Teasy

Thor Björgólfsson doesn't even live in Britain does he? Which British list do you mean?, the Sunday Times rich list? If so Björgólfur Guðmundsson isn't on there AFAICS. Not that its important, I don't want to derail the thread. I'm just interested now..

Ah right did a bit of digging and found out that its Björgólfur Guðmundsson who owns about 90% of West Ham. He's got about £600 million in the bank. His son is (who as far as I can tell has nothing to do with West Ham financially) is Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson (one hell of a name that!). He has around £1.7 billion in the bank... He isn't richer actually, not according to the info I can see anyway.

Who is this icelandic billionaire and also who is my messiah?..... I'm not religious

How much money do they actually have? Who owns them? As far as I remember its some kind of consortium, but who does that include outisde of Eggert Magnussen?

Parker isn't worth the money we initially paid for him, to make such a profit is something we'd be insane to turn down IMO.

You can't sign someone against there wishes, what a load of shit...

There have been three already, all free transfers. I don't know what his motives are. But at least we're in a far better financial situation then Chelsea where when they were taken over. We should be in a much better position to survive this kind of situation IMO. Especially if the new development still goes ahead.

that article is accurate but it is a season old - prior to last summers buys. They have lost a bit of money since then too. Yeah if it is true and losses are no longer being obsorbed by Abramovich adding last seasons losses would mean a current debt of £249 million. On top of that they seem to be making much bigger losses then transfers alone could explain. Of course they've decreased there yearly losses from £140 million to £80 million. Probaby because they didn't spend as much on players this year as the previous year. But that's still a huge loss, which will not go away simply because they stop buying players. The new sponsorship deal will help, but it won't come close to wiping out those yearly losses.

What did they spend on players last season? Also is that article correct that the club itself have a £169 million debt?

How do you know there revenue is in a different league to ours? I doubt that (depending on what you consider a different league to mean of course). Even if it was do you not think their wage bill is in an even bigger league, I'd bet its in a league of its own entirely. I mean they have numerous players on well over 100,000 per week, Ballack's on 140,000! They'll become self sufficient if they can continue to be successful while cutting that wage bill significantly. They need to keep being successful because the extra fans there now are mostly glory supporters. If the success dwindles, so will merchandise, TV revenue and Sponsorship, as well as prize money. After all its not as if they have a massive fanbase wether they're successful or not to keep there revenue high.. Again according to the Sun Abramovich has told them they have to cap the wages, which means they can't afford to renew many of there players contracts without them accepting pay cuts.

Building a new stadium costs a hell of a lot of money. Also while they may of had a similar size debt as us pre Abramovich, unlike us, they weren't in a position where is was manageable. Will they be now?, without the absolutely astronomical wage bill to pay for out of club revenue I'd say yes. But as it is IMO it relies totally on how successful the team are on the pitch in the next couple of seasons and how loyal some of there players are (I'd safely guess not very).

If that article, from The Sun, is correct on many of its assumptions, then I'll eat my hands. I know what you're getting at, in all fairness, but I simply don't think it's as doom and gloom as you're making out. All the moeny spent by Roman was an investment, and now it's time for the investment to really start paying off. Chelsea won't have a bank balance of £0 because Abramovich isn't throwing his cash about anymore. It just doesn't work like that. They've got massive sponsorship deals now, if they'd still have been on the old ones, then I'd probably agree with you. They've done so much behind the scenes to get more money in, connections in the Far East, even around the world. The only thing they haven't invested in is the stadium which you keep bringing up, as if it's some trump card. If we aren't going by the article here then we have no idea what's happening and really nothing to discuss in the first place I'd agree with you if the situation is as you're assuming, which it might be of course. But if its true that Abramovich has told Chelsea he is having little to do with the club in the future, with his financial support being removed then I'd stick to my opinion. Which is not one of Chelsea going under by the way, but rather that they cannot sustain there current success. Sponsorship deals and connections in the far east are one thing, paying the kind of wage bill they must currently have out of club revenue is another. Players will have to go, the squad will have to be majorly downsized. Also IMO the stadium can be quite important, Its a source of major revenue and also an icon for the club.

The big difference there is that we have a far better financial base then Chelsea had before Abramovich arrived. Our revenue is in a different league to Chelsea's pre take over. If the stadium plan continues it'll then be even stronger. So I'd be far more confident of us being able to survive and even flourish in this kind of situation.

But if that article is correct its far more extreme then that. Abramovich is still going to own Chelsea. However he is leaving and letting someone else run it and having very little to do with the club at all. Its not just an end to silly transfers either, he's actually cutting all financial support. They have to operate completely on there own, which would explain why he's told them they have to now bring in a wage cap. As without his support they can't afford the wage bill anymore. All I'm going on here is the article at the start of this thread of course. But that's all any of us have to go on at the moment.

Terry and Lampard have two years left on there current contracts. Unless Chelsea sell them both now they aren't going to go for big fee's. They might have a bigger fanbase, for now, but they aren't in a position to accommodate them, there stadium is still the same piece of crap its been for years. I agree that they're in a far better position now then they were before Abramovich arrived. But that doesn't mean they're going to be as good in the next few years as they have been in the past few seasons.

How's that then? They can't support the wages of there best players using the clubs revenue. Had Abramovich built a state of the art 50,000+ stadium for them before pissing off then I'd have to agree with you more or less. But he didn't. There's absolutely no chance of them rising further then they are now. They just can't support that financially. Madrid are a very different animal, they have a massive stadium and are still bailed out by the Spanish government today when they get into financial troubles... Chelsea have a poor stadium and will now no longer be bailed out of any financial mess they get themselves into.

Who says they aren't going anywhere? Terry and Lampards contracts are running out and now Chelsea have to introduce a wage cap. Without Abramovich's money they can't come close to affording to renewing there contracts without them accepted a major pay cut, which they won't accept that. Yeah you can probably expect Cole to be fit for most of the season, maybe even Robben, but who says any combination of Lampard, Terry, Drobga, Cech, Essien, Shevchenko or Ballack won't be injured? Yeah they've gotten some good free transfers this season. Simply because they're successful at the moment (though much less so this past season). What happens when contracts expire and can't be renewed for a lot of the players I just mentioned? What happens if they win nothing next season? No matter what way you look at it Chelsea are not going to be the same now as they have been over the last few years. They have no safety net, there best players have unsupportable contracts and there's in fighting which could see there manager leave.

Probably be good for him, no Roman led signings to upset things. Got to laugh at people thnking this is the end for them. Why? They don't have any better of a financial support structure now then they had before Abramovich came in. Most importantly there stadium is still the same rat trap its always been. How will they now pay the wages they're currently paying? Never mind get new players in if needed. They're in a position now where they could lose huge players like Terry and Lampard for close to nothing, how will they be replaced? Its going to take extremely good management of the club to sort things out IMO. I can see them regressing season after season, they lose players, stop winning things, there fanbase goes back towards what it used to be, revenue drops, plus no more money from Abramovich.

How is there no chance?.. Our spending over the last 10 years probably averages £20 million a season (maybe slightly less, maybe slightly more). A further £34 million per season from Ashley for 5 seasons (£175 million total) is hardly impossible from a multi-billionaire.. Our average spend is £8m a year, more or less the same as Liverpool. I meant our average outlay rather then our average net outlay, which I assume is what your talking about there. After all its unlikely the £270 million talked about will disclude money gained from player sales. If it does we'd be looking at a whole lot more then £54 million per season (I realise this is all theoretical and based on paper talk of course).

How is there no chance?.. Our spending over the last 10 years probably averages £20 million a season (maybe slightly less, maybe slightly more). A further £34 million per season from Ashley for 5 seasons (£175 million total) is hardly impossible from a multi-billionaire..

So you would take millions upon millions out of the clubs coffers as it struggles along in mid table? I f****** know I wouldn't! If the man really loved the club he'd forgo the absurd wage he pays himself and the ridiculous dividends he gives to himself and put everything into the well being of the club. I'd be too embarrassed to take any wage if I was responsible for the s*** Newcastle United have gone through for the last few years. Let alone a wage many times higher then any other chairman around. I certainly would pay myself millions in dividends and syphon off even more by giving dodgy contracts to my own companies. He's already a millionaire yet he leeches millions from the club every year despite the atrocious job he does. Does that sound like someone who loves the club as much as any real fan? Not saying I wish him ill health of course, I just don't think he loves the club, in fact I think its blatantly apparent that he doesn't. I think he's a fan and he does care about the club, but nowhere near as much as most real fans.

They must hold some sort of importance to there criteria if they're going to ask Newcastle to join. Because I really don't see how we fit into there big plans at the moment outside of our big stadium and high Uefa ranking. Then again I'm sure they'll find some way to ignore this if they ever decide they really need Chelsea in there group. I'm certainly not going to assume that greasy russian has refused an offer to join them at this point though.

Cant be that, there capacity is no worse than many of the teams already in G14 Those teams got into the G14 before that criteria was in place. At the time Chelsea were absolute nobodies on the world stage with a coefficient ranking outside the top 100.

Stadium capacity (there stadium is basically utter shit).

The only reason they aren't is because they don't meet the criteria.....