2 hours ago, Clown Lake said:

They did a great job. We build our player portfolio while dodging any major fines/bans. Now we reap the rewards. Keep the best talent for the squad, make profit on the rest. Win/Win!

I don't know how to tell you this,

But you know those "profits" that make you wet the bed every night? You know they're not actually going into your bank account right? This is a game of football we want to enjoy, not which shareholder gets the best honeymoon.

3 hours ago, evissy said:

Good news that we have got rid of this problem, would have been a poor show if we couldnt register players. Hopefully we wont get into such a position again. I expect its a relief to Uefa too,they can hardly feel comfortable grumbling about their World Club Champions.

25 minutes ago, Victor90 said:

I don't know how to tell you this,

But you know those "profits" that make you wet the bed every night? You know they're not actually going into your bank account right? This is a game of football we want to enjoy, not which shareholder gets the best honeymoon.

This is what I don’t understand, it smacks of loser mentality when you champion profits and low wage bills. That’s what clubs who win nothing harp on about.

Imagine the MH stand breaking into a chorus of “our wage bill, it’s lower than yours”……what a burn that would be to the away fans🙄

Just now, C3blue said:

This is what I don’t understand, it smacks of loser mentality when you champion profits and low wage bills. That’s what clubs who win nothing harp on about.

Imagine the MH stand breaking into a chorus of “our wage bill, it’s lower than yours”……what a burn that would be to the away fans🙄

Do you not see such gems as ‘Net Spend Positive, You’ll never sing that’

Or ‘We’ve got more Pure Profit than you, We’ve got more Pure Profit than you!’

And who can forget the terrace classic of ‘Amortise wherever you may be, We are the UEFA Compliant CFC’

catching on then?

Edited September 4, 2025Sep 4 by The Boehly Babes

2 minutes ago, The Boehly Babes said:

Do you not see such gems as ‘Net Spend Positive, You’ll never sing that’

Or ‘We’ve got more Pure Profit than you, We’ve got more Pure Profit than you!’

And who can forget the terrace classic of ‘Amortise wherever you may be, We are the UEFA Compliant CFC’

catching on then?

absolute cracker!👍

1 hour ago, Victor90 said:

I don't know how to tell you this,

But you know those "profits" that make you wet the bed every night? You know they're not actually going into your bank account right? This is a game of football we want to enjoy, not which shareholder gets the best honeymoon.

I don’t know how to tell you this, but I actually care about the health of our club. Seeing Chelsea FC have a healthy long term future makes me feel good and happy. You might not care and just want to stare at the screen once or twice a week, good for you. You do you, nothing wrong with it. If I care to be more involved why is this your problem?

34 minutes ago, C3blue said:

This is what I don’t understand, it smacks of loser mentality when you champion profits and low wage bills. That’s what clubs who win nothing harp on about.

Imagine the MH stand breaking into a chorus of “our wage bill, it’s lower than yours”……what a burn that would be to the away fans🙄

If you do not care about our long term future, good on you. Finances are part of the long term future so why do you care? It’s a losers mentality to involve yourself with something you don't care about and attack others for caring about it. Stay off the subject if you dont care.

32 minutes ago, The Boehly Babes said:

Do you not see such gems as ‘Net Spend Positive, You’ll never sing that’

Or ‘We’ve got more Pure Profit than you, We’ve got more Pure Profit than you!’

And who can forget the terrace classic of ‘Amortise wherever you may be, We are the UEFA Compliant CFC’

catching on then?

I like the “I dont care about finances, but ill have a moan regardless”, “what is stability, we have no accountability” chants better.

Mate when I was a kid I used to put my pocket money in the buckets of the save the bridge campaign.

Nobody said they didn’t care about the stability of the club,it’s you who have continuously claimed our genius owners are perfectly able to service the huge debt they have run up in the clubs name.

Can they not service the same debt in the pursuit of glory?? Nobody is asking them to throw more money at it, in fact many have wanted them to stop spending all together for the unity of the team. Our concern is and always will be the TEAM.

If finances float ur boat so much you could support a FTSE 100 company.

As football fans we are interested in good players playing good football with the goal of winning matches and trophies.

If you want to celebrate the club getting fined £27m instead of £70m like it’s something to be proud of be my guest.

1 hour ago, Clown Lake said:

I like the “I dont care about finances, but I’ll have a moan regardless”, “what is stability, we have no accountability” chants better.

Take your face for a sh*t mate.

You’ve ruined this forum with your accountancy circle jerk, sh*t GIFS and constantly reposting w**k X accounts.

2 hours ago, Clown Lake said:

I’ll let you do some research and you can come back with actual facts. Easy to ramble on here, but come back to me when you have done your own research to your questions because you will be surprised and might even change your mind. I did the research and understood it. Went from hating our ownership to having an epiphany because I was no longer lazily spouting anger, but sat down and took time to understand the model.

I’ve been in your shoes, so entertain your own curiosities now because I’m clearly not getting through to you. No point going back and forth, so nothing to throw “back to you” aside from advice.

Mate, Just going to put you on the block list. facts are well established, its you that argues the toss. enjoy your life.

14 minutes ago, bluelightening said:

Mate, Just going to put you on the block list. facts are well established, its you that argues the toss. enjoy your life.

4 hours ago, bluelightening said:

So this argument is basically - you step in one pile of steaming dog poo to avoid an even bigger one in your next step.

Answer: Choose a better path more wisely before setting off on your journey or when confronted with big pile of poo - reassess and change direction unless you like cleaning up dog muck.

Sub answer: players are increasingly going to reject low wages/ long contracts, given how senior and junior players have been treated with the bomb squad. So a rethink is very much needed.

Sub sub answer: The board could try not selling the best academy players, using them as they often on a par with what we spend 1.5 billion on/ try signing players who will play for the first team/ improve it without collecting dust.

Sub Sub Sub answer: You've gone and brought Roman into this... so here goes. We are not spending Romans money becuase weve spent 1.5 billion loaned against the club as I understand it. The club is now in debt...

Sub sub sub sub sub answer. glad you are enjoying being a completly argumentaive...

SUB SUB SUB SUB SUB SUB answer... insert here.

If I may help train your algorithm, its Cue - not Queue. (sorry not aiming this at you DWK) Evissy, one sets in motion the other is to stand in a line waiting behind others.

You come at me with this drivel and then cry and try to take the “high road” of ignoring me when youre checked because the negativity police isnt enough to shut me up. Don’t let that door hit you bud, thanks for doing me a favor.

22 minutes ago, The Boehly Babes said:

Take your face for a sh*t mate.

You’ve ruined this forum with your accountancy circle jerk, sh*t GIFS and constantly reposting w**k X accounts.

Youre helping the forum with the abuse, hate and pig headedness? Who even are you mate? You offer nothing but another terrible moan.

If we can get £60m-£65m that would be fantastic!

“There remains an ongoing competitive process for the front-of-shirt sponsor with Chelsea believed to have had offers.

The club is aiming to strike a deal worth £60m-£65m per season following qualification for the UCL and winning the Fifa Club World Cup. ~ @NizaarKinsella“

8 hours ago, Clown Lake said:

If we can get £60m-£65m that would be fantastic!

“There remains an ongoing competitive process for the front-of-shirt sponsor with Chelsea believed to have had offers.

The club is aiming to strike a deal worth £60m-£65m per season following qualification for the UCL and winning the Fifa Club World Cup. ~ @NizaarKinsella“

Yeah right.. we are already 1 month into the season, and they have increased their high range to £65m. Are we sure there are interested parties at £60m?

15 hours ago, The Boehly Babes said:

Take your face for a sh*t mate.

You’ve ruined this forum with your accountancy circle jerk, sh*t GIFS and constantly reposting w**k X accounts.

In the meantime, UB gets banned and this clown keeps popping up with the board's PR sh*t everywhere.

On 04/09/2025 at 15:44, The Boehly Babes said:

Do you not see such gems as ‘Net Spend Positive, You’ll never sing that’

Or ‘We’ve got more Pure Profit than you, We’ve got more Pure Profit than you!’

And who can forget the terrace classic of ‘Amortise wherever you may be, We are the UEFA Compliant CFC’

catching on then?

Absolute top level quality post mate !!

9 hours ago, RMH said:

In the meantime, UB gets banned and this clown keeps popping up with the board's PR sh*t everywhere.

No ! UB isn't banned is he mate ??

On 04/09/2025 at 16:19, Clown Lake said:

I don’t know how to tell you this, but I actually care about the health of our club. Seeing Chelsea FC have a healthy long term future makes me feel good and happy. You might not care and just want to stare at the screen once or twice a week, good for you. You do you, nothing wrong with it. If I care to be more involved why is this your problem?

If you do not care about our long term future, good on you. Finances are part of the long term future so why do you care? It’s a losers mentality to involve yourself with something you don't care about and attack others for caring about it. Stay off the subject if you dont care.

I like the “I dont care about finances, but ill have a moan regardless”, “what is stability, we have no accountability” chants better.

Only 3 or 4 Premier League clubs occasionally end up in profit each season.

The PL acknowledges this common state of club finances by allowing each club to lose millions every year . . On transfers , the players we sold actually cost us millions to buy , but that's not calculated when we sell them .

Only Liverpool spent more on buying players than we did and we have a massive player trading financial deficit since the new ownership took over..

So, knowing this, why do you keep making false comments about our great financial position??

You are deliberately and constantly baiting to generate responses. Which is ok by me.

But please don't start whining again that I'm " making it personal" or that I'm "stalking you " or the rather weird and unpleasant " I'm interested in you and should DM you " .

On 04/09/2025 at 16:19, Clown Lake said:

I

15 hours ago, Scott said:

Only Liverpool spent more on new players than we did

On 04/09/2025 at 12:04, evissy said:

Another example of their total incompetence. What a horrible bunch.

Queue: they shouldn't have done those mistakes in the first place!!!!

And you think these figures below are " good financial business" ??

Chelsea also offloaded almost all of their unwanted loanees but Raheem Sterling and Axel Disasi remain stranded in the 'bomb squad'. They have sold over £750m worth of players to partially balance the more than £1.6bn spent on incoming transfers over the past three years.

Related topics

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

And you think these figures below are " good financial business" ??

Chelsea also offloaded almost all of their unwanted loanees but Raheem Sterling and Axel Disasi remain stranded in the 'bomb squad'. They have sold over £750m worth of players to partially balance the more than £1.6bn spent on incoming transfers over the past three years.

Related topics

Your presumptions are rotating around the new owners being financially shrewd. That is your idea because you think football is not important to them. I can't really do anything to that image. They are venture capitalists so they seek compensation to their investments. Even the simplest mathematician understand they need to gain the value to the club and the simplest route to do so is to be relevant in the sport. There are hundreds of examples of that. That means the sporting side needs to be good. That is not a debate. That is a simple fact. By good I mean excellent. Top 10 in the world. We used to be that but I think we can be even better even though the competition is much tighter than it's been.

Raheem Sterling is a good example of a player they purchased before they had the directors. Roman era type of purchase. Ready made player for exact need. We don't do that anymore. It is pretty easy to say why.

Disasi was bought for Pochettino because Fofana was sidelined for entire season. Again they don't do that anymore. Not dipping into the market after Colwill got injured is a good indication of that. They learned not to do these hasty deals. That could hurt us short term but in the long term it is probably the best decision.

17 minutes ago, evissy said:

Your presumptions are rotating around the new owners being financially shrewd. That is your idea because you think football is not important to them. I can't really do anything to that image. They are venture capitalists so they seek compensation to their investments. Even the simplest mathematician understand they need to gain the value to the club and the simplest route to do so is to be relevant in the sport. There are hundreds of examples of that. That means the sporting side needs to be good. That is not a debate. That is a simple fact. By good I mean excellent. Top 10 in the world. We used to be that but I think we can be even better even though the competition is much tighter than it's been.

Raheem Sterling is a good example of a player they purchased before they had the directors. Roman era type of purchase. Ready made player for exact need. We don't do that anymore. It is pretty easy to say why.

Disasi was bought for Pochettino because Fofana was sidelined for entire season. Again they don't do that anymore. Not dipping into the market after Colwill got injured is a good indication of that. They learned not to do these hasty deals. That could hurt us short term but in the long term it is probably the best decision

Todd claimed months ago that the club was worth more than the price they paid for us..

That was halfway through the season before we won anything.

Todd said the trend is his friend . Strasbourg has increased in value too.. None of it related to success on the pitch..

And football clubs are not profitable. It's the increasing value they are betting on . The owners have millions of borrowing parked in our holding companies too. The debt and spending is exactly the same now as during Roman's 20 years. If the owners are dependent on football success they would have followed the proven formula of the previous owner . There was NO need to change , unless you're going to claim " Russian concerns" as either you or Clownlake did previously..

And making a very predictable mistake with Sterling doesn't mean the whole transfer policy has to change. In fact it didn't. We spent record amounts on individual players during the first season. Spending that eventually plunged us into oblivion. Now we are still spending hundreds of millions but on player trading and not to make us successful. .

25 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Todd claimed months ago that the club was worth more than the price they paid for us..

That was halfway through the season before we won anything.

Todd said the trend is his friend . Strasbourg has increased in value too.. None of it related to success on the pitch..

And football clubs are not profitable. It's the increasing value they are betting on . The owners have millions of borrowing parked in our holding companies too. The debt and spending is exactly the same now as during Roman's 20 years. If the owners are dependent on football success they would have followed the proven formula of the previous owner . There was NO need to change , unless you're going to claim " Russian concerns" as either you or Clownlake did previously..

And making a very predictable mistake with Sterling doesn't mean the whole transfer policy has to change. In fact it didn't. We spent record amounts on individual players during the first season. Spending that eventually plunged us into oblivion. Now we are still spending hundreds of millions but on player trading and not to make us successful. .

AI is back in that post... You're talking to a robot. At least he's infused some personality into it, or he actually talks and sounds like a robot in real life.

On 04/09/2025 at 21:40, The Boehly Babes said:

Every thread (bar the Nicholas Jackson one) was actually a proper forum thread with actual discussions before you came along and devolved everything into absolute nonsense.

Fully agree. That Jackson thread was so annoying. A couple of us giving logical debate - and then a load of WUMs and fanboys trying to bait, argue and wind the rest of us more reasonable people up.

So happy Wacko is gone - I really think that should be a force for good that units us as a fanbase....instead there is more bickering . A shame:

Edited September 6, 2025Sep 6 by nonotnowjim

Chelsea turned down an offer worth up to £59.5million for Santos. Santos confirmed this himself.

These owners don't sell key players unless they want to leave (Santos is not even a key player yet). They have proven this. They are committed toward building a great squad first and foremost. The profit on the Santos sale would have been phenomenal but that means nothing if he is able to be an addition of strength to our squad.