• Current Donation Goals

richard

Chelsea Finances Thread

Recommended Posts

paulw66   

Just reading Jimmy Greaves autobiography at the moment. How times have changed. We sold him to AC Milan for £80,000. Greaves, who was 21 at the time, and had just finished the previous season with 41 league goals, wanted to back out of the deal during that summer but the club, according to Jimmy, pushed it through in fact whilst telling him they were trying to help him call it off. We were in some decline at the time and money was scarce. When Milan decided to sell him 6 months later, Jimmy chose to go to Spurs even though we came in for him too. He had a different version of that from the clubs as well. Spurs paid £99,999 in the end and the rest is history.

My dad couldnt speak highly enough of Greaves. the greatest goalscorer we ever had

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad couldnt speak highly enough of Greaves. the greatest goalscorer^player we ever had

Edited to reflect my opinion. :)

As I always say, when selecting an all-time Chelsea 11 you write down Jimmy Greaves and then start to think about 10 others. Those 41 goals Richard mentioned were scored in a relegation calibre team. He kept us up for a couple of seasons then, as soon as he left, we went down.

In my opinion JT, at his peak, was a world class centre-half so that makes two world class players who have come through at Chelsea in the last sixty-years. Jimmy was the other.

Edited by Bridgejunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, if not too surprising.

http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/other/pl-club-agents-fees-2010-11.pdf

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2012-13/dec/premier-league-release-agents-fees-nov-2012.html

The last two years showed City ahead of us, this time we are first.

I suspect that the agents of players on loan are doing very well out of us, as we try to maintain their loyalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

My dad couldnt speak highly enough of Greaves. the greatest goalscorer we ever had

My dad agrees with your dad! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harvz   

Here's your cake. Feel free to eat it and then keep it. Hmm...

051120081-01-chocolate-irish-whiskey-cak

Chelsea lost almost 50m quid, but comply with FFP anyway? Rings a bell in terms of the grace period, but rings another altogether more paradoxical bell a fair bit louder.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/31/soccer-england-chelsea-loss-idINDEE9BU0B220131231?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=sportsNews&rpc=401

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ~£50m loss includes all the stuff that isn't counted in FFP considerations (academy spending, any lingering contracts from pre-June 2010, etc.). We're unlikely to get a detailed enough breakdown to be certain - indeed, expect everywhere to place that figure and the FFP limit right next to each other without explaining one iota of this - but I daresay we're absolutely fine.

Edit: As a quote in that link says, apparently our loss in what is applicable to FFP was £16m lower than that figure: £34 million.

Edited by stokerino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DLU   

The ~£50m loss includes all the stuff that isn't counted in FFP considerations (academy spending, any lingering contracts from pre-June 2010, etc.). We're unlikely to get a detailed enough breakdown to be certain - indeed, expect everywhere to place that figure and the FFP limit right next to each other without explaining one iota of this - but I daresay we're absolutely fine.

Edit: As a quote in that link says, apparently our loss in what is applicable to FFP was £16m lower than that figure: £34 million.

Just if we had a bigger stadium that would fetch us a further 34m...

Edit: By bigger I don't necessarily mean a new one.

Edited by DLU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

I think its pretty positive. As stokerino says, the loss seems to be about 34m for FFP purposes. I'd expect that to be recovered (and some) in the next two or three years through increased revenue from PL and CL as a result of increased TV revenues. The importance of qualifying for the CL is as important now as it has ever been. Stadium sponsorship will happen, imo, and probably earn around £10m pa. This year we will also get increased revenue from getting into the last 16 of CL as opposed to EL participation which is a notorious cash guzzler even for the eventual winner.

It should also be noticed, esp. by people who spend a lot of time in the transfer thread, that the squad is currently very young which means that there will probably be limited outlay for new players over the next two or three seasons. That means a year on year reduction in amortisation of player transfer fees. Also, some of our higher earners (apparently) will probably leave over the next two or three years (I am thinking SFL, Ess, Ash and JT). This may give us some reductions in wage costs assuming we bargain "hard but fair" on existing contract renegotiations. We also have a particularly good crop of 16-21s that might help as well.

Contrary to what some people say here, I think Ron Gourlay is doing very well.

Edited by Sciatika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its pretty positive. As stokerino says, the loss seems to be about 34m for FFP purposes. I'd expect that to be recovered (and some) in the next two or three years through increased revenue from PL and CL as a result of increased TV revenues. The importance of qualifying for the CL is as important now as it has ever been. Stadium sponsorship will happen, imo, and probably earn around £10m pa. This year we will also get increased revenue from getting into the last 16 of CL as opposed to EL participation which is a notorious cash guzzler even for the eventual winner.

It should also be noticed, esp. by people who spend a lot of time in the transfer thread, that the squad is currently very young which means that there will probably be limited outlay for new players over the next two or three seasons. That means a year on year reduction in amortisation of player transfer fees. Also, some of our higher earners (apparently) will probably leave over the next two or three years (I am thinking SFL, Ess, Ash and JT). This may give us some reductions in wage costs assuming we bargain "hard but fair" on existing contract renegotiations. We also have a particularly good crop of 16-21s that might help as well.

Contrary to what some people say here, I think Ron Gourlay is doing very well.

Hello Sciatika,

I'd just like to say how much I agree with you about Ron Gourlay. Although he is a senior executive with a duty to guide the club's decisions, he clearly isn't the ultimate power at The Bridge and must sometimes find himself managing the financial impact of unhelpful events around the club. Whether that be a poor transfer deal that wastes tens of millions, a sacking that costs tens of millions more, or bad publicity that makes it harder to seal partnership deals, he has had significant difficulties to overcome and has done that well.

Despite the Europa League win it wasn't a vintage year for us so to produce a record turnover must be seen as a solid achievement especially since this was the year before the full impact of the new Premier League deal came in, and the year before our latest big sponsorship deal takes effect. Ron must have contributed to this.

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