Jackie Broon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 Just now, TRon said: Did they pay him the loan back then? Yes, but that doesn't result in them having £1.5bn to spend. That 1.5bn was the money put in by Abramovich, it had already been spent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 Just now, Jackie Broon said: Yes, but that doesn't result in them having £1.5bn to spend. That 1.5bn was the money put in by Abramovich, it had already been spent. So they did have £1.5bn funds pumped into their coffers from a Russian who is no longer welcome here. It hasn't been paid back, neither is it going to be. I'd love to see them spending the money they are this season if they had £1.5bn less in their accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 1 minute ago, TRon said: So they did have £1.5bn funds pumped into their coffers from a Russian who is no longer welcome here. It hasn't been paid back, neither is it going to be. I'd love to see them spending the money they are this season if they had £1.5bn less in their accounts. If anything it's the opposite, it cost the buyers an extra 1.5bn on the sale price to purchase the debt from Abramovich. The debt was interest free and so didn't affect Chelsea's ability to spend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 In light of Schar's goal today and Maddison long range prowess, when were so dominant but need that X factor to open the scoring - want this more now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemtizz Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 2 hours ago, Jackie Broon said: If anything it's the opposite, it cost the buyers an extra 1.5bn on the sale price to purchase the debt from Abramovich. The debt was interest free and so didn't affect Chelsea's ability to spend. Did the buyer purchase the debt from Abramovic? Because that's the first I heard of it. As far as I know he is still owed it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 5 minutes ago, TRon said: Did the buyer purchase the debt from Abramovic? Because that's the first I heard of it. As far as I know he is still owed it. You said "they've got £1.5bn freefall of Russian money to play with" if they still owed Abramovich the 1.5bn debt how would that be the case? I don't think it's actually been confirmed exactly how the deal was structured, it seems likely from what I can gather that the debt was transferred into equity in the club and was part of the sale price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 15 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: You said "they've got £1.5bn freefall of Russian money to play with" if they still owed Abramovich the 1.5bn debt how would that be the case? I don't think it's actually been confirmed exactly how the deal was structured, it seems likely from what I can gather that the debt was transferred into equity in the club and was part of the sale price. So does that mean Boehly is funding their spending spree? The new owners must have spent billions buying the club, but it seems they have plenty more in reserve to buy even more players at eye watering prices. I get that Abramovich's earlier "money no limits" spending built up Chelsea from a mid table club into an international brand, but it does seem like they have a bottomless pit of cash they can dip into whenever they want. How can it be sustainable? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 24 minutes ago, TRon said: So does that mean Boehly is funding their spending spree? The new owners must have spent billions buying the club, but it seems they have plenty more in reserve to buy even more players at eye watering prices. I get that Abramovich's earlier "money no limits" spending built up Chelsea from a mid table club into an international brand, but it does seem like they have a bottomless pit of cash they can dip into whenever they want. How can it be sustainable? The club has just loaned £500m and set up a credit facility of £300m. But the issue isn't that, it's how much they can spend while staying within FFP. PL FFP rules only allow losses of £105m over three years. The loans don't don't count towards profit so they don't affect FFP other than the cost of the interest. Their current spending probably wouldn't be sustainable if they continue like that every season, but it probably is within FFP in the short term due to the revenue and underlying profitability of the club and losses due to covid being written off for FFP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 8 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: The club has just loaned £500m and set up a credit facility of £300m. But the issue isn't that, it's how much they can spend while staying within FFP. PL FFP rules only allow losses of £105m over three years. The loans don't don't count towards profit so they don't affect FFP other than the cost of the interest. Their current spending probably wouldn't be sustainable if they continue like that every season, but it probably is within FFP in the short term due to the revenue and underlying profitability of the club and losses due to covid being written off for FFP. They are basically banking on sustaining their success and putting a whole load of money into it in that case. If it works great. If they should have a bad season, say miss qualification from the CL, I would think they would be in a bit of trouble. I think you can follow that sort of policy if you have an owner who has a bottomless pit of money to sink into a club, but I would imagine the new owners will want to see some return on their investment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 53 minutes ago, TRon said: They are basically banking on sustaining their success and putting a whole load of money into it in that case. If it works great. If they should have a bad season, say miss qualification from the CL, I would think they would be in a bit of trouble. I think you can follow that sort of policy if you have an owner who has a bottomless pit of money to sink into a club, but I would imagine the new owners will want to see some return on their investment. Maybe, maybe not. Man Utd have similar ownership have managed to absorb missing out on CL qualification a few times. It's not as big of a deal as it used to be with the amount clubs earn from the PL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 53 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: Maybe, maybe not. Man Utd have similar ownership have managed to absorb missing out on CL qualification a few times. It's not as big of a deal as it used to be with the amount clubs earn from the PL. Man U were at one time almost untouchable, not just due to their traditional status as one of England's biggest clubs, but also because they generated more revenue than others. That has allowed them to absorb a few years out of the CL, but I'm sure if you asked their fans, they would not be happy with the owners saddling them with debt so they could profit without risk. Haven't there been pretty vociferous protests against the owners precisely because of that? Can Chelsea ride a bad period to the same extent as a club like Man U? Traditionally they were never THAT big as it's a much smaller catchment area than places like Manchester or Liverpool. I guess it just depends on whether they have become a big enough global brand to overcome that in the modern era. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 (edited) Norwich got more money for finishing 20th in the PL (£98.6m) than Real Madrid got for winning the CL. I don't think the CL money has that much of an impact anymore to the massive English clubs, more relevant when you want to sign players who want to play in the CL. Liverpool got $91m, Man City $67m, Chelsea $54m and Man Utd $40m. Edited August 6, 2022 by Pata Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, TRon said: Man U were at one time almost untouchable, not just due to their traditional status as one of England's biggest clubs, but also because they generated more revenue than others. That has allowed them to absorb a few years out of the CL, but I'm sure if you asked their fans, they would not be happy with the owners saddling them with debt so they could profit without risk. Haven't there been pretty vociferous protests against the owners precisely because of that? Can Chelsea ride a bad period to the same extent as a club like Man U? Traditionally they were never THAT big as it's a much smaller catchment area than places like Manchester or Liverpool. I guess it just depends on whether they have become a big enough global brand to overcome that in the modern era. Chelsea's turnover isn't that much lower than Man U's, they also have the most successful academy in England which has made them hundreds of millions of profit. I'd love to see Chelsea collapse now they haven't got Abramovich's backing, but they're probably not going to. Edited August 6, 2022 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 42 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: Chelsea's turnover isn't that much lower than Man U's, they also have the most successful academy in England which has made them hundreds of millions of profit. I realise you want to think that Chelsea are going to collapse now they haven't got Abramovich's backing, but they're probably not. But they only got to such a positon because of Abramovich's £billions of backing in the first place. You do agree with that maybe? Unless you thought Ken Bates was going to do it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 14 minutes ago, TRon said: But they only got to such a positon because of Abramovich's £billions of backing in the first place. You do agree with that maybe? Unless you thought Ken Bates was going to do it? Yes, Chelsea were the first real big-time "sugar-daddy" club in England. Man City were the second and I would imagine that many supporters of other clubs reckon that we are the third !!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 9 minutes ago, TRon said: But they only got to such a positon because of Abramovich's £billions of backing in the first place. You do agree with that maybe? Unless you thought Ken Bates was going to do it? I agree with that, I just don't see why it's relevant. We were discussing whether they can afford their current spending. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted August 6, 2022 Share Posted August 6, 2022 2 hours ago, Pata said: Norwich got more money for finishing 20th in the PL (£98.6m) than Real Madrid got for winning the CL. I don't think the CL money has that much of an impact anymore to the massive English clubs, more relevant when you want to sign players who want to play in the CL. Liverpool got $91m, Man City $67m, Chelsea $54m and Man Utd $40m. Get more revenue from commercial deals being in CL - it all adds up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted August 7, 2022 Share Posted August 7, 2022 1 hour ago, manorpark said: Yes, Chelsea were the first real big-time "sugar-daddy" club in England. Man City were the second and I would imagine that many supporters of other clubs reckon that we are the third !!! Which is so factually incorrect. There have been other owners since City who have gone absolutely bananas in the transfer market — Everton! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 7, 2022 Share Posted August 7, 2022 7 hours ago, Jackie Broon said: I agree with that, I just don't see why it's relevant. We were discussing whether they can afford their current spending. They can afford their current spending because of Russian £billions pumped into their coffers previously. I'm no accountant, but that's how it looks to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 7, 2022 Share Posted August 7, 2022 1 minute ago, TRon said: They can afford their current spending because of Russian £billions pumped into their coffers previously. I'm no accountant, but that's how it looks to me. Your right and also because most of it took place when no rules stopped them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 7, 2022 Share Posted August 7, 2022 1 minute ago, r0cafella said: Your right and also because most of it took place when no rules stopped them. Must have just been a coincidence then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted August 7, 2022 Share Posted August 7, 2022 45 minutes ago, TRon said: They can afford their current spending because of Russian £billions pumped into their coffers previously. I'm no accountant, but that's how it looks to me. Yes, but again I don't see the relevance of that to what was being discussed. Which isn't relevant to the thread anyway, so I'll leave it there so as not to derail discussion of all those new James Maddison transfer updates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted August 7, 2022 Share Posted August 7, 2022 This deal is a dead duck if Fofana moves, which makes it even more vital if we hold a genuine interest that we move quickly and get the deal done. Chelsea will pay what is required for Fofana, we need to sort this move out before they do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collage Posted August 7, 2022 Share Posted August 7, 2022 Imagine Maddison instead of Willock or Miggy in yesterday’s team. Decent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now