2 hours ago, DonAntonio said:

We should have sold Costa to Arsenal and taken sanches 

Far to f*cking logical 

We should have sold Costa to Arsenal and taken sanches 

Costa won't go though

1 hour ago, barak81 said:

Far to f*cking logical 

Haha what? How is that logical? Costa would never go, Wenger wouldnt want him and he would never let us have Sanchez

17 minutes ago, Xfaxtor said:

Haha what? How is that logical? Costa would never go, Wenger wouldnt want him and he would never let us have Sanchez

Yeah but other than that it makes perfect sense....

 

How could anyone think that was a logical expectation.

Edited August 20, 20178 yr by dkw

1 hour ago, Xfaxtor said:

Haha what? How is that logical? Costa would never go, Wenger wouldnt want him and he would never let us have Sanchez

If they can't get Alexis to sign a new contract it's going to be like throwing 50 mil in the bin. Not very Arsen like 

 

costa would have probably been first choice for them. He clearly doesn't want to pay for us and is good for 20 or so goals a season.

 

its a deal that would make sence for all 

39 minutes ago, barak81 said:

If they can't get Alexis to sign a new contract it's going to be like throwing 50 mil in the bin. Not very Arsen like 

costa would have probably been first choice for them. He clearly doesn't want to pay for us and is good for 20 or so goals a season.

its a deal that would make sence for all 

Except it doesnt. Arsene has said multiple times after the RvP sale that hes learned his lesson and wont sell to anymore rivals. He is extremely stubborn, throwing 50 mill in the bin because he wants to stick to his principles is the most Arsene thing in the world. Giving us their best player and getting a player who desperately wants out of London and doesnt remotely fit their way of playing makes zero sense. It certainly isnt logical 

Wenger knows that the only way he's going to get back into the top four is with Sanchez and Oxlaide Chamberlain...so he'll keep them to do that even though they'll probably lose around £80-90m if they do...

Edited August 20, 20178 yr by doctorblue

1 hour ago, barak81 said:

If they can't get Alexis to sign a new contract it's going to be like throwing 50 mil in the bin. Not very Arsen like 

 

costa would have probably been first choice for them. He clearly doesn't want to pay for us and is good for 20 or so goals a season.

 

its a deal that would make sence for all 

I doubt costa would've been 1st choice for them tbh. Costa wants to go to Atlético. He has said a few times he would only leave us for Atlético, so I doubt costa would even want to go there anyway. 

Plus it's probs one of wengers last seasons so doesn't give a f**k about the future of the club would rather have him whilst he's still in charge, can't see how we are not going for dembele from Dortmund :/

30 minutes ago, LengmanJedi said:

Plus it's probs one of wengers last seasons so doesn't give a f**k about the future of the club would rather have him whilst he's still in charge, can't see how we are not going for dembele from Dortmund :/

Because he would cost £100m+

We we don’t have that much money! 

53 minutes ago, big blue said:

I doubt costa would've been 1st choice for them tbh. Costa wants to go to Atlético. He has said a few times he would only leave us for Atlético, so I doubt costa would even want to go there anyway. 

Yup. Costa wants to live somewhere warmer. He doesn’t hate Chelsea, he hates England.

Edited August 20, 20178 yr by benjsross

Costa is exactly the kind of player Wenger doesn't want manage, won't even happen in FM. Wenger will hold on Sanchez and Chamerblin as long as possible, if Arsenal's season goes sh1t by January, he could still sell them at half of the price as today.

1 hour ago, Xfaxtor said:

Except it doesnt. Arsene has said multiple times after the RvP sale that hes learned his lesson and wont sell to anymore rivals. He is extremely stubborn, throwing 50 mill in the bin because he wants to stick to his principles is the most Arsene thing in the world. Giving us their best player and getting a player who desperately wants out of London and doesnt remotely fit their way of playing makes zero sense. It certainly isnt logical 

And yet on the other hand your hear all the time that wenger frost objective is to the ensuing the financial prosperity of the club 

Just now, icecoolguy22 said:

Costa is exactly the kind of player Wenger doesn't want manage, won't even happen in FM. Wenger will hold on Sanchez and Chamerblin as long as possible, if Arsenal's season goes sh1t by January, he could still sell them at half of the price as today.

He hates confrontational players, he can't manage them. That's why he has built a squad of weak willed, spineless pussies.

1 hour ago, benjsross said:

Because he would cost £100m+

We we don’t have that much money! 

Techically we do after the Costa sale we have made money and not touched the tv money, Costa, matic and oscar is 140 million add in ake and the rest I think we are up about 30 or 40 million on what we have spent, should be no problem (technically) to spend close to another 200 million and have only spent the tv money.

Having said that we need 4 or 5 players so we would never spunk 100 million on one player, when you look at the numbers great sales job but is that our ambition a f**king selling club? 

47 minutes ago, DonAntonio said:

Techically we do after the Costa sale we have made money and not touched the tv money, Costa, matic and oscar is 140 million add in ake and the rest I think we are up about 30 or 40 million on what we have spent, should be no problem (technically) to spend close to another 200 million and have only spent the tv money.

Having said that we need 4 or 5 players so we would never spunk 100 million on one player, when you look at the numbers great sales job but is that our ambition a f**king selling club? 

We have a huge wage bill to consider in that as well though.

 

Chelsea Financial Data 2017-18

Details	Money
2016 Total Revenue	£335m
Commercial revenue	£122m
Broadcasting revenue	£143m
Matchday revenue:	£70m
Wage Bill	£224m
Net Total Debt	£1.14bn owed to Abramovich

http://www.totalsportek.com/football/chelsea-player-salaries/

According to the above we only received £110m more than we spend on wages, I also don't think this includes staff (including Conte) or youth players/loanees if they aren't fully covered. 

So I really don't think we can spend anywhere what you are suggesting and realistically it probably only around £50m or so above what we are bringing in through player sales, if we are looking to break even/remain financially healthy. 

That said I imagine freeing up the £10m a year wages Costa is on, will be a massive factor in our transfer activity and will likely be more important than the fee itself. 

 

 

1 minute ago, PedroMendez said:

We have a huge wage bill to consider in that as well though.

 

Chelsea Financial Data 2017-18

Details	Money
2016 Total Revenue	£335m
Commercial revenue	£122m
Broadcasting revenue	£143m
Matchday revenue:	£70m
Wage Bill	£224m
Net Total Debt	£1.14bn owed to Abramovich

http://www.totalsportek.com/football/chelsea-player-salaries/

According to the above we only received £110m more than we spend on wages, I also don't think this includes staff (including Conte) or youth players/loanees if they aren't fully covered. 

So I really don't think we can spend anywhere what you are suggesting and realistically it probably only around £50m or so above what we are bringing in through player sales, if we are looking to break even/remain financially healthy. 

That said I imagine freeing up the £10m a year wages Costa is on, will be a massive factor in our transfer activity and will likely be more important than the fee itself. 

 

 

Terry took quite a big wage even though he cut it in half so did oscar,  also this year we took a new kit deal which was a huge injection, last year we took a 50 mil hit to buy out of our adidas deal and to pay off Mou's contract which probably carried into 2016 although he was fired mid Dec. I'd imagine 2017 without these costs plus a more lucrative kit deal, sleeve sponsor, plus 50 million more for winning the league would look very healthy. 

Because he would cost £100m+
We we don’t have that much money! 

So Chelsea couldn't afford 100 mil?

39 minutes ago, DonAntonio said:

Terry took quite a big wage even though he cut it in half so did oscar,  also this year we took a new kit deal which was a huge injection, last year we took a 50 mil hit to buy out of our adidas deal and to pay off Mou's contract which probably carried into 2016 although he was fired mid Dec. I'd imagine 2017 without these costs plus a more lucrative kit deal, sleeve sponsor, plus 50 million more for winning the league would look very healthy. 

Whilst especially with Costa gone our wage bill will likely be less this season to last, the players we have bought in, Morata, Bakayoko and Rudiger are all on around £100k, plus we still need to sign 2 to 3 more players, so I can't really see there being to much of a difference. Although if that wage figure takes into account the bonuses paid out for winning the league than it may well see a drop. 

Our Broadcast revenue won't have been much higher despite winning the BPL and the bumper deal as we were without CL revenue I seem to remember £150m being banded around as our BPL broadcast income, and I also imagine without CL our commercial and matchday revenue for 16-17 will if anything show a slight decrease.

The figures posted also won't include the negatives of the contract pay outs so that whilst a cost in previous years shouldn't be used to cost going forwards.

Our revenue will be higher this season with CL, the bumper TV deal and increased Sponsorship deals, so i suppose around we will be £40m+ better off in term of revenue this season. But that hasn't hit the kitty yet.   

5 hours ago, barak81 said:

And yet on the other hand your hear all the time that wenger frost objective is to the ensuing the financial prosperity of the club 

From who? Not Wenger

1 hour ago, Xfaxtor said:

From who? Not Wenger

I hear it quite a lot from diffrent pundits and fans. Wenger is there to garantee the cash 

1 minute ago, barak81 said:

I hear it quite a lot from diffrent pundits and fans. Wenger is there to garantee the cash 

Ok, so not Arsene then

6 minutes ago, Xfaxtor said:

Ok, so not Arsene then

I would guess that him confirming everyone's thoughts wouldn't go down to well. But his actions for over a decade point to it, going back to before the new stadium 

5 hours ago, PedroMendez said:

We have a huge wage bill to consider in that as well though.

 

Chelsea Financial Data 2017-18

Details	Money
2016 Total Revenue	£335m
Commercial revenue	£122m
Broadcasting revenue	£143m
Matchday revenue:	£70m
Wage Bill	£224m
Net Total Debt	£1.14bn owed to Abramovich

http://www.totalsportek.com/football/chelsea-player-salaries/

According to the above we only received £110m more than we spend on wages, I also don't think this includes staff (including Conte) or youth players/loanees if they aren't fully covered. 

So I really don't think we can spend anywhere what you are suggesting and realistically it probably only around £50m or so above what we are bringing in through player sales, if we are looking to break even/remain financially healthy. 

That said I imagine freeing up the £10m a year wages Costa is on, will be a massive factor in our transfer activity and will likely be more important than the fee itself. 

 

 

Im no expert but with the way transfers are recorded, signing a £100m player, on a 5 year deal, with wages of £10m a year, would go down as £30m extra per season for 5 years. 

So I don't think it would be that big of a problem in terms of the balance sheet, It would be covered by the increase from £30m to £60m with the new nike deal, and that's before the new tv deal, and player sales, reduced wage budget etc. 

Edited August 20, 20178 yr by big blue

Just now, big blue said:

Im no expert but with the way transfers are recorded, signing a £100m pound player, on a 5 year deal, with wages of £10m a year, would go down as £30m extra per season for 5 years. 

So I don't think it would be that big of a problem in terms of the balance sheet, It would be covered by the increase from £30m to £60m with the new nike deal, and that's before the new tv deal, and player sales, reduced wage budget etc. 

Ohh no I agree with you. It's the whole we have a £200m spare to spend narrative I was dispelling. 

If we decide we need too we could easily sign a O Dembele if we are willing. We can easily account for that spend but we would probably need to sell Pedro in a year for £15m as this will cover the majority of the Dembele transfer in terms of FFP.

But we do have a huge wage expenditure, which is apparently second in the league, despite the manc clubs transfer spending and we do need to consider this before claiming the board should just keep spending as we can.