• Current Donation Goals

richard

Chelsea Finances Thread

Recommended Posts

The Market Pool is actually split in two equal parts, Pool A & Pool B if you like. The clubs get a share of each half according to two separate calculations.

The calculation for Pool A (half of the country's total market pool) is based on league positions in the previous season, ie the season during which the teams qualified for the competition. In Leagues like ours which have four representatives, like this: -

  • Champions - 40%
  • Runners-Up - 30%
  • Third Place - 20%
  • Fourth Place - 10%

However when one of the clubs are the reigning champions of Europe, as was the case in England last season :) :) :), then The European Champions are awarded a joint top share with the domestic Champions. According to uefa's original formula this should have given Chelsea and City 35% each of 'Pool A' but uefa have adjusted their calculation so the numbers came out at: -

  • Champions of Europe - 30%
  • Champions of England - 30%
  • English Runners-Up - 25%
  • Remaining English Qualifiers - 15%

The calculation for Pool B (the other half of the country's total market pool) is based on the number of games played by each of the teams from the group stage onwards. English clubs played a total of 28 Champions League proper games between them last season. Individual teams share is worked out on the percentage of those games they each played in: -

  • Arsenal, 8 games - 28.57%
  • ManU, 8 games - 28.57%
  • Chelsea, 6 games - 21.43%
  • Man City, 6 games - 21.43%

In addition to the market pool, English clubs also earned further Champions League payments from uefa: -

  • €8.6m each for reaching the group stage.
  • €1m for each group stage win.
  • €0.5m for each group stage draw.
  • €3.5m each for Arsenal and Manu because they reached the last 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lzheyi   

Sky sports reported that Anzhi's owner is cutting budgets and several of their stars are leaving.

I dun think Roman would do this on chelsea but I would thought the sooner we get a bigger stadium the better for us to be self sufficient.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When will people understand that it's not Romans money which is funding our team in general?

Chelsea FC is one of the highest turnover generating clubs in the world.

Think people. Think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   

Our involvement in the Europa League could have cost us a place in the 13/14 Champions League, which is far more important for the club than €10m. In fact the club have probably made that (and perhaps even more) from the pre-season friendlies in Asia and America this summer. It's very easy to understand why clubs dismiss it, the money simply isn't worth the effort.

You're ignoring the benefits of the coefficient points too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

When will people understand that it's not Romans money which is funding our team in general?

Chelsea FC is one of the highest turnover generating clubs in the world.

Think people. Think.

He has made an investment. Whether that is shares or as a cash loan makes no difference, the club pays no interest or dividend on that. Turnover has nothing to do with it, it's about the bottom line (I.e P&L). If we we make a loss, that loss has to be got from somewhere. So, until we make a year-on-year profit that at least goes some way to giving him a return on his investment then I think we can say that Roman is still funding the club to some degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has made an investment. Whether that is shares or as a cash loan makes no difference, the club pays no interest or dividend on that. Turnover has nothing to do with it, it's about the bottom line (I.e P&L). If we we make a loss, that loss has to be got from somewhere. So, until we make a year-on-year profit that at least goes some way to giving him a return on his investment then I think we can say that Roman is still funding the club to some degree.

Dave simply meant that the club is not entirely funded by Roman and he is right.

This is not to say that any of us fails to understand or to appreciate the investment Roman has made but most of the money Chelsea spends is derived from turnover not the owner. Let's hope turnover continues to grow and costs continue to fall.

When I say let's I mean we fans. Roman is doing more than just hoping for it, he's working on it.

Edited by Bridgejunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has made an investment. Whether that is shares or as a cash loan makes no difference, the club pays no interest or dividend on that. Turnover has nothing to do with it, it's about the bottom line (I.e P&L). If we we make a loss, that loss has to be got from somewhere. So, until we make a year-on-year profit that at least goes some way to giving him a return on his investment then I think we can say that Roman is still funding the club to some degree.

You don't get it. What I'm saying is they there's no need for us to lose money year to year. With the turnover we have we should be fine (with a bit of common sense).

It's taken it's time but I reckon (HOPE!) we're finally there. No more stupid spending and let's be honest, it's been the stupid spending that has gotten to us in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When will people understand that it's not Romans money which is funding our team in general?

Chelsea FC is one of the highest turnover generating clubs in the world.

Think people. Think.

yes and no, depends how you look at it and saying its not his money funding us is a bit harsh and short memoried. He may not be putting his hand in his pocket as often as he did but it is because he did that in the past that we have today's turnovers (remember the days before him we did not always fill grounds, have the sponsors and the international shirt buying following we have now) and I am sure if there are losses he is the one to take the hit.

I never get the attitude that some take towards Roman, its his team, its his stadium, its his state of the art training facilities, its his investment and his obsessions (CL) that have got us to this point of almost being financially stable. I may not like everything he did (Rafa, Grant and Sheva come quickly to mind) but without any of that we may have been the club that Ken ran down and out of business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes and no, depends how you look at it and saying its not his money funding us is a bit harsh and short memoried. He may not be putting his hand in his pocket as often as he did but it is because he did that in the past that we have today's turnovers (remember the days before him we did not always fill grounds, have the sponsors and the international shirt buying following we have now) and I am sure if there are losses he is the one to take the hit.

I never get the attitude that some take towards Roman, its his team, its his stadium, its his state of the art training facilities, its his investment and his obsessions (CL) that have got us to this point of almost being financially stable. I may not like everything he did (Rafa, Grant and Sheva come quickly to mind) but without any of that we may have been the club that Ken ran down and out of business.

Wrong. When Roman bought us we had the 6th or 7th highest turnover in Europe.

Yes, it's higher now but let's not re-write history.

Not denying Roman hasn't done a lot for us (cause he has) but a lot of his spending has been straight down the drain which a better football man could have avoided.

It's not all about the spending. It's just as much about HOW you spend it.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rj2115   

Wrong. When Roman bought us we had the 6th or 7th highest turnover in Europe.

Yes, it's higher now but let's not re-write history.

Not denying Roman hasn't done a lot for us (cause he has) but a lot of his spending has been straight down the drain which a better football man could have avoided.

It's not all about the spending. It's just as much about HOW you spend it.!

care to elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now