9 hours ago, Adamrb said:

Sounds like we’ll be starting season without a sponsor.

surely sponsors want their logo all over the fans shirts, can’t help the negotiating position can it once season starts and fans have already bought shirts

How in god’s green earth is this happening 3 years in a row 😂

51 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Buying a player who is " clearly not for us " in the first place isn't good business.

Paying his wages for a year isn't good business.

Selling him for less than we paid isn't good business.

Well go on and buy 25 players and expect all to fit into the idea. On that journey you also have 3 different coaches.

Felix was probably tied to Gallagher. And everyone knows Felix could be excellent. That is the enigmatic feature of him.

Not sure why I need to write this down so everyone understands: You realize at some point this player isn't for your team but you paid premium of him. Recouping a good amount of him where 98% of fanbase though we'd get a button and an old can of Sprite is pretty f**king good. So to me and probably many selling Felix to Saudi with a reasonable fee is a success after admitting he is not your dude. Not sure why I need to write this even here. Maybe someone is being a bit of a CONTRARIAN here.

Are we stuck in a time-loop? How many times has our club model been explained? It is profitable. Period.

Just now, Clown Lake said:

Are we stuck in a time-loop? How many times has our club model been explained? It is profitable. Period.

Well there are elements that count that in and is part of the strategy. Under the last ownership (I don't dare say his name as it triggers people here) we didn't really have that in mind as much as we do now.

48 minutes ago, evissy said:

Well there are elements that count that in and is part of the strategy. Under the last ownership (I don't dare say his name as it triggers people here) we didn't really have that in mind as much as we do now.

Exactly. We were Romans club and we did not have to worry about being sustainable. Unfortunately Roman is no longer here and we have to think about these things. We are lucky we have caring owners and not soul destroying owners like the ones at Old Trafford.

by the way if you did not know this already, apparently we are the same person 🫠🤭

Edited August 6, 2025Aug 6 by Clown Lake

1 hour ago, evissy said:

Well go on and buy 25 players and expect all to fit into the idea. On that journey you also have 3 different coaches.

Felix was probably tied to Gallagher. And everyone knows Felix could be excellent. That is the enigmatic feature of him.

Not sure why I need to write this down so everyone understands: You realize at some point this player isn't for your team but you paid premium of him. Recouping a good amount of him where 98% of fanbase though we'd get a button and an old can of Sprite is pretty f**king good. So to me and probably many selling Felix to Saudi with a reasonable fee is a success after admitting he is not your dude. Not sure why I need to write this even here. Maybe someone is being a bit of a CONTRARIAN here.

I was responding to your KDH "good business" comment for the player you said " wasn't for us" I didn't mention Felix.

As for the Felix transfer being " probably " tied to the Gallagher deal ? 😂 Nothing much gets past you , does it ? .

I'm afraid that writing nonsense as you regularly do, isn't something that you should feel compelled to do, and then feeling the need to then complain about somehow having been forced into doing it.

.

36 minutes ago, Clown Lake said:

Exactly. We were Romans club and we did not have to worry about being sustainable. Unfortunately Roman is no longer here and we have to think about these things. We are lucky we have caring owners and not soul destroying owners like the ones at Old Trafford.

by the way if you did not know this already, apparently we are the same person 🫠🤭

You're obsessed with our previous owner

1 hour ago, evissy said:

Well there are elements that count that in and is part of the strategy. Under the last ownership (I don't dare say his name as it triggers people here) we didn't really have that in mind as much as we do now.

You're obsessed with our previous owner

1 hour ago, Clown Lake said:

Are we stuck in a time-loop? How many times has our club model been explained? It is profitable. Period.

It isn't .

18 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

I was responding to your KDH "good business" comment for the player you said " wasn't for us" I didn't mention Felix.

As for the Felix transfer being " probably " tied to the Gallagher deal ? 😂 Nothing much gets past you , does it ? .

I'm afraid that writing nonsense as you regularly do, isn't something that you should feel compelled to do, and then feeling the need to then complain about somehow having been forced into doing it.

19 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

You're obsessed with our previous owner

Who do everyone here compare our new owners? Like general consensus? In the frustrating 'our new owners, directors, coach' is horrible vs 'there is something good there' debacle? To Roman, no?

13 hours ago, Clown Lake said:

Are we stuck in a time-loop? How many times has our club model been explained? It is profitable. Period.

Try and be a bit more accurate please. In reality there is some evidence that through the reduction of costs over time, there are some book profits being shown at this stage within the 5 and 7 year amortisation cycle. True probability cannot be gauged until a sufficient number of players within this model have been sold for a greater sum than the aggregated purchase costs. Then the strategy is truly profitable.

13 hours ago, evissy said:

Well there are elements that count that in and is part of the strategy. Under the last ownership (I don't dare say his name as it triggers people here) we didn't really have that in mind as much as we do now.

We didn't have to. It was his money. At no stage was there any concerns that any financial mistakes would kill the club under the previous owner unlike the financial sanctions ducking and diving we now have. Still don't let that stop you making a sow's ear out of a silk purse.

3 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Try and be a bit more accurate please. In reality there is some evidence that through the reduction of costs over time, there are some book profits being shown at this stage within the 5 and 7 year amortisation cycle. True probability cannot be gauged until a sufficient number of players within this model have been sold for a greater sum than the aggregated purchase costs. Then the strategy is truly profitable.

The claims around Romans ownership are just so dumbed down, the first 5 or 6 years he had no need to make profits, become sustainable etc. He spent to get us into the elite, including spending huge money on infrastructure, training facilities, the academy etc. the whole aim was to then get us to a much more self sustaining club, which was starting to happen, and he then seemed to be accelerating that as FFP was being brought in. People forget Roman and his ownership group were fully behind FFP, they saw that it was aimed at keeping the rich clubs rich and at the top, close the gate behind them and Chelsea were in amongst that.

12 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

You're obsessed with our previous owner

Is this, in fact, Bruce Buck's alter ego, full of vinegar now one those Roman times

On 04/08/2025 at 19:38, Snedger said:

Happy to be educated, but I assumed 30 million on Dewsbury Halll, two years of salary and then sold for 24 million equals a loss. I know when I buy a car and spend years insuring, taxing and fuelling it and then trade it it for less than I paid, to me that’s a loss.

Not sure that’s a great analogy. KDH was only at the club for one season for a start.

Irrespective

Did you use the car to get from A to B.? What value did you place on that usage?

Was there a probability that two years down the line the new owner of the car was going to send over some more money ?

Did the government allow you to claim the sum that your car was depreciating on an annual basis?

What were the VAT implications on both the purchase and sale of your car sale?

On 05/08/2025 at 02:39, SydneyChelsea said:

Bought: 30m
Wages: 4m/year (apparently)
Amortisation: 30m/ 5yrs = 6m/year
Book value at sale: 24m

Sold: 25m

Book profit: 25m - 24m = 1m - 4m wages = 3m loss

I think we both know that when it comes to player trading wages aren’t factored in.

On 03/08/2025 at 19:01, Scott Harris said:

This is what I wanted them to do in the first place. I would have backed them more if they did. The majority of our signings had under 100 senior appearances at club level, some of them less than 50.

Delap, Gittens, Pedro, Hato, all 4 of them have over 100 senior appearances. Simons and Garnacho will be the same if we sign them too.

For me their worse singings based on a player by player basis surely have been Sterling, Koulibaly & Felix all with way over 100 senior appearances

It won't be long until the future where we discuss financial spreadsheets on a football forum.

What fun!(/sarcasm)

34 minutes ago, Deino said:

It won't be long until the future where we discuss financial spreadsheets on a football forum.

What fun!(/sarcasm)

We’re there already, this is like reading the f**king Financial Times.

2 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

Is this, in fact, Bruce Buck's alter ego, full of vinegar now one those Roman times

New things are intimidating I know. Hopefully you get over the ownership-change sometime soon. It feels much better to just accept this.

Roman seems to be beyond objective viewing and the new guys can't do one thing right. This is how it is with some of you.

2 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

Is this, in fact, Bruce Buck's alter ego, full of vinegar now one those Roman times

1 hour ago, Kev56 said:

We’re there already, this is like reading the f**king Financial Times.

Ok boomers. I was speaking facts, zero emotions. This is our reality so catch up with the times.

2 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

We didn't have to. It was his money. At no stage was there any concerns that any financial mistakes would kill the club under the previous owner unlike the financial sanctions ducking and diving we now have. Still don't let that stop you making a sow's ear out of a silk purse.

You are quite literally proving my point here, you are fighting ghosts my friend. We were unfortunately torn away from Romans hands due to geopolitics - we could have landed leeches like the Glazer family instead of our current owners who actually care about the club.

3 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

We didn't have to. It was his money. At no stage was there any concerns that any financial mistakes would kill the club under the previous owner unlike the financial sanctions ducking and diving we now have. Still don't let that stop you making a sow's ear out of a silk purse.

That’s a not the case the £1.5 billion that remained on the holding companies books was a debt that could have been called in by RA or in his absence by anyone. Remember how the loans from Matthew Harding wer3 called in on notice by his widow ?

1 hour ago, Clown Lake said:

I was speaking facts, zero emotions.

And that is why "fans" like you have no understanding of football.

2 hours ago, evissy said:

New things are intimidating I know. Hopefully you get over the ownership-change sometime soon. It feels much better to just accept this.

Roman seems to be beyond objective viewing and the new guys can't do one thing right. This is how it is with some of you.

Us get over the ownership change. What a fking hoot that is. Are there any posts that you make where do not seem to introduce a reference to our previous regime. This is the problem with newbies, you seem to be very selective in what you introduce to support your comments. Let's forget the Mears family and the debacle of the East stand and the seventies, lets gloss over Bates getting the club for a pound but then getting caught up, literally, in a pitch battle with Cabra to save us, Forget about Harding's plan and his tragic end, let's forget about Abramovich eventually saving the club from likely bankruptcy and then turning us into the powerhouse that we became and thus drawing in casual fans from all over the world, including ground and training facility development, massive on field success, and a clean slate when he was eventually forcibly ousted.

Let's forget all about that because its no longer relevant and the only time i see comments such as mine here and from others is actually in response to the likes of you who are constantly trying to validate the errors and misjudgments, including massive debts made to date by these owners, on the basis its new and different. Trading with 1.5bn debt from a nil position within three years has got nothing to do with Roman Abramovich, Matthew Harding, Ken Bates or Brian Mears. However, if this lot do decide to bail in 7 years time and sell this on with a residual 1.5bn of debt needing to be financed, then by all means draw comparisons between the new and old.

Trust me nobody here is under any illusions, everything Clearlake have done has been down to Clearlake

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

That’s a not the case the £1.5 billion that remained on the holding companies books was a debt that could have been called in by RA or in his absence by anyone. Remember how the loans from Matthew Harding wer3 called in on notice by his widow ?

But it wasn't. It was written off by him. It was widely reported that If he'd called the loan we would have been sunk.