• Current Donation Goals

richard

Chelsea Finances Thread

Recommended Posts

Crowey,

How can you start pointing fingers at Arsenal's involvement of "buying" other clubs.....

Also I would actually look into the Beveren story a little closer first and then maybe you will get your facts correct. At no point has Arsenal owned any controlling interest in Beveren, infact we have never owned any shares in that club at all. A loan was made and is all above board if you care to read the fifa and fa regulations you would see that!

Also to some research in the amount of clubs that own shares in other clubs you will be astounded!

I have no problem people rasing points, however once again resorting to uninformed attacks isn't going to help your argument!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to reply to Peebles, with all the salient points that Michael & others have written. But the reality is I can`t be bothered, because it is just too boring, watching paint dry is more interesting. We have heard it all before. Is cell block H still on , that's more original than Peebles post.

By answering his posts intelligently, I feel it also endows his position with some legitimacy, which it doesn`t deserve.

So as Carefree CFC says

"Ha Ha we are better than you and we will win more trophies than you oh and we are richer than you."

Ner ner ner ner...want to borrow a fiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we keep having this debate?

Steve Howard had his no-penneth worth in The Sun today about this. I hate to say all this stuff again, but here are some facts.

1)Last summer Real Madrid spent more money than Chelsea and won nothing.

2)Liverpool's team of European Champions was assembled for over £50 million pounds.

3)Man Utd have broken the British transfer record three times in the last five years - and won only one league title in that time.

4)Arsenal have two players in their squad signed for £10 million, one for £17 million and one for £8 million - and haven't finished spending this summer yet.

5)How are Liverpool, United and Arsenal trying to catch us? By buying players, spending money.

6)Real Madrid bought Figo for £37 million and Zidane for £45 million and neither have had any sell on value

7)Juventus spent £32 million (more than we paid for Sheva) on a goalkeeper.

8)Chelsea's money saved West Ham from administration (as they have admitted), and has allegedly saved at least two or three other clubs indirectly from going into administration. It also wrote off a third of Man City's then £63 million debt.

9)We spent more money in our first summer under Ambramovich than the last two summers and won nothing.

10)A very similar squad, under a different manager, has won back-to-back league titles.

11)JM won the CL and UEFA Cup with Porto on a budget "similar to Sunderland's" (JM).

To me this suggests that we are not the only club that has spent big on players and that big-money does not guarantee trophies. it suggests that money combined with superb management, organisation, leadership, tactics and strong team spirit (none of which money can buy) can win you major trophies - and that both are required. In fact, Porto's CL win under JM suggests that money is actually less important than the latter qualities.

So does money take the shine off? No, not at all, because any successful club in the current climate (created by big clubs like Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal in the Prem and the G14 clubs with the CL) needs to spend big to get the best players to win the top trophies consistently. And also becuause the success we've had is not just down to money, but to having the most natural born leader in world football, the best team spirit I've ever seen at the club and a managerial genius in charge. So no. Sorry to dissapoint you peebles. But of course, you'd be saying this if Abramovich had bought Liverpool and presumbably you too HertsGoooner if he'd bought Arsenal, then spent as much and won the trophies he's brought to Chelsea. You'd be saying those titles you won didn't count as they're tarnished. Of course you would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by James Prescott

Why do we keep having this debate?

Steve Howard had his no-penneth worth in The Sun today about this.


id="quote">

id="quote">

Gawd don't get me started on that whinging whining 1950s Kooky from 77 sunset strip look-alike retro fashion disaster talentless anti Chelsea anti England know nothing what's he ever done in the game alledged sports-writer.

I don't know what the big deal is. We've still got a lower wage bill than Microsoft, IBM and the rest of the elite global brands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Originally posted by James Prescott

Why do we keep having this debate?


id="quote">

id="quote">

Because we keep letting (in particular) 'genuine' Liverpool supporters on here to pose 'genuine' questions about areas of Chelsea's activity that 'genuinely' concern them, and which they 'genuinely' believe we'll be 'genuinely' interested in debating again, for the 700th time. This gives them, of course, the opportunity to be 'genuinely' surprised with the reactions they receive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it isa quite obvious that 'Genuine' supporters asking 'Genuine' questions on 'Genuine' feelings aren't really wanted on this forum, so I will say thankyou for taking the time to respond to my questions (those that did). I won't be posting anymore on your forums and hope you enjoy the coming season. I would just like to add that the poster who said

"I don't know what the big deal is. We've still got a lower wage bill than Microsoft, IBM and the rest of the elite global brands"

The difference here is they are all well run major companies accountable and run within their means!

Signing off

HertsGooner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Originally posted by HertsGooner

Also I would actually look into the Beveren story a little closer first and then maybe you will get your facts correct. At no point has Arsenal owned any controlling interest in Beveren, infact we have never owned any shares in that club at all. A loan was made and is all above board if you care to read the fifa and fa regulations you would see that!


id="quote">

id="quote">

And I think that you need to take your own advice. There is clear evidence that Arsenal made the loan to establish a company with the express purpose of achieving ownership of the club, and controlling its operation. Personally, I couldn't give a toss what Arsenal do, or don't do. However, since Dein and Wenger have spent the past 12 months painting themselves as Mother Teresa clones whilst criticising Chelsea on 'moral' grounds, don't expect anything other than snickering around here at this news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supporting Chelsea is not - at least for me - a cheap business.

Watching world class players at the top of their game week in and week out is surely a dream for every supporter of their club. The romance of 11 lads from the local area turning out is something that will never again win a title unless the FA drastically change the rules. There are supporters up and down the country at odds with their chairman for bleeding clubs dry and refusing to pump funds for players (just look how many managers leave over the next few months due to lack of funds to improve their squads).

In addition the effect is probably multiplied on this forum as we happy few, we band of brothers have seen times where the purse hasn't been quite so full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by HertsGooner

One man basically bankrolls you, to the extent that if he decided to pull out Chelsea would not survive.


id="quote">

id="quote">

Opposition fans often bring this up but it really isn’t an issue. Roman has cleared all our debts and (due to his largesse) we currently don’t owe anyone a single penny. So what would happen if at lunch time today Roman decides to up and leave? He has two basic choices. Either asset strip the club or sell it as a going concern.

The first is going to take years to do; he’ll quickly find any number of takers for the players if he holds a knock down fire sale but that wouldn’t generate any where near the money he’s invested. He can’t really make much out of the sale of land or the ground as the fans hold the free hold of the pitch through the pitch owners scheme and the hotel is now independently run by the Marriot chain (correct me if I’ve remembered that wrong) not to mention the number of privately owned flats. Therefore there would be years of court wrangles before he could oust all opposition and sell the land. Hardly worth it. It would also mean that when it comes to finding new owners for the club no one will be interested and he’ll get no value.

So he might decide to sell the club as a going concern which currently is nor bad thing. Much as I dislike the branding of Chelsea our marketability has increased massively since Roman took over. We have one of the largest sponsorship deals in Europe and are steadily increasing our image (I.e. sales) in foreign markets. We have a squad that can be a marketing mans dreams and will continue to win domestically possibly even in Europe, for at least the next 5 years which again will only increase the flow of money into the club.

The only concern would be that it would probably take a Glazer style leveraged buy out which might incur large debt. But as yet this has not hampered Utd to any great degree so need not hamper us.

Since the formation of the PL money has become the overriding ingredient for success (and has always been a main ingredient). The G14, of which the red three are all members, is a despicable cartel which has a simple mandate of eliminating all competition to it’s members and hording all the cash in the game. I for one hope Chelsea never join this ‘elite’ as it is simply ‘old’ money

The teams with the money have always used it to make sure that as soon as any club got competitively near to them they were once again able to flash the cash and pull away once again. The red three have always used cash as a stick to beat down the aspirations of other clubs. This might have been on a precedented scale and even within the means for the clubs income but they still used it as a tool to remain uncompetitive. Chelsea has simply got a bigger stick with which to fight back.

I for one do not feel in anyway hollow or that the money has taken the gloss of our wins. I often thought there was an darned good chance I would never see us win the league in my life time and am eternally thankful to Roman that he realised on of my lifes dreams.

If the issue of money is such a bi issue to opposition fans such as yourself are you asking the same questions to the likes of Fulham, Rusden and Diamonds, Wigan etc who have all achieved success solely through sugar daddies that allowed them to spend beyond their means? Or do you not bother asking teams such as this said questions because they are not encroaching on your divine right to win trophies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Liverpool fan, can I just say that the spending of Chelsea doesn't bother me at all, so I can't see why it bothers you.

I reckon that whilst obviously extra money gives an advantage there is somethig of a "self-limiting" mechanism at work. The more you spend on big-name players, the better the team becomes at that point in time, but there is an offsetting effect affecting the willingness of new talent to be attracted to the club (see example of SWP as a cautionary tale for good young players versus, say, Arsenals track record).

Secondly you can only play 11 on the field and there's certain players who are happy to sit on the bench and others who do not. Those who sit either are lower ability (accepting this is their lot in life) or have a bad, uncompetitive attitude. I wouldn't want the latter in my squad full stop, so a squad of mega-superstars including a number who are happy to draw the six-figure weekly salary and play 25 games a year has something of a built-in self destruct mechanism.

Thirdly, what has John Terry got that Andrey Shevchenko can never have? Answer; he owes Chelsea something and has a feeling for the club. Sure, you can bring in big talent but the heart of the team matters the most and that cannot be bought.

Finally, life has a way of evening things up. A few years ago Ferrarri had much the same position as Chelsea. A budget as big as everyone else combined, the best car, the most expensive driver. Now look. Ok, some regulations were fiddled with but this has largely been reversed but they've been caught.

In the end, the lasting qualities are team culture, tactical nous and individual ability. The last can usually be bought but the others are less easily acquired. I reckon Chelsea will stay a good team whilst they have the first two, but no amount of money spent on the third would compensate for a loss of the first two. There's a risk that certain mega-name purchases (not Shevchenko, but possibly Ballack and definitely Roberto Carlos) might precipitate that effect.

In the history of sport there have been countless times when someone apeared to reach an unassailable position, but it never lasts. Competition improves and sometimes the reason for dominance plants the seeds of destruction. I am happy to have the competition so good because it's forcing my club to strengthen and improve. Enjoy it while it lasts!

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