• Current Donation Goals

Martin1905

Conte, stay or go?

Recommended Posts

paulw66   
22 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

Agree with this. 

City makes roughly £100m more than us over a year, has a higher wage and transfer budget compared to us and still breaks even! We on the other hand are making losses year after year. The difference can be found in commercial revenue and tv money.

Something doesn't feel right for me either.

 

Which is false.......as described hereunder:

17 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think that's because City are cheating .

When the squeeze is on they can just call up the sheikhs brother and get him to sponsor something else and bail them out.

There is no "think" about it. They spend ludicrous amounts (far more than we ever have) on transfers and wages. Players leave City on free transfers, they generate nothing in sales. We buy Morata, and sell Costa. They buy £130m on full backs after tossing aside Clichy, Kolorav, Zabaleta and Sagna. The maths just don't add up. The biggest revenue comes from TV money, and that is evenly distributed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Singleton said:

Given that all the media have been suggesting Conte is about to be sacked since the first game of the season, "Man We Said Would be Sacked Stays in Job" is hardly a headline I expect to see.

True - but the story Zaffo linked to has this headline:

BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR CONTE IS IS PREPARING TO RETURN TO CHELSEA

1 hour ago, The_Ghost said:

Agree with this. 

City makes roughly £100m more than us over a year, has a higher wage and transfer budget compared to us and still breaks even! We on the other hand are making losses year after year. The difference can be found in commercial revenue and tv money.

Something doesn't feel right for me either.

It is not the TV money - it is purely commercial revenue and of course it is a fix - a bluff that UEFA have chosen not to call.  
FFP is over - UEFA doesn't have the balls to enforce it (or knows it is probably against EU law).

What we have at Chelsea is self-chosen FFP, or simply RA no longer feels he should be throwing more money at the club.   Given how far we are ahead of City and PSG in terms of recent achievements, surely that is right.

(see Mark and Paul)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think that's because City are cheating .

When the squeeze is on they can just call up the sheikhs brother and get him to sponsor something else and bail them out.

£40m midfielder? 

No problem. Abu Dhabi Plumbers sponsor each corner flag at £10m each. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

It is not the TV money - it is purely commercial revenue and of course it is a fix - a bluff that UEFA have chosen not to call.  

FFP is over - UEFA doesn't have the balls to enforce it (or knows it is probably against EU law).

What we have at Chelsea is self-chosen FFP, or simply RA no longer feels he should be throwing more money at the club.   Given how far we are ahead of City and PSG in terms of recent achievements, surely that is right.

(see Mark and Paul)

I'm not trying to start a discussion/argument regarding whether City (or any other club, for that matter) cheat at FFP or not. Forget FFP altogether. Forget other clubs.

I find it odd that a club, Chelsea FC, that are regularly at the top of the TV money table, regularly at the top of the sponsorship deals table, etc., etc., due in part to on-field success seems to just about scrape by; posting a small loss one year, a small profit the next, leading us to the frankly ridiculous situation whereby we can't buy unless we sell. I get RA has already dug deep in the past, and I agree that he shouldn't need to do so again and again. However, by now, given our success both on the field and commercially, notwithstanding we have a smaller stadium than our rivals, we really should be doing better financially than we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:

I find it odd that a club, Chelsea FC, that are regularly at the top of the TV money table, regularly at the top of the sponsorship deals table, etc., etc., due in part to on-field success seems to just about scrape by; posting a small loss one year, a small profit the next, leading us to the frankly ridiculous situation whereby we can't buy unless we sell. I get RA has already dug deep in the past, and I agree that he shouldn't need to do so again and again. However, by now, given our success both on the field and commercially, notwithstanding we have a smaller stadium than our rivals, we really should be doing better financially than we are.

You mean bigger profits?  Because surely the idea is that we do put any profits back into better players and more wage and transfer costs?  Zero profits is the target. 

Or do you mean bigger revenues?  Yes we want revenues to grow - but they do (excluding Match day/seat sales).  

Up another 10% to £368m last season.

Image result for chelsea revenues growth

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, xCELERYx said:

Then what happens when that inevitably fails? 

 

The third coming...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, McCreadie said:

The third coming...?

I wish - but he'll turn us down until we get the squad sorted first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, McCreadie said:

The third coming...?

I hope not... never wanted him back the second time (I know... I was in a minority on that, but I just can't stand the guy) and was glad when he was sacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Droy was my hero said:

 

It is not the TV money - it is purely commercial revenue and of course it is a fix - a bluff that UEFA have chosen not to call.  
FFP is over - UEFA doesn't have the balls to enforce it (or knows it is probably against EU law).

What we have at Chelsea is self-chosen FFP, or simply RA no longer feels he should be throwing more money at the club.   Given how far we are ahead of City and PSG in terms of recent achievements, surely that is right.

(see Mark and Paul)

It would be so easy for UEFA to ensure FFP was enforceable, as DWMH states they do not have the will (or balls) to do so. 

Man City's main sponsor - ETIHAD Airways consistently lose a lot of of money, so much so that most 'real' commercial business's could not sustain them and would go out of business very quickly. They lost $1.87billion on a turnover of $8.36billion in their financial year ending 2016 and expected that position to not improve the next year. They have been accused of massaging their accounts for years and up to recently would not release them for scrutiny. They are continually bankrolled by their nation.

Most other football clubs main sponsors have to operate in the real commercial world of profit & loss and have shareholders or private boards of directors to pacify. All UEFA need do is put constraints on sponsors based on profitability of their business and rate of sponsorship based on turnover and profit.

Since the FFP rules have been put into place, Chelsea have attempted to operate within these rules, Christian Purslow was interviewed within the last 6 months and stated that RA no longer wanted to keep having to write cheques to cover the financial gaps and hasn't done so for the last threes seasons. Until the oil rich Emerati are made to play by the same rules, there will be the disparity in spending power we see currently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, East Lower said:

It would be so easy for UEFA to ensure FFP was enforceable,

Yes, very easy.  And no new ideas are needed.  Monitoring the transfer profits into or (mostly) out of related companies is a basic accounting issue, and critical wherever there is foreign ownership (tax avoidance) or minority shareholders (big shareholder cheating small shareholders).  The rules and procedures are very well understood and very very easy to define clearly.  Transactions with related parties is No 1 on the list of issues monitored.

It is balls, not rules, that EUFA lacks.

Except of course that punishment of clubs for breaking FFP may be well be illegal in an EU court.  Indeed FFP may well be considered a for of collusion by companies to distort a market (which obviously it is).  So it may well be UEFA lacks balls now because as I stated years ago, FFP can't be forced on any club that doesn't want it.

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