Who will crack the big four and when?

[ChrisJbarnes]

bit harsh considering its actually related to the thread

[Teasy]

I'd say that to crack the top 4 means to get in there for a sustained period, for instance two to three seasons.  IMO Everton don't have what it takes to do that, they could finish in the top four for a season, but not actually crack it.  I honestly think only two clubs have the potential to crack it and that's us and the Spuds.  We have the greatest potential to push on from there as well IMO if we did crack it.

 

If we're just talking about who has the best chance of finishing in the top four next season, then I'd say Everton and Villa  simply due to where they finished last season, but after the transfer window everything could be very different.

[Shearergol]

bit harsh considering its actually related to the thread

 

I know. I'm just sick of him.

[oldtype]

I'd say that to crack the top 4 means to get in there for a sustained period, for instance two to three seasons.  IMO Everton don't have what it takes to do that, they could finish in the top four for a season, but not actually crack it.  I honestly think only two clubs have the potential to crack it and that's us and the Spuds.  We have the greatest potential to push on from there as well IMO if we did crack it.

 

If we're just talking about who has the best chance of finishing in the top four next season, then I'd say Everton and Villa  simply due to where they finished last season, but after the transfer window everything could be very different.

 

What makes it possible for us and not possible for Everton though? Their fan base is large enough, they have a decent amount of cash (granted it may turn out we have LOTS more, but I'll believe it when I see it,) and as far as the current squad goes player-for-player we simply don't compare.

 

I'd say it's either possible for both or impossible for both.

[Baggio]

I'd say that to crack the top 4 means to get in there for a sustained period, for instance two to three seasons.  IMO Everton don't have what it takes to do that, they could finish in the top four for a season, but not actually crack it.  I honestly think only two clubs have the potential to crack it and that's us and the Spuds.  We have the greatest potential to push on from there as well IMO if we did crack it.

 

If we're just talking about who has the best chance of finishing in the top four next season, then I'd say Everton and Villa  simply due to where they finished last season, but after the transfer window everything could be very different.

 

Closet Spurs fan tbh.

[Teasy]

Takes one to know one 

[Dave]

If Everton can replicate this year's finish (unlike the year after they finished fourth) then I can't see why they can't push on from there. If nothing else, finishing in the top five or six for a few years greatly increases the likelihood of a rich backer coming in and spending some money on them.

[Baggio]

If Everton can replicate this year's finish (unlike the year after they finished fourth) then I can't see why they can't push on from there. If nothing else, finishing in the top five or six for a few years greatly increases the likelihood of a rich backer coming in and spending some money on them.

 

Beating the top 4 only makes up 24 points out of a possible 114 anyway so it's possible to lose both games against the top 4 teams and still win the Premiership.

[Teasy]

I'd say that to crack the top 4 means to get in there for a sustained period, for instance two to three seasons.  IMO Everton don't have what it takes to do that, they could finish in the top four for a season, but not actually crack it.  I honestly think only two clubs have the potential to crack it and that's us and the Spuds.  We have the greatest potential to push on from there as well IMO if we did crack it.

 

If we're just talking about who has the best chance of finishing in the top four next season, then I'd say Everton and Villa  simply due to where they finished last season, but after the transfer window everything could be very different.

 

What makes it possible for us and not possible for Everton though? Their fan base is large enough, they have a decent amount of cash (granted it may turn out we have LOTS more, but I'll believe it when I see it,) and as far as the current squad goes player-for-player we simply don't compare.

 

I'd say it's either possible for both or impossible for both.

 

Its possible, just not very likely.  IMO to push on from that kind of position you need big money and Everton aren't anywhere near us when it comes to generating cash.  Just take a look at revenues for Newcastle and Everton based on the 2006/2007 season.

 

Newcastle - £88 million

Everton - £51 million

 

Everton finished 6th that season, we finished 13th, yet we weren't that far from doubling there revenue.

 

I just think that if we finished in a Champions League place we'd be massive financially (we're 16th in world Football now finishing below mid table most of the time in recent years) while Everton would still be below were we are now financially.  Of course that doesn't mean they couldn't push on, as I said I just think that when you get into the top 4 you really need big money to have a real chance to move on from there and challenge, and IMO we'd generate that kind of money while Everton wouldn't.

[Guest defo]

Hate to say it, but if anyone will then it will be Spurs. Seems to be some idea on here that Spurs will have a s*** season again because they did last year but they have a very good manager now with money behind him it seems.

 

Even with the Modric signing they still lack character, I still feel they are a fancy pants team and nothing more. They severely lack physical strength and explosiveness. Till they add a bit of this I think they will continue to struggle. I'm yet to be convinced.

 

I don't think it's fair to say Spurs "continue to struggle". 2 top 5 finishes in the last 3 seasons, 3 consecutive years of European fotball and a trophy this year is not struggling. Bringing Modric Woodgate and Hutton in is building as well

[Incognito]

Hate to say it, but if anyone will then it will be Spurs. Seems to be some idea on here that Spurs will have a s*** season again because they did last year but they have a very good manager now with money behind him it seems.

 

Even with the Modric signing they still lack character, I still feel they are a fancy pants team and nothing more. They severely lack physical strength and explosiveness. Till they add a bit of this I think they will continue to struggle. I'm yet to be convinced.

 

I don't think it's fair to say Spurs "continue to struggle". 2 top 5 finishes in the last 3 seasons, 3 consecutive years of European fotball and a trophy this year is not struggling. Bringing Modric Woodgate and Hutton in is building as well

 

Spuds do continue to struggle.........to attract fans with half a brain cell more than an amoeba.

[OzzieMandias]

Platini's plans to restrict debt would, if introduced and enforced, make a hell of a difference.

 

It would be a total giggle actually if you look at the top 4.

 

Liverpool and Man U would be well fucked. Abramovich would have to write off about £500 million worth of investment as unrecoverable. Arsenal would probably be OK, as their debt is all to do with the stadium, and I can't see how they can prevent clubs borrowing to improve their facilities -- unless Platini wants no new stadiums, ever.

 

And of course, we'd have been fucked too if Ashley hadn't paid off the debts Shepherd ran up.

[Guest orang]

 

 

Its possible, just not very likely.  IMO to push on from that kind of position you need big money and Everton aren't anywhere near us when it comes to generating cash.  Just take a look at revenues for Newcastle and Everton based on the 2006/2007 season.

 

Newcastle - £88 million

Everton - £51 million

 

Everton finished 6th that season, we finished 13th, yet we weren't that far from doubling there revenue.

 

I just think that if we finished in a Champions League place we'd be massive financially (we're 16th in world Football now finishing below mid table most of the time in recent years) while Everton would still be below were we are now financially.  Of course that doesn't mean they couldn't push on, as I said I just think that when you get into the top 4 you really need big money to have a real chance to move on from there and challenge, and IMO we'd generate that kind of money while Everton wouldn't.

 

Those are turnover figures so can be interpreted any way you like.  You could say Everton had a turnover of £51m but then again they have outsourced virtually all club operations so turnover would take a hit.

[ChrisJbarnes]

Hate to say it, but if anyone will then it will be Spurs. Seems to be some idea on here that Spurs will have a s*** season again because they did last year but they have a very good manager now with money behind him it seems.

 

Even with the Modric signing they still lack character, I still feel they are a fancy pants team and nothing more. They severely lack physical strength and explosiveness. Till they add a bit of this I think they will continue to struggle. I'm yet to be convinced.

 

I don't think it's fair to say Spurs "continue to struggle". 2 top 5 finishes in the last 3 seasons, 3 consecutive years of European fotball and a trophy this year is not struggling. Bringing Modric Woodgate and Hutton in is building as well

to be honest, spurs beat arsenal 5-1 and chelsea in the final, and then tailed off and di practically nothing for the rest of the season. that shows to me 2 things- 1) they have a pretty shit mentality if they think "well we cant finish in europe so well not bother 2)with the teams theyve beaten and the way they play, plus some new signings, they wil be very good next season. hopefuly well still thrash them home and away though!!!

[NE5]

Platini's plans to restrict debt would, if introduced and enforced, make a hell of a difference.

 

It would be a total giggle actually if you look at the top 4.

 

Liverpool and Man U would be well fucked. Abramovich would have to write off about £500 million worth of investment as unrecoverable. Arsenal would probably be OK, as their debt is all to do with the stadium, and I can't see how they can prevent clubs borrowing to improve their facilities -- unless Platini wants no new stadiums, ever.

 

And of course, we'd have been fucked too if Ashley hadn't paid off the debts Shepherd ran up.

 

Liverpool, manu and Chelsea have shit boards then ?  mackems.gif

[OzzieMandias]

If you say so.

[The College Dropout]

Spurs, Villa & Everton in that order.

[ChezGiven]

Platini has had it in for English football since 1985 when the events at Heysel overshadowed what was meant to be his swansong. The way he celebrated winning the game showed him up as a self-obsessed twat. Nothing has changed since then.

[NE5]

If you say so.

 

there's a question mark at the end of the sentence

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

If you say so.

 

there's a question mark at the end of the sentence

 

 

 

But you're missing a capital letter and a full stop from that one.

[1878]

If Everton can replicate this year's finish (unlike the year after they finished fourth) then I can't see why they can't push on from there. If nothing else, finishing in the top five or six for a few years greatly increases the likelihood of a rich backer coming in and spending some money on them.

 

Kenwright doesn't want to sell, rich backers have been turned away including Mr Lerner.

 

Might change with the new stadium about to go tits up though.

[OzzieMandias]

Chelsea and Manchester United, the Premier League's two representatives in tomorrow's Champions League final, owe creditors £1.5bn between them. According to the latest accounts of Chelsea Limited, the company which owns the football club, Chelsea owed £736m to all its creditors. United's accounts, also recently filed at Companies House, showed total creditors at £764m. Those unprecedented figures will fuel concern that at this time of English football's greatest club triumph its clubs are carrying too much debt.

 

Covering the year to June 30, 2007, Chelsea's accounts show that the club's largest creditor was the owner himself, Roman Abramovich, who had poured £578m into the club, not as a donation but as an interest-free loan. As stated by the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, in February, Chelsea did not owe "external debt" to any bank.

 

However, with Abramovich's £578m loan, introduced to sign players and pay wages since he bought the club in 2003, plus general amounts owed, taxes and some categories listed among creditors for formal accounting purposes, Chelsea's creditors stood at £736m in total.

 

Chelsea's director of communications, Simon Greenberg, confirmed that the £578m, described in the accounts as "Other loan", is indeed the loan from Abramovich. Greenberg reiterated that Chelsea has no "external debt" and pointed out that the creditors included season-ticket holders for 2007-08, whose money has technically to be treated as owed until the season is over, "and other normal operating creditors". The figure also included £36.3m still owed on a Eurobond taken out by Chelsea's previous owner, Ken Bates, in 1997. That, the last of Chelsea's "external debt", was then repaid last December.

 

Kenyon released headline figures from these accounts in February, highlighting that the club made a record turnover, £190.5m, and that its losses were down from £80.2m in 2005-06 to £75.8m last year. Kenyon said then that the club was in a healthy financial position, still aiming to break even by 2009-10, partly because it did not owe money to outside creditors and retained Abramovich's support. "With the company being external debt free and our ownership clearly demonstrating continuing commitment to the long term," Kenyon said, "I am very confident about the future."

 

United's accounts showed the club's total creditors at £764m. United does have "external debt" - £666m owed to financial institutions, including £152m to hedge funds - taken on by the Glazer family when they bought the club in 2005, then loaded on to United itself. While United's loans incurred interest of £81m last year, the loan to Chelsea by Abramovich is interest-free. Abramovich has funded Chelsea's extraordinary acquisition of stars and, although transfers showed a profit last year, he continued to allow Chelsea to be run at a substantial loss.

 

Kenyon's role is to transform Chelsea into a club which can survive on its own earnings. In February he acknowledged it was an "ambitious" target to aim to be self-financing by 2009-10 but the accounts bear out commercial progress in all areas. Having finished runners-up in the Premier League, won the FA Cup and League Cup and reached the Champions League semi-final, the club's sponsorship, match-day and media income all increased to push total turnover 25% up.

 

However, there is no doubt that the club remains wholly reliant on Abramovich's continued funding. Chelsea's chairman, Bruce Buck, has stressed that Abramovich "loves football" and will not "walk away" from Chelsea.

 

If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/20/premierleague.chelsea

[oldtype]

Chelsea and Manchester United, the Premier League's two representatives in tomorrow's Champions League final, owe creditors £1.5bn between them. According to the latest accounts of Chelsea Limited, the company which owns the football club, Chelsea owed £736m to all its creditors. United's accounts, also recently filed at Companies House, showed total creditors at £764m. Those unprecedented figures will fuel concern that at this time of English football's greatest club triumph its clubs are carrying too much debt.

 

Covering the year to June 30, 2007, Chelsea's accounts show that the club's largest creditor was the owner himself, Roman Abramovich, who had poured £578m into the club, not as a donation but as an interest-free loan. As stated by the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, in February, Chelsea did not owe "external debt" to any bank.

 

However, with Abramovich's £578m loan, introduced to sign players and pay wages since he bought the club in 2003, plus general amounts owed, taxes and some categories listed among creditors for formal accounting purposes, Chelsea's creditors stood at £736m in total.

 

Chelsea's director of communications, Simon Greenberg, confirmed that the £578m, described in the accounts as "Other loan", is indeed the loan from Abramovich. Greenberg reiterated that Chelsea has no "external debt" and pointed out that the creditors included season-ticket holders for 2007-08, whose money has technically to be treated as owed until the season is over, "and other normal operating creditors". The figure also included £36.3m still owed on a Eurobond taken out by Chelsea's previous owner, Ken Bates, in 1997. That, the last of Chelsea's "external debt", was then repaid last December.

 

Kenyon released headline figures from these accounts in February, highlighting that the club made a record turnover, £190.5m, and that its losses were down from £80.2m in 2005-06 to £75.8m last year. Kenyon said then that the club was in a healthy financial position, still aiming to break even by 2009-10, partly because it did not owe money to outside creditors and retained Abramovich's support. "With the company being external debt free and our ownership clearly demonstrating continuing commitment to the long term," Kenyon said, "I am very confident about the future."

 

United's accounts showed the club's total creditors at £764m. United does have "external debt" - £666m owed to financial institutions, including £152m to hedge funds - taken on by the Glazer family when they bought the club in 2005, then loaded on to United itself. While United's loans incurred interest of £81m last year, the loan to Chelsea by Abramovich is interest-free. Abramovich has funded Chelsea's extraordinary acquisition of stars and, although transfers showed a profit last year, he continued to allow Chelsea to be run at a substantial loss.

 

Kenyon's role is to transform Chelsea into a club which can survive on its own earnings. In February he acknowledged it was an "ambitious" target to aim to be self-financing by 2009-10 but the accounts bear out commercial progress in all areas. Having finished runners-up in the Premier League, won the FA Cup and League Cup and reached the Champions League semi-final, the club's sponsorship, match-day and media income all increased to push total turnover 25% up.

 

However, there is no doubt that the club remains wholly reliant on Abramovich's continued funding. Chelsea's chairman, Bruce Buck, has stressed that Abramovich "loves football" and will not "walk away" from Chelsea.

 

If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/20/premierleague.chelsea

 

All this talk about the big 4 clubs having huge debt is nothing really. Many successful modern institutions run on deficit spending. Any of the big 4 going under is just about as likely as the United States of America going bankrupt due to their ginormous national debt. ie, it's not impossible, but not damn likely any time soon.

[Parky]

Chelsea and Manchester United, the Premier League's two representatives in tomorrow's Champions League final, owe creditors £1.5bn between them. According to the latest accounts of Chelsea Limited, the company which owns the football club, Chelsea owed £736m to all its creditors. United's accounts, also recently filed at Companies House, showed total creditors at £764m. Those unprecedented figures will fuel concern that at this time of English football's greatest club triumph its clubs are carrying too much debt.

 

Covering the year to June 30, 2007, Chelsea's accounts show that the club's largest creditor was the owner himself, Roman Abramovich, who had poured £578m into the club, not as a donation but as an interest-free loan. As stated by the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, in February, Chelsea did not owe "external debt" to any bank.

 

However, with Abramovich's £578m loan, introduced to sign players and pay wages since he bought the club in 2003, plus general amounts owed, taxes and some categories listed among creditors for formal accounting purposes, Chelsea's creditors stood at £736m in total.

 

Chelsea's director of communications, Simon Greenberg, confirmed that the £578m, described in the accounts as "Other loan", is indeed the loan from Abramovich. Greenberg reiterated that Chelsea has no "external debt" and pointed out that the creditors included season-ticket holders for 2007-08, whose money has technically to be treated as owed until the season is over, "and other normal operating creditors". The figure also included £36.3m still owed on a Eurobond taken out by Chelsea's previous owner, Ken Bates, in 1997. That, the last of Chelsea's "external debt", was then repaid last December.

 

Kenyon released headline figures from these accounts in February, highlighting that the club made a record turnover, £190.5m, and that its losses were down from £80.2m in 2005-06 to £75.8m last year. Kenyon said then that the club was in a healthy financial position, still aiming to break even by 2009-10, partly because it did not owe money to outside creditors and retained Abramovich's support. "With the company being external debt free and our ownership clearly demonstrating continuing commitment to the long term," Kenyon said, "I am very confident about the future."

 

United's accounts showed the club's total creditors at £764m. United does have "external debt" - £666m owed to financial institutions, including £152m to hedge funds - taken on by the Glazer family when they bought the club in 2005, then loaded on to United itself. While United's loans incurred interest of £81m last year, the loan to Chelsea by Abramovich is interest-free. Abramovich has funded Chelsea's extraordinary acquisition of stars and, although transfers showed a profit last year, he continued to allow Chelsea to be run at a substantial loss.

 

Kenyon's role is to transform Chelsea into a club which can survive on its own earnings. In February he acknowledged it was an "ambitious" target to aim to be self-financing by 2009-10 but the accounts bear out commercial progress in all areas. Having finished runners-up in the Premier League, won the FA Cup and League Cup and reached the Champions League semi-final, the club's sponsorship, match-day and media income all increased to push total turnover 25% up.

 

However, there is no doubt that the club remains wholly reliant on Abramovich's continued funding. Chelsea's chairman, Bruce Buck, has stressed that Abramovich "loves football" and will not "walk away" from Chelsea.

 

If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/20/premierleague.chelsea

 

All this talk about the big 4 clubs having huge debt is nothing really. Many successful modern institutions run on deficit spending. Any of the big 4 going under is just about as likely as the United States of America going bankrupt due to their ginormous national debt. ie, it's not impossible, but not damn likely any time soon.

 

The difference being top football clubs can't start wars. 

[oldtype]

Chelsea and Manchester United, the Premier League's two representatives in tomorrow's Champions League final, owe creditors £1.5bn between them. According to the latest accounts of Chelsea Limited, the company which owns the football club, Chelsea owed £736m to all its creditors. United's accounts, also recently filed at Companies House, showed total creditors at £764m. Those unprecedented figures will fuel concern that at this time of English football's greatest club triumph its clubs are carrying too much debt.

 

Covering the year to June 30, 2007, Chelsea's accounts show that the club's largest creditor was the owner himself, Roman Abramovich, who had poured £578m into the club, not as a donation but as an interest-free loan. As stated by the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, in February, Chelsea did not owe "external debt" to any bank.

 

However, with Abramovich's £578m loan, introduced to sign players and pay wages since he bought the club in 2003, plus general amounts owed, taxes and some categories listed among creditors for formal accounting purposes, Chelsea's creditors stood at £736m in total.

 

Chelsea's director of communications, Simon Greenberg, confirmed that the £578m, described in the accounts as "Other loan", is indeed the loan from Abramovich. Greenberg reiterated that Chelsea has no "external debt" and pointed out that the creditors included season-ticket holders for 2007-08, whose money has technically to be treated as owed until the season is over, "and other normal operating creditors". The figure also included £36.3m still owed on a Eurobond taken out by Chelsea's previous owner, Ken Bates, in 1997. That, the last of Chelsea's "external debt", was then repaid last December.

 

Kenyon released headline figures from these accounts in February, highlighting that the club made a record turnover, £190.5m, and that its losses were down from £80.2m in 2005-06 to £75.8m last year. Kenyon said then that the club was in a healthy financial position, still aiming to break even by 2009-10, partly because it did not owe money to outside creditors and retained Abramovich's support. "With the company being external debt free and our ownership clearly demonstrating continuing commitment to the long term," Kenyon said, "I am very confident about the future."

 

United's accounts showed the club's total creditors at £764m. United does have "external debt" - £666m owed to financial institutions, including £152m to hedge funds - taken on by the Glazer family when they bought the club in 2005, then loaded on to United itself. While United's loans incurred interest of £81m last year, the loan to Chelsea by Abramovich is interest-free. Abramovich has funded Chelsea's extraordinary acquisition of stars and, although transfers showed a profit last year, he continued to allow Chelsea to be run at a substantial loss.

 

Kenyon's role is to transform Chelsea into a club which can survive on its own earnings. In February he acknowledged it was an "ambitious" target to aim to be self-financing by 2009-10 but the accounts bear out commercial progress in all areas. Having finished runners-up in the Premier League, won the FA Cup and League Cup and reached the Champions League semi-final, the club's sponsorship, match-day and media income all increased to push total turnover 25% up.

 

However, there is no doubt that the club remains wholly reliant on Abramovich's continued funding. Chelsea's chairman, Bruce Buck, has stressed that Abramovich "loves football" and will not "walk away" from Chelsea.

 

If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/20/premierleague.chelsea

 

All this talk about the big 4 clubs having huge debt is nothing really. Many successful modern institutions run on deficit spending. Any of the big 4 going under is just about as likely as the United States of America going bankrupt due to their ginormous national debt. ie, it's not impossible, but not damn likely any time soon.

 

The difference being top football clubs can't start wars. 

 

If Spurs keep fucking around with our transfers, we just might get around to disproving that