Parky Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 Roman will tire of Chelsea at some point and they need to get their books straight before this happens. He has recently taken an interest in Formula One, which mixes easier with his SuperYacht lifestyle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 The revenue they're getting from sponsorship deals, merchandising and all puts them in a different league to us. They will become 'self-sufficient' if they can stop spending £30m on one player, which they will because the team is filled with class players. That's the biggest factor going for them. They don't need to blow their budget out of the water anymore. They're covered in every position, and continuing to poach some of the top youngsters in the world. Didn't they poach a kid from Arsenal about a month or two ago?? It's not like the first couple of years of the Roman era where they had to spend £50m+ in the summer to be able to compete next year. If they spend nothing this summer, absolutely f*** all, they're still one of the favourites for the title. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 Old article but it gives you an idea of what is needed to make a decent side champions. THE huge investment in Chelsea by Roman Abramovich was revealed yesterday to be £440 million as the Barclays Premiership champions reported a £140 million annual loss, the highest by a football club. The scale of the Russian billionaire’s unprecedented expenditure is staggering, even for a sport conditioned in the past decade to receiving outlandish sums of money. Having come from relative obscurity in July 2003 to scoop up Chelsea’s shares for £60 million, Abramovich has spent a further £380 million in only three seasons to take the team to the top of the Premiership, winning their first championship for 50 years last season and turning them into a genuine force in Europe. Apart from a new training facility in Cobham, Surrey, and investment in the club’s academy, by far the biggest outlay has been in the transfer market, with £334 million spent on bringing players such as Didier Drogba, Hernán Crespo, Michael Essien and Shaun Wright-Phillips to Stamford Bridge. News that Chelsea are losing substantial sums of money will come as no surprise. In the 2004-05 season, the club made a record loss before tax of £87.8 million. What is of interest in the latest set of accounts, for the year to June 30, is just how expensive it is to do business when money is no object. Chelsea’s losses last season widened through a series of one-off costs associated with casting off the shackles of the previous ownership and starting to build a global brand. Terminating a kit deal with Umbro to sign a more lucrative one with adidas cost £25.5 million. Writing off the flawed acquisitions of Adrian Mutu and Juan Sebastián Verón cost £13.8 million and £9 million respectively, while compensating Tottenham Hotspur for the loss of Frank Arnesen, who joined as head of development and scouting, was a further £5 million. If such costs continue to be incurred, it is difficult to see how Chelsea’s management team, led by Peter Kenyon, the chief executive, can reach their self-imposed target of breaking even by the 2009-10 season. Bruce Buck, the chairman, remains optimistic that they can, while admitting that the long-term commitment of Abramovich made it an academic exercise. “It is aggressive,” Buck said. “If we didn’t meet it we wouldn’t be overly surprised. We think we can, but if we don’t, we will survive and go on.” Although Chelsea’s debt is £169 million, the club have the luxury of knowing that Abramovich will put cash in whenever it is needed. Despite increasing losses, though, there are signs that the spending spree is waning. Player purchases in Abramovich’s first season were £175.1 million; last season they were £57.5 million. Staff costs fell 6 per cent year on year, from £115.5 million to £108.9 million, but still represent three quarters of turnover. Kenyon was the highest-paid director on £1.7 million. The target is to drive down the ratio of wages to turnover to about half. This will be a tall order, with many of the 24-man first-team squad earning upwards of £50,000 a week and revenues from gate receipts, merchandising and Chelsea Village relatively flat. Group turnover fell from £152.1 million to £146.6 million, but this season that figure should improve when the £11 million a year from Samsung, the new shirt sponsor, is included in the accounts. The deal with adidas will earn the club £10 million a year from next season. Chelsea will have to cut costs and find new revenue sources to meet their business plan. Even assuming that wages do not rise, the club would have to increase turnover by 30 per cent by 2010. Buck said: “There are definitely suppliers to Chelsea that think they can charge something additional whether for their player or their milk. It is up to the executive team to fight that every chance they get. If we have to walk away from a transfer or a supplier to the hotel because the price is too high, then we will.” THE NUMBERS * £147m turnover * £140m losses * £108.9m payroll * £57.5m transfer fees * £169m debt * £151m negative cashflow * £1.7m Kenyon’s pay * £161,000 highest match-day sales (v Charlton Athletic) * 32,000 centenary kit sales * 25 average age of squad * 65,800 club members THE FUTURE * Build US presence * Cut staff costs * More home-grown players * Sell/partner hotel * Expand Stamford Bridge to 55,000 or find alternative site (no decision yet) GOAL * Break even by 2009-10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 The revenue they're getting from sponsorship deals, merchandising and all puts them in a different league to us. They will become 'self-sufficient' if they can stop spending £30m on one player, which they will because the team is filled with class players. That's the biggest factor going for them. They don't need to blow their budget out of the water anymore. They're covered in every position, and continuing to poach some of the top youngsters in the world. Didn't they poach a kid from Arsenal about a month or two ago?? It's not like the first couple of years of the Roman era where they had to spend £50m+ in the summer to be able to compete next year. If they spend nothing this summer, absolutely f*** all, they're still one of the favourites for the title. 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 it was there wage bill is likely in an even bigger league, in a league of its own entirely IMO. 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. 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. Chelsea's turnover last year = 150m Their loss last year = 80m, was 140m the year before (!!) RA's investment since 2003 = circa 500m Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 What did they spend on players last season? Also is that article correct that the club itself have a £169 million debt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 It is thought that his prime motive for buying Chelsea was to raise his international profile. Depends how you looks at it, is it an ongoing thing or job done? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 What did they spend on players last season? Also is that article correct that the club itself have a £169 million debt? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 It is thought that his prime motive for buying Chelsea was to raise his international profile. Depends how you looks at it, is it an ongoing thing or job done? Money laundering? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon_Crazy Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 So is there going to be new arrivals this summer at the Bridge?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 Alex & Sidwell so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 So is there going to be new arrivals this summer at the Bridge?? Of course there will be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 What did they spend on players last season? Also is that article correct that the club itself have a £169 million debt? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 The main issue here for me is the motive behind Mike Ashleys purchase. We may have a fairy godfather, but for how long? Mind you i'd take 2 years of that than another ten of what we have had. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 So is there going to be new arrivals this summer at the Bridge?? There have been three already, all free transfers. The main issue here for me is the motive behind Mike Ashleys purchase. We may have a fairy godfather, but for how long? Mind you i'd take 2 years of that than another ten of what we have had. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 bad move imho as soon as the badge kissers at chelsea start making waves for jose, he won't have the ultimate threat of just replacing them with the current best player in the world for their position and we know how shit jose is when has to use ordinary players Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Shearer 9 Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 If Terry/Lampard leave Chelsea over this, they're even bigger cunts than I originally thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jai Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 Only a matter of time TBH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 No club in the world could afford the wages that Chelsea are currently paying. That must have atleast half a dozen players over 90k a week.... they'll need to let these players go and move to a bigger stadium before they can fully establish themselves with out Roman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 I don't think they will now suddenly collapse, but I don't think they'll be quite as successful without Roman's money and it will take them 20 years or so to become the club Kenyon and co believes they can be, a big global self sufficient cash cow brand of a club. And even then there are no guarantees. The beauty about football is it is so fickle, it only takes a few things to bring the wheels right off. We've experienced it ourselves when KK left and then Sir Bobby. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest graemeh72 Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 bad move imho as soon as the badge kissers at chelsea start making waves for jose, he won't have the ultimate threat of just replacing them with the current best player in the world for their position and we know how shit jose is when has to use ordinary players ordinary players ---- like at porto? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 bad move imho as soon as the badge kissers at chelsea start making waves for jose, he won't have the ultimate threat of just replacing them with the current best player in the world for their position and we know how shit jose is when has to use ordinary players ordinary players ---- like at porto? like at Chelsea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest graemeh72 Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 bad move imho as soon as the badge kissers at chelsea start making waves for jose, he won't have the ultimate threat of just replacing them with the current best player in the world for their position and we know how shit jose is when has to use ordinary players ordinary players ---- like at porto? like at Chelsea personally I wouldn't say he's shit - but thats your call! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 bad move imho as soon as the badge kissers at chelsea start making waves for jose, he won't have the ultimate threat of just replacing them with the current best player in the world for their position and we know how s*** jose is when has to use ordinary players ordinary players ---- like at porto? like at Chelsea So he's had ordinary players at Chelsea? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 All seems a bit silly, to be spending hundreds of millions one moment, and then nothing the next. You can reach the top, but once the momentum of a club is downwards, it can be quite difficult to arrest the slide, as we and Blackburn Rovers could testify. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 What it does do is just levels off Chelsea's rocket like progression. There is no doubt that they will still be competing for all the top prizes over the coming seasons, but as they are no doubt going to have to trim down their squad so that they dont have 22 players that would walk into nearly all the other prem teams, they will not enjoy the almost total dominance that they have enjoyed over the last 3 seasons 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