Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In addition to the above I will be watching the clubs transfer activity very closely this summer. The £96m loss is currently being covered by the funds received from the sale of Hazard, Morata and Luiz and we didn't exactly set the market on fire in January.

Will Roman trouser some or all of those funds? We didn't spend in the last two transfer windows so wouldn't there also be a surplus from that? Don't the club factor in a transfer budget every year? They don't rely solely on the sale of players to generate investment in the squad. This being the case we should be expecting an investment next window of circa £200m in the squad. Lets see what happens.

I suspect the board are overjoyed at the success of the academy players and view this as a financial bonus. They know only too well that any potential buyer will be looking at the average age of the squad and see how low it is. The club are ripe for the picking at the moment and if Roman doesn't get a work visa he may well think twice about an offer that puts half a billion in his pocket.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Andy North said:

In addition to the above I will be watching the clubs transfer activity very closely this summer. The £96m loss is currently being covered by the funds received from the sale of Hazard, Morata and Luiz and we didn't exactly set the market on fire in January.

Will Roman trouser some or all of those funds? We didn't spend in the last two transfer windows so wouldn't there also be a surplus from that? Don't the club factor in a transfer budget every year? They don't rely solely on the sale of players to generate investment in the squad. This being the case we should be expecting an investment next window of circa £200m in the squad. Lets see what happens.

I suspect the board are overjoyed at the success of the academy players and view this as a financial bonus. They know only too well that any potential buyer will be looking at the average age of the squad and see how low it is. The club are ripe for the picking at the moment and if Roman doesn't get a work visa he may well think twice about an offer that puts half a billion in his pocket.

I would imagine the transfer budget will be reduced or inflated depending on whether we achieve top 4 status.

It is as simple as that for me if we are attempting to be FFP compliant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Strider6003 said:

I would imagine the transfer budget will be reduced or inflated depending on whether we achieve top 4 status.

It is as simple as that for me if we are attempting to be FFP compliant.

In principle I agree Stride but we achieved Champions League this season and couldn't and didn't spend in the last two windows. If Roman is staying he would make circa £200m available next window.

The club have raised £180m from the sale of players and possibly saved £100m by not spending their transfer budget for the last two windows. If you add in the transfer budget we would have spent in the next window there's approx' £330m slushing around in the budget somewhere next summer. That's enough to pay off the £96m debt and spend £200m on the squad.

It would also go quite a long way to paying for a new stadium.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andy North said:

You need to go careful reading stuff like that.

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/12/31/chelsea-fc-financial-results

The statement clearly indicates that the club were able to invest in the playing staff by careful financial management. This does not mean Roman poured £280m into the club. The club raised this money by selling players and signing new sponsorship deals. There is no indication that Roman put a single penny into the club which actually made a loss.

The club are operating within FFP rules and this forbids owners from pumping huge sums of money into their clubs and distorting the transfer market. Romans personal investment in the club has been minimal for years and I suspect it will remain so until he either sells or his working Visa gets sorted.

That investment into players wasnt linked to Romans Investment into the club, 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2020/01/07/billionaire-roman-abramovich-still-pumping-money-into-chelsea-despite-losing-love-for-london/

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

Interesting article, a couple of errors for me, firstly RA has been to a match in the last 2 years, a final in Baku and secondly I don't think he has a feud with Boris Johnson more Theresa May as this exile pre-dates Johnson becoming PM.

That other club they mention is City, a fair chance Pep might move on and with a new manager and new style comes the need for new players, surely at some point this FFP will kick-in with penalties like we incurred. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andy North said:

In principle I agree Stride but we achieved Champions League this season and couldn't and didn't spend in the last two windows. If Roman is staying he would make circa £200m available next window.

The club have raised £180m from the sale of players and possibly saved £100m by not spending their transfer budget for the last two windows. If you add in the transfer budget we would have spent in the next window there's approx' £330m slushing around in the budget somewhere next summer. That's enough to pay off the £96m debt and spend £200m on the squad.

It would also go quite a long way to paying for a new stadium.

Do you think the Kepa situation with our asset now looking worth much lower than the £70m we paid for him impact our financials?

The other thing that occurs to me is the liquidity, with uneven and staggered revenue streams coming in relative to when you have to buy new players. 

Another thing is keeping money aside for sacking staff like the Conte situation for example.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/02/2020 at 14:59, Strider6003 said:

Interesting article, a couple of errors for me, firstly RA has been to a match in the last 2 years, a final in Baku and secondly I don't think he has a feud with Boris Johnson more Theresa May as this exile pre-dates Johnson becoming PM.

That other club they mention is City, a fair chance Pep might move on and with a new manager and new style comes the need for new players, surely at some point this FFP will kick-in with penalties like we incurred. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/sports/psg-uefa-ffp.amp.html

Im not sure FFP is even really a thing. UEFA rolled over for PSG, and with the PSG chairman on the board at UEFA, it isnt in his best interests to go after clubs too heavily for breaching FFP, as it draws attention to his own club.

Basically if your backed by a rich benefactor, theres every chance you will get away over spending. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎02‎/‎2020 at 14:59, Strider6003 said:

Interesting article, a couple of errors for me, firstly RA has been to a match in the last 2 years, a final in Baku and secondly I don't think he has a feud with Boris Johnson more Theresa May as this exile pre-dates Johnson becoming PM.

That other club they mention is City, a fair chance Pep might move on and with a new manager and new style comes the need for new players, surely at some point this FFP will kick-in with penalties like we incurred. 

I had a bit of a problem with that article as well. Firstly it says Roman pumped in £247m pounds and then the club made a loss of £96m last year. If the club only made a loss of £96m why would Roman pump in £247m. I can't believe the club made a loss of £96m despite a £247m investment because  FFP rules wouldn't allow it. I suspect the £247m is Romans total loss at Chelsea since first buying the club. FFP doesn't allow that type of investment in clubs unless it's on stadia and stuff like that.

Yes it was Theresa May who started the Visa problems for Roman shortly after the Salisbury Novichok poisonings.

I don't believe Roman is piling cash into the club A) Because FFP doesn't allow it and B) The club made a loss last year. Many reports in recent years have indicated that Chelsea is a self sufficient club and careful financial management and the sale of players has allowed the club to run successfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, big blue said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/sports/psg-uefa-ffp.amp.html

Im not sure FFP is even really a thing. UEFA rolled over for PSG, and with the PSG chairman on the board at UEFA, it isnt in his best interests to go after clubs too heavily for breaching FFP, as it draws attention to his own club.

Basically if your backed by a rich benefactor, theres every chance you will get away over spending. 

I read the article and it can only lead to the conclusion that UEFA are at the very best an incompetent and inept organisation and at worst completely corrupt. Basically PSG got off because EUFA didn't lodge an appeal against their own FFP committee within a ten day period set out within their own rules. I find it incredulous that they didn't know their own rules and PSG just get away with obvious cheating because UEFA are inept. It stinks and nobody does anything about it.

Chelsea on the other hand sign up too many young players and are banned from two transfer windows, one of which was later found to be unfair.

As I say it stinks. Even after cheating PSG still can't win the Champions League. Neither have City come to that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Andy North said:

I read the article and it can only lead to the conclusion that UEFA are at the very best an incompetent and inept organisation and at worst completely corrupt. Basically PSG got off because EUFA didn't lodge an appeal against their own FFP committee within a ten day period set out within their own rules. I find it incredulous that they didn't know their own rules and PSG just get away with obvious cheating because UEFA are inept. It stinks and nobody does anything about it.

Chelsea on the other hand sign up too many young players and are banned from two transfer windows, one of which was later found to be unfair.

As I say it stinks. Even after cheating PSG still can't win the Champions League. Neither have City come to that.

I suspect next time this comes around again clubs confirming to the rules will be queuing up to point out this exception and then it would get interesting...........

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andy North said:

I read the article and it can only lead to the conclusion that UEFA are at the very best an incompetent and inept organisation and at worst completely corrupt. Basically PSG got off because EUFA didn't lodge an appeal against their own FFP committee within a ten day period set out within their own rules. I find it incredulous that they didn't know their own rules and PSG just get away with obvious cheating because UEFA are inept. It stinks and nobody does anything about it.

Chelsea on the other hand sign up too many young players and are banned from two transfer windows, one of which was later found to be unfair.

As I say it stinks. Even after cheating PSG still can't win the Champions League. Neither have City come to that.

 

Uefa are a corrupt organisation, theres is no doubt about it. 

The fact that nasser al-khelaifi is allowed to sit on a uefa committee just doesnt seem right to me. We had the same situation with david dein here aswell, and there must be things that arise that can cause a conflict of interest, not to mention the sway they would hold within a governing body. 

I was never really a big believer in ffp anyway, it always seemed like the elite trying stop anyone else from eating at the big table. 

City are under investigation now though, so i guess we will see if any notable sanctions come there way, but i wont be holding my breath.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2020 at 16:02, big blue said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/sports/psg-uefa-ffp.amp.html

Im not sure FFP is even really a thing. UEFA rolled over for PSG, and with the PSG chairman on the board at UEFA, it isnt in his best interests to go after clubs too heavily for breaching FFP, as it draws attention to his own club.

Basically if your backed by a rich benefactor, theres every chance you will get away over spending. 

😂 wrong on an epic proportion

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/02/2020 at 15:08, Strider6003 said:

Do you think the Kepa situation with our asset now looking worth much lower than the £70m we paid for him impact our financials?

The other thing that occurs to me is the liquidity, with uneven and staggered revenue streams coming in relative to when you have to buy new players. 

Another thing is keeping money aside for sacking staff like the Conte situation for example.

 

So Kepa not only is sh*te, he possibly is effecting our potential future transfers or a new stadium, the bloke is simply the worse transfer the club has ever conducted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chi blue said:

So Kepa not only is sh*te, he possibly is effecting our potential future transfers or a new stadium, the bloke is simply the worse transfer the club has ever conducted.

It's a funny old game, Torres might have been the worst and then he goes and seals victory at the Nou Camp in the semis when we win the CL. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, chi blue said:

Not forgetting Torres closing down and winning the corner in final in 90th minute, and Didier doing the rest!!

There should be two statues outside the "New" Stamford Bridge: one of Torres winning that corner, and another of the one Joe Cole should have been awarded in 2008.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!