• Current Donation Goals

richard

Chelsea Finances Thread

Recommended Posts

THAT was my point to begin with.

It's one of those Red shirt arguments you get on here:

Poster A < Chelsea play in Red shirts

Poster B < No they don't - the shirts are blue

Poster C < There is clearly Red in the shirts - anyone can see that

Poster B < What are you one about - clearly for the purposes of my post I am right to say we play in Blue

Poster C < Well if you get to pass your colour blindness test like I have, then you can clearly see the Red on the collar. I'm right, your wrong, plus extra added sarcasm.

Poster B < I give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rj2115   

Yes. But that has nothing to do with our (self)generated income or FCF.

But everything to do with insane spending. Spending the football world had never seen before. And even so, it took the best manger in the world to make it work. After Jose we won one league title in 6 seasons despite continuing to spend silly money (not all seasons mind, but for most).

THAT was my point to begin with.

how much did we spend after Jose left?

we haven't spent more than 25 million/ season net after he left, before Torres and Luiz

spent

07-08 net spending 15.5

08-09 -12 (we made money)

09-10 23

it is the second round spending we needed to do to remain competitive its on players which are the playing in team now and I doubt we will splashing 50 million a season for a while unless its some big name

the only place where we failed to see the return is the money spent on youth

as for failures tell me a team that hasn't had bad transfers, nobody thought (except a few) Torres will turn out to be a big disaster

Edited by rj2115

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kelam94   

Pretty funny how we went from 10th to 4th the season RA bought us, listening to Dave youd think we went backwards. Spurs are in the same position we were 10 years ago, just flirting with. the CL qualification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hanuma   

It's one of those Red shirt arguments you get on here:

Poster A < Chelsea play in Red shirts

Poster B < No they don't - the shirts are blue

Poster C < There is clearly Red in the shirts - anyone can see that

Poster B < What are you one about - clearly for the purposes of my post I am right to say we play in Blue

Poster C < Well if you get to pass your colour blindness test like I have, then you can clearly see the Red on the collar. I'm right, your wrong, plus extra added sarcasm.

Poster B < I give up.

Perfect. This seems like it should be regarded as some sort of law, like Godwin's Law or something. DROY's law perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty funny how we went from 10th to 4th the season RA bought us, listening to Dave youd think we went backwards. Spurs are in the same position we were 10 years ago, just flirting with. the CL qualification.

If you think about it I reckon you'll find that had nothing to do with RA I'm afraid.

Much more likely that the CL qualification we won WITHOUT Romans money the season before was the catalyst for that.

Jeez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the slower kids in class, that means we were the 10th best income generating club in Europe WITHOUT Romans money and WITHOUT CL football.

How about that for a local garment shop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the slower kids in class, that means we were the 10th best income generating club in Europe WITHOUT Romans money and WITHOUT CL football.

How about that for a local garment shop?

Money goes to money as the saying goes. The higher up the table Chelsea got and the further we went in Europe, the more of an enticement we became for sponsors and investors. And to a larger extent, players and mangers of ( arguably ) a better standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

It is shocking:

Year Turnover (£m) Profit (£m)
2000 59.245910 2.311100
2001 51.326000 -5.962280
2002 75.247960 -10.476580
2003 75.135850 -15.276900


The fact that we could generate a high turnover didn't help with our bottom line.

Edited by Sciatika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vinod   

It is shocking:

Year Turnover (£m) Profit (£m)

2000 59.245910 2.311100

2001 51.326000 -5.962280

2002 75.247960 -10.476580

2003 75.135850 -15.276900

The fact that we could generate a high turnover didn't help with our bottom line.

Having to service debt can make a P&L statement look like that; that coupled with having experienced players on relatively high wages on the roster (Petit, Zenden, Jimmy Floyd, Desailly, etc )

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