. Spending over the odds to get whoever is wanted (and willing to come), sure no problem.. It's like a Football Manager game where you cheat and give yourself massive amounts of cash for a laugh... Meanwhile other clubs struggle to raise sufficient funds and have to balance ambition with finance, for fear of doing a Leeds.

I appreciate victories are still sweet, and trophies fantastic, especially given the lack of these prior to Abramovic coming in, but does this lack of a level playing field diminish this at all?

I also appreciate that you may well say, hey that's business, it's a free world, and if someone wants to spend his money this way thats their choice - Man U and others have been doing the same for years now! Maybe you feel this is just rapid catch up?

Do you fear a day when things will fall flat? Any five year plan to get to a position where the business is sustainable is slipping out as turnover cannot keep pace with spending and huge wages. Is reliance on one person not somewhat risky? Maybe not given the levels of money in this case - we are not talking about Jack Walker and a one season wonder team here, but rather levels of wealth way, way beyond anything seen before, and that then brings me back to my first point.

I joined this site as I was impressed by some of the debate, which whilst Blue tinted, was fairly balanced and knowledgable; plus their seemed to be fans from other clubs on here too. On reflection it's not appropriate for interlopers like me to be in here. Why should you have to put up with this sort of post on your own site. So apologies to those who take offence, and thanks for the hopefully constructive responses!... I don't know any Chelsea fans to ask these questions of - up here in Scotland the only fans of Chelsea I know are under 10!

[oblue]

I wonder if the like of West Ham, Blackburn and Southampton are complaining about RA's money ruining the game. With the money recieved from players like Cole and Johnson, Duff and Bridge, players such as Jonathan Stead have been bought from lower league clubs, and the money will continue to filter through the football pyramid.

[Nick Whetstone]

I believe if there was any danger of weakening the Premiership by having too big a gap between the 'rich' and 'poor' clubs, then something would be done about it.

Look at Formula One motor racing. It's getting boring because one or two teams who have the most resources win nearly all the races making the outcome too predictable. Result? The ruling body of motor racing are bringing in rules that make it easier for the 'poorer' teams to compete with the 'rich' teams.

On the whole subject of money in sport, it's a bit of a double-edged sword. There's no doubt that it has brought many advantages (safer stadia may have been quickly taken for granted except for the people who were at Hillsborough or Bradford). We have also seen a great 'mixing' of football cultures as players have been transferred between different countries.

On the negative side, it does give some clubs too much of an advantage and, as we have seen at Chelsea, lead to changes that we may not necessarily want or like.

Is CFC's present situation harming the game of football? I guess the answer lies somewhere between 'yes' and 'no'!

[richard]

As I mentioned oblue, it doesn't all revolve around RA and his wad of money. You have to look at the overall affect of finance on the divisions.

Take Bristol City for instance. They missed the chance of promotion to division 1 last season when they got beaten in the play-offs. They got rid of their manager (too expensive to keep) appointed Brian Tinnion, one of their long serving midfielders as player manager, and dumped their best striker, Rougier, who was also too expensive to keep.

Losing the play-off lost them £1m which they would have realised on promotion in, mostly, better gate receipts. It might not sound like a lot of money when we talk about players earning £100,000 a week, but in the 2nd division it would have as much imapact as Chelsea having a good run in the CL!

The revenue they can expect to receive in TV receipts in division 2 will be around £218,000 as opposed to the £729,000 minimum they would have recieved had they won in Cardiff.

I don't see much filtering down of money here.

A quote from the Western Daily Press: "Over the past few years most of us have grown used to equating football with colossal sums of money. The second division is not like this. Last year City's turnover was £3.8m, an improvement of £140,000 in 2002, but not enough to eradicate pre- tax losses of £1.92m. Like most professional football clubs, City's biggest cost is its wage bill, which stood at £3.94m last year."

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to do the math.

So, even in the second division we see player's wages are eating up the resources of the club and threatening its very survival.