1 minute ago, strider6004 said:

We are not at war, if no money goes to Roman and Roman is not paying funds to CFC it can just carry on business as usual.

 

Did you miss the statement from Roman saying he's selling the club ?

7 hours ago, RomansRoubles said:

Swissramble paints a bleak picture of our financial state post Roman. 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1500728401694502912

Most of the problems at this point in time isnt because money is owed in respect of past transfers it’s more to do with amortisation ( depreciation) of the fees paid. So in a way it’s better to forget the accounting bottom line but look at money owed

As of 30/6  the club owed £133million in respect of historical transfers in  but were owed most of that sum back in respect of players sold. The last summers window again saw £97 million spent but most of that was recovered  from the sales of the likes of Tammy, Tomori. So around £20 million  nett  was owed in respect of  all transfer activity. 

To gain some perspective Arsenal owed nett £100 million at the end of their accounting year  with around another £110 spent nett in the summer 21 window  so that was a debt of around £200 million. When you add that sum to the fact the owners are owed around £210 million having taken over the stadium debt , have increased the facility at Barclays Bank to £70 million and their much lauded reserves previously said to be £200+ million has bar around £20 million all but gone.

The Swiss Rambler talks about the book debt at Chelsea  being around £30 million and as he says the bulk of the £1.5 billion is owed by Fordstam. 

I do think the days of paying top top money for transfers and indeed wages are gone  but the reality is that Chelsea is one of the top earning clubs in the world and if we could just reduce the vast money shelled out year after year on exceptional items(another £41 million last season ) then that would make a significant  difference 

Finally let’s deal with the match day income. 

Yes ours isn’t up there with likes of Spurs and Arsenal but from both those clubs gate receipts you have to factor in 1) Both are having to repay capital and interest on their stadium debt 2) Significantly more for the likes of water, gas, electric 3) Significantly more Business rates . When I last looked SB was around £1.25million less PA than The Arsenal Stadium 4) More Stewards/Security 5) Higher Insurance .Do  they still take far more than us ? Yes but my point is that it’s not just a question of comparing match day receipts there are other costs to be factored in which do mean it’s never quite as black and white as it seems on the surface 
 

 

7 minutes ago, strider6004 said:

We are not at war, if no money goes to Roman and Roman is not paying funds to CFC it can just carry on business as usual.

 

Roman pays the wage bill though. Players won't get paid without him and a new owner.

9 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Roman pays the wage bill though. Players won't get paid without him and a new owner.

Of course money is gonna get tighter but the club get quite decent money from the likes of Sky, Nike and 3.

 

3 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Of course money is gonna get tighter but the club get quite decent money from the likes of Sky, Nike and 3.

 

Money already accounted for this season. Has it been set aside for wages or invested elsewhere?

Fact is we don't know how the club is run and it could be that Roman personally pays the wage bill out of pocket.

We could get into a whole debate about cash flow but it’s impossible to know how the cash on hand looks without being party to a whole lot of numbers.

You will know pretty soon if the players aren’t getting paid and as there is nothing any of us can do about so  best not worry. There are far more important things going on to loose sleep over

 

21 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Money already accounted for this season. Has it been set aside for wages or invested elsewhere?

Fact is we don't know how the club is run and it could be that Roman personally pays the wage bill out of pocket.

If that was the case we wouldn’t have passed FFP every year

13 minutes ago, Adamrb said:

If that was the case we wouldn’t have passed FFP every year

FFP has been dead for years. Man City found ways of skirting it with self sponsorship as well.

Well the move into this area of the forum really slowed down participation!

20 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

Eh? I'm not sure I understand this post. Are you saying Roman Abramovich is killing people now? 

No. I realize I worded it wrong. The idea was the american owners have no known ties/ally to a murderer. 

Putin is a murderer and as is known Roman has some ties to him at least in the history which has put him in this position. I obviously don't want him to be in this position but he is. The war is much bigger than a football club. If the pressure on russian money has any effect on this situation unfolding it must be done. 

Putin has put his people, his allies, his compatriots in a situation where they don't want to be in. Lets make sure it is made known to him as well.

2 hours ago, evissy said:

No. I realize I worded it wrong. The idea was the american owners have no known ties/ally to a murderer. 

Putin is a murderer and as is known Roman has some ties to him at least in the history which has put him in this position. I obviously don't want him to be in this position but he is. The war is much bigger than a football club. If the pressure on russian money has any effect on this situation unfolding it must be done. 

Putin has put his people, his allies, his compatriots in a situation where they don't want to be in. Lets make sure it is made known to him as well.

Yes but the individual perception and importance is subjective so it’s debatable. When other countries had wars and our club wasn’t affected, I can make a wild guess that it wasn’t such a big deal on the forum...

13 hours ago, coco said:

Did you miss the statement from Roman saying he's selling the club ?

No, it's just that the political consensus is we have been given a small window to sell before those pressing for tougher sanctions get their way.

 

From links to an NFL owner, who sees that team lose more than it wins, to now being linked to the owner of the NBA side Sacramento Kings, who also lose more games than they win.

Both make good money out of those teams though, sound like Arsenal esc owners to me.

Someone explain please - if Roman isn’t having the money back, why doesn’t he essentially give the club away for free or ask them to put the money they would have spent into the club? why does he have to “sell” it if he’s not getting anything from it?

9 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Someone explain please - if Roman isn’t having the money back, why doesn’t he essentially give the club away for free or ask them to put the money they would have spent into the club? why does he have to “sell” it if he’s not getting anything from it?

Cause he wants the money to go to victims of the war.

2 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Cause he wants the money to go to victims of the war.

Also, unlike a certain team from up north, we don’t see ourselves as the victims in every scenario… 

11 minutes ago, Munkworth said:

Also, unlike a certain team from up north, we don’t see ourselves as the victims in every scenario… 

See themselves as victims, lavished with near universal praise as the "good guys" of football. 

Despite that they think everyone is against them lmao

Turkish businessman Muhsin Bayrak on #Chelsea takeover:

"We have reached a certain stage. Our law and finance department will start talks with theirs in London on Thursday. That’s the way it is at this point."

Muhsin Bayrak:

"On Thursday, we'll notify the Public Disclosure Platform [KAP]. People are talking about it, we made some progress in the talks, and the world believes we have a 90% chance of completing the deal. Abramovich thinks the same."

 

This was also tweeted from Liam Twomey which is very sensible:

“I can’t say for certain that the eventual buyer of Chelsea won’t be someone who we’ve been hearing from (directly or indirectly) regularly. 

What I can say is that this kind of public running commentary isn’t typically the way serious bidders operate #CFC”

2 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Turkish businessman Muhsin Bayrak on #Chelsea takeover:

"We have reached a certain stage. Our law and finance department will start talks with theirs in London on Thursday. That’s the way it is at this point."

Muhsin Bayrak:

"On Thursday, we'll notify the Public Disclosure Platform [KAP]. People are talking about it, we made some progress in the talks, and the world believes we have a 90% chance of completing the deal. Abramovich thinks the same."

 

This was also tweeted from Liam Twomey which is very sensible:

“I can’t say for certain that the eventual buyer of Chelsea won’t be someone who we’ve been hearing from (directly or indirectly) regularly. 

What I can say is that this kind of public running commentary isn’t typically the way serious bidders operate #CFC”

Indeed, not forgetting the none disclosure agreement that is supposed to be in place with this too.

Can you imagine if Trump steps away from US politics and decides to take us over.........

I used to think  Mourinho was boring at times with so many media reports, Arsene Wenger especially a target.

Could just imagine Trump firing off loads of tweets against 'managerial failure and loser' Shearer after every MOTD and God help the VAR people with that Lukaku offside.

Instead of build that wall it might be rebuild the Bridge.

A nightmare for some............ 😁

15 minutes ago, strider6004 said:

Can you imagine if Trump steps away from US politics and decides to take us over.........

I used to think  Mourinho was boring at times with so many media reports, Arsene Wenger especially a target.

Could just imagine Trump firing off loads of tweets against 'managerial failure and loser' Shearer after every MOTD and God help the VAR people with that Lukaku offside.

Instead of build that wall it might be rebuild the Bridge.

A nightmare for some............ 😁

Were trying to get away from owners with Russian connections.

 

4 minutes ago, coco said:

Were trying to get away from owners with Russian connections.

Also no c**ts please. 

Trump's game is golf. No chance he buys a football team. Doubt he has the funds either ... 

33 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Trump's game is golf. No chance he buys a football team. Doubt he has the funds either ... 

Stamford bridge driving range ?

32 minutes ago, coco said:

Stamford bridge driving range ?

Except you aren't allowed to hit any balls onto the pitch as you don't own it LOL