41 minutes ago, Boyne said:

And avoided the devil's page!

Edited April 16Apr 16 by Scott
clarification

2 hours ago, Boyne said:

Thanks for posting this. I’m not expecting the board to respond other than their normal PR in twitter (very trumpian all).

"The operating loss of £628.7 million is driven by a cost base that has expanded at a rate significantly higher than the top line. Examination of the expenditure reveals that staff costs and the non-cash amortisation of player registrations are the two principal causes of this elevated expenditure.

Staff costs reached £434.9 million, an increase of 13.8% from the £382.2 million recorded in 2024. This reflects the continued expansion of the Group’s administrative and data analytics workforce to 1,289 employees. "

"The operating loss of £628.7 million is driven by a cost base that has expanded at a rate significantly higher than the top line. Examination of the expenditure reveals that staff costs and the non-cash amortisation of player registrations are the two principal causes of this elevated expenditure.

Staff costs reached £434.9 million, an increase of 13.8% from the £382.2 million recorded in 2024. This reflects the continued expansion of the Group’s administrative and data analytics workforce to 1,289 employees. "

39 minutes ago, RMH said:

Thanks for posting this. I’m not expecting the board to respond other than their normal PR in twitter (very trumpian all).

You're welcome. Yes, if the board does respond it will be a bland, no-committal answer. I'm going to miss the game and protest on Saturday as will be at a motorsport event at Goodwood. Have given my ST to a friend.

Like f**k it will. Gave Palmer an extension then signed Delap, Gittens and Garnacho.

Acheampong's minutes in the league since Rosenior was appointed (apart from the seven minutes he got against f**king Port Vale in the cup):

(And f**k all of the awful internet football people like Simon Phillips, Piss and that twat Romano).

13 hours ago, charierre said:

This is a good read

The Analysis Series: Financial architecture of 22 Holdco...

For anyone wanting an understanding of how Chelsea are funded and how Ares operate this is a must read: Summary and macro-financial context The global sports finance landscape has undergone a profo…

He's a really great blogger and I've only just recently discovered him. He is an Everton fan, and has a series on the 'shadow-banking' of the PL clubs where he shows how the clubs are essentially leveraged against each other because no one is actually making their instalments, they are just selling the debt on to other PL clubs. He thinks all it will take is one mid-sized club to default and the private banks will call the whole thing in.

1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said:

He's a really great blogger and I've only just recently discovered him. He is an Everton fan, and has a series on the 'shadow-banking' of the PL clubs where he shows how the clubs are essentially leveraged against each other because no one is actually making their instalments, they are just selling the debt on to other PL clubs. He thinks all it will take is one mid-sized club to default and the private banks will call the whole thing in.

I think it will all come tumbling down at some point.

Professional Yapper.

Eghbali - “There is a plan. We reflect on the plan. We try to improve the plan and tweak the plan if it’s not working. The message is we’re committed” “Can this be successful without winning? The answer is no. We’ve got to win” “And it doesn’t mean you’re going to win every game, it doesn’t mean you don’t make mistakes, that you don’t have downturns, but ultimately the objective, and especially the objective that a club like Chelsea is you’ve got to win, you’ve got to win trophies, and you’ve got to win consistently again”

@TheAthleticFC

Yeah you are an idiot if you believe anything he says.

11 hours ago, Remodez said:

So basically all they are going to do is keep refinancing the loans until the valuation of the club is at a point where they are happy to sell.

Let's say in 10 years time they have about 2 to 3 billion worth of loans to repay but sell for about 10 to 15 billion it all would have been worth it to them in the end.

We are f**ked from a competitive point of view but that's already obvious, the club will be fine financially in long run.

Not 10 years. Just another 5-6 years. These lot will hold until the 10 year limit is up.

15 hours ago, Remodez said:

So basically all they are going to do is keep refinancing the loans until the valuation of the club is at a point where they are happy to sell.

Yep. Which is why I said before anyone thinking that BlueCo and especially Clearlake care about the current financial turmoil is deluded. In their head, the losses stand to be a rounding error if they merely follow the market for another 7 years.

I don't agree the market will be so kind to them however.

6 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Professional Yapper.

Eghbali - “There is a plan. We reflect on the plan. We try to improve the plan and tweak the plan if it’s not working. The message is we’re committed” “Can this be successful without winning? The answer is no. We’ve got to win” “And it doesn’t mean you’re going to win every game, it doesn’t mean you don’t make mistakes, that you don’t have downturns, but ultimately the objective, and especially the objective that a club like Chelsea is you’ve got to win, you’ve got to win trophies, and you’ve got to win consistently again”

@TheAthleticFC

If the objective is to win, you don't hire Potter and Rosenior, and to a lesser extent Maresca, and you certainly don't sign 80% of the players that BlueCo have signed, or assign the whole recruitment strategy to the likes of Winstanley, Stewart and Shields.

For some reason I cannot get rid of this

32 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

If the objective is to win, you don't hire Potter and Rosenior, and to a lesser extent Maresca, and you certainly don't sign 80% of the players that BlueCo have signed, or assign the whole recruitment strategy to the likes of Winstanley, Stewart and Shields.

On 16/04/2026 at 08:37, Bob stark said:

https://x.com/i/status/2044631937206161791

This is last season number.

Wages bracket is something like:

City, pool

Arse, Chelsea, united

Spuds, villa, Newcastle

Everyone else

Soton

Ipswich

There are few interesting number here.

1. Spuds

   If you want to understand why Spuds has never won anything. Spuds generated more revenue than us and their salary is at Newcastle/Villa salary.

2. Leicester

   153 m for newly promoted team is just insane.

A note in our accounts say they anticipate record revenue of £700m+ next season with CL revenue and player sales. I just don’t see how that bumps up revenue by £200m+ unless they sell an Enzo for £100m+ which no club is paying. Even if hypothetically that happened, wages & agent fees means they are bound to declare little or no profits.

What pisses me off is our Women’s team is paying a £12m license fee to the Men’s club to use the name.

UPDATED: Chelsea sold the Women for £200m but did not cut...

How Chelsea's men received more than 100% of the women's revenue AFTER selling 100% of it

1 hour ago, markpitts said:

A note in our accounts say they anticipate record revenue of £700m+ next season with CL revenue and player sales. I just don’t see how that bumps up revenue by £200m+ unless they sell an Enzo for £100m+ which no club is paying. Even if hypothetically that happened, wages & agent fees means they are bound to declare little or no profits.

What pisses me off is our Women’s team is paying a £12m license fee to the Men’s club to use the name.

UPDATED: Chelsea sold the Women for £200m but did not cut...

How Chelsea's men received more than 100% of the women's revenue AFTER selling 100% of it

@markpitts

Well CL is unlikely maybe Europa yet we could miss out on that too.

So you are suggesting possible players sales to balance the books if I interpret correctly.

I thought the women's team was subsided by the Men's set-up is this now incorrect are the women self sustaining?

We'll see what we end up with in the summer, but so far nothing they've done so far instills any confidence. Only positive I'll take is it's good to finally hear that idiot speak and at least we know they're aware of the issues that everyone is aware of. Whether they'll actually do anything about it in the summer is another question.

50 minutes ago, markpitts said:

A note in our accounts say they anticipate record revenue of £700m+ next season with CL revenue and player sales. I just don’t see how that bumps up revenue by £200m+ unless they sell an Enzo for £100m+ which no club is paying. Even if hypothetically that happened, wages & agent fees means they are bound to declare little or no profits.

What pisses me off is our Women’s team is paying a £12m license fee to the Men’s club to use the name.

UPDATED: Chelsea sold the Women for £200m but did not cut...

How Chelsea's men received more than 100% of the women's revenue AFTER selling 100% of it

We will get some cl + some cwc money for this season acc not sure we can get 700.

4 minutes ago, strider6004 said:

@markpitts

Well CL is unlikely maybe Europa yet we could miss out on that too.

So you are suggesting possible players sales to balance the books if I interpret correctly.

I thought the women's team was subsided by the Men's set-up is this now incorrect are the women self sustaining?

This is last season number.

1 hour ago, markpitts said:

A note in our accounts say they anticipate record revenue of £700m+ next season with CL revenue and player sales. I just don’t see how that bumps up revenue by £200m+ unless they sell an Enzo for £100m+ which no club is paying. Even if hypothetically that happened, wages & agent fees means they are bound to declare little or no profits.

What pisses me off is our Women’s team is paying a £12m license fee to the Men’s club to use the name.

UPDATED: Chelsea sold the Women for £200m but did not cut...

How Chelsea's men received more than 100% of the women's revenue AFTER selling 100% of it

It's smoke and mirrors. Last season the women paid around 22m as a licence fee, the men reimbursed the women around 11m.

26 minutes ago, dermott said:

It's smoke and mirrors. Last season the women paid around 22m as a licence fee, the men reimbursed the women around 11m.

Next season they'll claim the women's team signed Axel Disasi for £40m.

1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Next season they'll claim the women's team signed Axel Disasi for £40m.

The Hammers' women's team, you mean?

RIGHT THIS IS A LONG VIDEO...BUT THERE ARE STILL SOME ON HERE WHO DONT BELIEVE SOME OF THE STUFF THAT WAS RELEASED BY YOUNNES AND JOHNNY MINERALS LAST WEEK SAYING THEY ARENT SOLICITORS OR LAWYERS

START AT 11 MINS

I ain't watching that, someone summarise please