Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Chelsea lose £74.8m

But still plan to break even by 2010...

This is the problem that teams like Charlton face, Chelsea can hose money away chasing success, building bigger squads and then write off chunks of their investment and start again, while we have to live by the sanity that a profit-loss balance sheet imposes. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather we were constrained by the need to balance the books rather than be owned by a plutocrat using a football club as a vehicle for his own ambitions.

This also puts the rivalry with Palace or Millwall into some sort of context, our true rivals are those who are buying up the game and the best players for their aggrandisement. Just when we get things right on and off the pitch we find the goalposts have moved that much further away. Will we ever catch up? Not I think while the FA allows such spending and not while there are people such as Abramovitch about who are busy trying to buy success and at any price. In my mind the trophies that Chelsea have won and might win under this regime are tarnished - it makes them nothing more than chequebook champions.

Comments

  • Agreed that things will never be aligned until clubs are only allowed to spend a certain percentage of income. Can only see it getting worse to be honest.

    If Chelsea nick a couple of our promising youngsters, like they are trying to do with Palace's Bostock, then i think i could end up washing my hands with the whole game.
  • Surely, the answer is at least a wages cap linked to turnover so that clubs cannot spend in excess of their means. At the moment, the club is "bust" other than it's owner's injection of funds. If he decided to move his roubles to another club, or fell out big time with Putin and wasn't allowed to be a playboy any more, Chelsea would be f*cked, have to sell pretty much all their assets in a fire sale. This surely is not right for the game and the FA/FAPL have a duty to maintain the integrity of the game, don't they?????

    I hear the words "dream on" being fired at me. At least clubs like Arsenal and Manure are vibrant and profitable businesses, Cheslea's business model makes Northern Rocks look positively bomb-proof.
  • How many non chelsea fans would be quite happy if Chelsea went bust and folded.

    For all my dislike of certain clubs, i wouldn't want them to cease being. Chelsea on the other hand.....
  • [cite]Posted By: SE10Addick[/cite]How many non chelsea fans would be quite happy if Chelsea went bust and folded.

    For all my dislike of certain clubs, i wouldn't want them to cease being. Chelsea on the other hand.....

    I agree, but this was really the position that Leeds were in on a smaller scale of living massively beyond their means and, in their case, with no rouble bank to draw on. In my opinion it's a governance/regulatory issue which needs to be more robust. Football clubs are large assets but there has to be a sustainable framewark which stands the test of failure in place so that in a few years time, the investors suddenly pull the rug out and clubs fall over.
  • I think the point with Chelsea is they have grown the club as well as pumping money in to buy players, Ab can afford to throw that cash down the drain, and they have a plan/aim to get to a profit scenario.
  • Thing is, Chelsea were days away from making the whole Leeds thing look like a walk in the park.

    Chelsea won't be a profitable club for a long time, the stadium too small, there London's third club by a long way, no history of sucess, and have no real attractiveness to people outside the home counties.
  • It's only anecdotal but I think their overall support has grown.
  • Still miles and miles behind Arsenal, United, Liverpool, Spurs and even clubs like Man City and Newcastle
  • edited February 2008
    [cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]I think the point with Chelsea is they have grown the club as well as pumping money in to buy players, Ab can afford to throw that cash down the drain, and they have a plan/aim to get to a profit scenario.

    Yes, they are talking about 2010 to be break even/profitable. I realise the losses are written down against the assets which presumably are fairly healthy. There do seem to be huge risk factors in the underlying health of the club though. Maybe a test of fitness to own a controlling interest in a football club is required and this should be around ring fencing long term investments commitments to ensure that they don't just up sticks and leave
  • Sponsored links:


  • I would have thought similar risk to most clubs.
  • [cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]Still miles and miles behind Arsenal, United, Liverpool, Spurs and even clubs like Man City and Newcastle

    I agree but I am finding it a little hard to reconcile that with their turnover number which is now higher than Arsenal and closer to Man U?
  • 70% of thier turnover goes on player's wages, this is down from 72%.
  • [cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]
    Chelsea won't be a profitable club for a long time, the stadium too small, there London's third club by a long way, no history of sucess, and have no real attractiveness to people outside the home counties.


    How can you call them London's 3rd club? Their turnover is more than Arsenals and almost as much as Man Utds.
    And they are much much bigger than Spurs. Worldwide i don't think the comparison between Chelsea and spurs would even be close.

    Agree with the profit issue. Can't see them being profitable within the next 2 years at all, although the tv deal kicking in this year will bring the losses down further. The thing that stands out for me, is they reduced their net transfer spending to just 11m, yet have still lost 74m. Now you can't see their net spending being much less than 11m in years to come, they can't get much more successful on the pitch than they have been in recent years, they can't extend their ground, so how do they reduce these losses?
  • I still think Spurs are the bigger club, historically and in terms of support, and Arsenal and United are on a different level to them.

    As for the record turnover, they include the Adidas deal inital payments.
  • [cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]I still think Spurs are the bigger club, historically and in terms of support


    In terms of support in and around London maybe, but not worldwide which is what counts these days.
  • The trouble is Chelsea are not only competing in England but also against other European giants.

    I may be wrong but I thought Real Madrids finances were pretty ghastly and make Chelseas position look reasonable.
  • edited February 2008
    [cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]
    I may be wrong but I thought Real Madrids finances were pretty ghastly and make Chelseas position look reasonable.


    Madrid were hopelessly in debt a few years ago but their local council struck a deal to 'buy' their training ground for about £200m thus wiping out their debt.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20040304/ai_n12769169
  • [cite]Posted By: Chris_from_Sidcup[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]
    I may be wrong but I thought Real Madrids finances were pretty ghastly and make Chelseas position look reasonable.


    Madrid were hopelessly in debt a few years ago but their local council struck a deal to 'buy' their training ground for about £200m thus wiping out their debt.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20040304/ai_n12769169

    Thanks C from S. This needs to be shared with Greenwich Council. New Eltham is prime development potential. £200m is a snip.
  • [cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]I still think Spurs are the bigger club, historically and in terms of support, and Arsenal and United are on a different level to them.

    As for the record turnover, they include the Adidas deal inital payments.

    So phasing of that deal may be skewing the figures this years otherwise they would be worse?
  • Sponsored links:


  • What's the point in a wage cap based on income - Abramovich will just get one of his companies to sign a multi-million pound "sponsorship" deal. Problem solved.
  • It will take a bluddy long time for them to break even, given Roman has so far spent £500 million on them, let say they turn a profit of £5 million in 2010 having lost another £100 million and from then turn a £20 million profit, they should break even about 2036.
  • [cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]What's the point in a wage cap based on income - Abramovich will just get one of his companies to sign a multi-million pound "sponsorship" deal. Problem solved.

    But that would be against the rules, surely?....;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!