• Major upgrades completed! Please report any issues you spot in here

Chelsea Thread

Mehtab said:
Well if you count that, I am pretty sure Arsenal's build up team wasn't free either.
Click to expand...

It was made by investing money we had over years of building up our team and having different forms of success/luck. Not spending out of our means.

You want to be patted on the back for investing a billion pounds, then say forget about that amount, lets ditch it and just start counting profit when it is convenient for us to show how well we are doing.

I just don't understand Chelsea and City fans trying to talk about finances etc, just accept your team had a ridiculous amount of money invested in them to be successful and enjoy it, stop trying to convince everybody otherwise.
 
It's great to see Chelsea making money - that's what we all want. The situation where a club is dependent on some third party for day to day operations is the worry, and if Chelsea have truly managed to create enough revenue to support themselves and compete at this level that's fantastic - and impressive.

I'd personally wait to see the actual P & L. There was a lot of chat around the profit they made 2 years ago but it turned out that was mainly due to a change in the way Abramovich's equity converted, rather than true operational profit.

It's still not an investment - as Bobby points out - 'investing' 1 billion to make back 20m in 10 years is obviously not something any rational actor would do. It's a vanity project that is now not costing him money this year. Which is great.
 
You can't argue with these numbers. If you're a City or Chelsea fan, why bring finances into discussion in the first place?



Especially City. Look at what Mansour threw at the club in just 6 years, it's uncanny!
 
amineken22 said:
Ok, first of all I didn't address neither of the Arsenal fans commenting on the thread.

I don't really get your attitude, why on earth shouldn't I talk about finances?
Being a Chelsea/City fan actually gives you more insight on things, because of the club's positions we're more exposed to business related news, we deal with financial data on a regular basis and we're more eager to read/learn/search more about it. I think you guys got it backwards.


I specifically mentioned Ryan because of a previous discussion we had about Chelsea getting a back-to-back profit year, the situation is now more likely to happen because the profit I mentioned is only last year's (a season without any silverware) and doesn't include transfer sales such as David. With that in mind; when adding the money we got from the summer transfers and future incomes from the 2/3 competition we'll be winning this year... next year will more likely be a back-to-back profit year.

Going from surviving on injected equity to a self-generating and hopefully self-depending club will be a HUGE progress, especially in FFP times. The club has never been in such healthy state before (pre-Roman era included).

Also, your theory on investment is too literal, you forgot that you're dealing with football clubs. The basic structure might be the same, but the goals are different, so does the investment strategy.
Spending money on transfers, stadiums, training grounds, youth facilities and development is all done for one purpose: Winning trophies.
What's the use of having an UEFA Elite stadium if you're just going to be the first one eliminated once the knock-out stages come around? What's the worth of having the most expensive membership around if your team's goal is finish 4th every year? Breaking-even shouldn't be any club's main goal.

Yeah, we did spend a huge amount of money to get where we are, so did any team striving for success. We ended up with 11 trophies and 7 runner-up medals in 10 years... so, eventually the investment came good. We don't need to pay off anything.
Click to expand...

Chelsea and City fans have become more aware of finances because they keep trying to justify the amount of money invested into the club.

Look you can think you are an expert in the matter and keep trying to explain to people what is happening, but it is just ridiculous in my opinion.

It's like anything really.

If I knew a guy that built up a property business over 10 years after buying 1 apartment, doing it up and selling on, then building on the small profit made to increase and build/renovate more and then become successful from this, I am going to have much more respect than say for a kid whose dad gives him 10million pounds to spend, builds an apartment complex in 1 year and then says I made 500,000 profit last year and completely writing off the 10million investment put in.

It's the way of the world, stop trying to convince people otherwise because it just doesn't wash :PP

your success was based on one of the richest people in the world buying the club and doing whatever he wanted in a time where no other clubs could compete.

And you also made a good point you have won a lot in the last 10years bravo, enjoy it....just stop trying to justify the money put into the club.

Arsenal had to operate in the real world, where building a stadium meant that we couldn't invest properly in our team and made sacrifices for that, your attitude just speaks volumes about alot of current Chelsea and City fans being cocky, sanctimonious when they really have no grounds to be.

City and Cheslea fans are so vocal and paranoid about the whole finances aspect because you can't help that know in the back of your minds that you got ridiculously lucky, your success was completely bought for you.

If I was in your shoes, I would just accept it and enjoy the success it has brought to you.

But go ahead, tell people that you made a 18mill profit last year.....what an achievement when you invest 900 million in a club!!
 
@ amineken22: I can kind of see where you're going - that return on investment in football = trophies, but that kind of falls down when the investment is in cold hard cash.

Have Chelsea won a lot since Abramovich took over? Of course, probably more than any other English club. But in that time Chelsea have spent probably twice as much as their competitors, and assembled at one point the most expensive squad in world football, and were paying the highest wages. So I'd kind of expect them to be competing for trophies.

The way I look at is thus: Abramovich wanted to get money out of Russia, and wanted to base himself in England for, erm, strategic reasons. So he bought a football club that was close to the sizeable chunk of West London he owns. So he invested a super-yacht sized chunk of cash into it, and its one some trophies. That's cool. To be honest the value of the club has probably appreciated enough that he wouldn't even lose that much if he sold it tomorrow (if anyone could afford it).

But it's nothing like building a stadium, or hell, like any other business enterprise. Say Abramovich had instead purchased Harrods for the same amount as Chelsea. We would judge that 'investment' on his return on capital. I.e., how much cash has Harrod's earned him since he bought it. If that amount is more than something called the Weighted Average Cost of Capital [what he could have made elsewhere] you'd say it was a good investment.

He's invested a billion in Chelsea and has made 22 million + some appreciation of the value of the club (which could only be determined if it was sold to someone and created a price). So for me it's not an investment, but it is a successful conversion of cash into trophies.
 
BobbyBox said:
It was made by investing money we had over years of building up our team and having different forms of success/luck. Not spending out of our means.

You want to be patted on the back for investing a billion pounds, then say forget about that amount, lets ditch it and just start counting profit when it is convenient for us to show how well we are doing.

I just don't understand Chelsea and City fans trying to talk about finances etc, just accept your team had a ridiculous amount of money invested in them to be successful and enjoy it, stop trying to convince everybody otherwise.
Click to expand...

Arsenal's recent (well, recent-ish) success was built on the likes of Bergkamp. Arsenal FC did not buy those glut of top class players with Arsenal money.

No CFC or MCFC fan has ever tried to convince anyone that their clubs have not had huge amounts of money injected. It's obvious. It's a fact.
It's a fact borne from the way a cartel of clubs in england and also across europe have shaped modern football via corrupt means for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else.
You know all this.


Anyway. 320m up from 255m is a very decent jump. I'm guessing around 40m of that is a result of the BT coverage deal. I'm expecting City's to be around 330m - pre UEFA's withholding of CL money anyway.
What will be interesting is the next accounting period. Utd's revenue is expected to fall to around 380m next year (this season) without CL. With no new TV deal it will be difficult for either CFC or MCFC to reach that level but the gap should be quite small ...at least until they get the CL money back and the mammoth CL connected shirt sponsorships.
 
Last edited:
amineken22 said:
See, it's an attitude like this that I don't really get. You're going on accusing me and generalizing like you even know me.

If you did, you'd know that it's one my genuine interest in life and I enjoy discussing any related topic to it (sport's ones especially) and no I'm not trying to justify or convince you of anything. I'm just offering my view on things, feel free to disagree if you want.




Because Arsenal had to build a new stadium? Highbury wasn't big enough I guess. You had to make more money.

I just can't understand how Arsenal fans were lead to believe that it was necessary, how they had to lower their expectation every year to the point where there is none atm.
You're too busy pocking others, that you don't even notice that was all greed initiated. You were brainwashed into accepting an investment plan that would jeopardize the club's competitiveness, just like you are brainwashed into believing that The Arsenal Way doesn't include competent defending anymore.

So, please go ahead and tell me how cocky and ignorant I am, I'll tell you how dimwitted and out of touch you are.



Yes, I do realize that. We could've easily gone the Leeds/Porsmouth way I'm thankful everyday for having someone that who cares about the club in charge like Roman :SMUG:



There! You got it. That's how I see it.
Click to expand...

For somebody where it is a genuine interest it surprises me that you don't understand a clubs need to expand a stadium. Your naivety in that post astounds me really....for somebody that has an interest in finances etc I excpect you to be more articulate and really understand this.

I guess you probably don't understand that because Chelsea and Man City have trouble filling their own stadiums.

When we built the stadium it was a calculated risk that in normal circumastances would have been fine, the reason we struggled for too long was because of a world financial crisis at the time which meant that a large chunk of money that we would have got back from the sale of apartments (among other things) took longer for us to sell.

You see real world circumastances that just do not effect City and Chelsea.

Your talk of brainwashing etc is also ridiculous and for me being called dimwitted by somebody that talks that way is laughable.

godotelli I understand we had money put into the club but we had this because we built up a reputation and a club that got us to a point where somebody invested money into the team. A big amount, but not a stupendous, crazy amount of money.

You do realise that chelsea in a 10 year period (man city in laess years) have spent probably nearly double or at least a 3rd more than Arsenal have in there 100 odd year history!

Its just something you cant compare.

Also you saying that Arsenal accepting being 4th or accepting having a shit defence etc just also shows your arrogance, as was it the same with Chelsea before you had 900million injected into the club out of nowhere? Did you just accept that you were not going to win anything, because your team were rubbish? You accepted you hadn't won much in your teams history? Remember you were a 'normal' club a one point, i would usually expect wome humility from people that were in a certain situation amd then suddenly become rich and successful (especially when they become rich/successful by no real skill/business accumen at the beggining of their reign)

I actually think chelsea and City coming in make the Prem much better, more competition is always good and has made our league into one of the most desirable in the world.

So me contradicting what you say isn't from a point of I hate these teams, I realise the league was realistically winnable by a couple of teams back in the day (although the introduction of Chelsea and Man City have really made only a couple of teams that can really win the league also)

It comes back to my analogy about the property investers, people don't really respect Chelseas and Man City's success and fans of clubs of both Chelsea and City trying to convince people dofferently doesn't really work out.

The respect will come I guess the more you are run like a proper club, but lets not pretend you got to this point anyother way than you did. i actually love the team Man City have produced and love their football at times, so I see the benefits, but they play this way because of the team they have amassed and the many players that they have tried out for millions and sold for less because they can afford to do so.

again there is an obssesion from Chelsea and Man City fans to spout out finances, I think this speaks volumes.

Also the fact only Chelsea/Man Coty fans agree with eachother and no other people ;-)

Enjoy the success, spending 100million on each trophy you have won must feel great and that is obviously justified by you......somebody that has a genuine interest in finances ;))
 
Last edited:
BobbyBox said:
godotelli I understand we had money put into the club but we had this because we built up a reputation and a club that got us to a point where somebody invested money into the team. A big amount, but not a stupendous, crazy amount of money.

You do realise that chelsea in a 10 year period (man city in laess years) have spent probably nearly double or at least a 3rd more than Arsenal have in there 100 odd year history!

Its just something you cant compare.
Click to expand...
Reputation, past work etc. don't count for CFC or MCFC tho, right?
It doesn't matter. The fact remains had it not been for this external money AFC would not have had as good a team as they did and so, most likely, wouldn't have had the springboard as the PL really hit the big time. Fizsman was a fan, not an investor. Much like Norris was in the 20's when he bankrolled Arsenal. Without him you wouldn't be an Arsenal fan.

People ignore it but the history of football is a story of rich benefactors. The list of them goes on and on. The Moores family even bankrolled Liverpool AND Everton...

Bringing up football from before the TV was invented is silly. Football as big money global entertainment didn't even really begin until the 90's at the earliest. Even then club revenues were only like 15m. You're right, you can't compare.

BobbyBox said:
again there is an obssesion from Chelsea and Man City fans to spout out finances, I think this speaks volumes.

Also the fact only Chelsea/Man Coty fans agree with eachother and no other people ;-)

Enjoy the success, spending 100million on each trophy you have won must feel great and that is obviously justified by you......somebody that has a genuine interest in finances ;))
Click to expand...


Probably because they come under fire from other fans (a large portion of whom are typically unaware of their own club's financial history). With that said, funnily enough, I've found that it's Arsenal fans who do the most spouting about finances. No lie.

Plenty of neutral fans agree ...at least with me because I state facts. :COOL: Plenty of journalists also.
Appearing to stick up for Chelsea isn't something I enjoy. I dislike Chelsea as much as anyone for their crying to Platini. Roman's a pussy.
 
Last edited:
amineken22 said:
Yes, because English is my native tongue. So, I should be more articulate. Maybe I am naïve indeed.

All I've read so far from you was either excuses, deviations or just plain simple attacks on my own character. It's seems that you simply can't have proper conversation without resorting to any sort of a twist.

I clearly specified I wasn't trying to "convince" you of anything, yet somehow you still believe I'm doing so.

This was a waste of time. I'm sorry, I can no longer keep you entertained (because that's all I've been doing really, responding to your pokes) I'd rather move on than have useless conversation where my interlocutor has completely shut down logic.

PS: Don't bother replying, I won't give you material anymore.
Click to expand...

I love these sort of posts where you don't mention any of my points and say that I have no logic to what I am saying.......then say you are not continuing the argument.

If your not trying to convince anybody, then why post earnings in a forum?

Anyway cool, I don't need to continue :)) i don't like going around in circles anyway and I can't compete with your superior knowledge.

Godotelli im not so sure that the money we spent equalled success though. Everyone mentions bergkamp which atthe time was a big signing and paid off. But there weren't many others.

Since the premierleague began there have been many other teams that have spent much more than Arsenal, I mention Spurs for example up until a couple of years ago they spent over 100million more than us in the premierleague (i know that is peanuts for you guys, but is a big deal for us normal clubs)

So to suggest our success was due to the money we had Was a big factor in our success is a bit far off the mark really.

You said the money came in in the 90's ok, so in 6 years Man city have probably spent over double than Arsenal have in 24years?

Of course business is down to investors and how savvy they are and the investments made, this is how Arsenal built themselbes up over Many years. Very differnet to a team hat can just spend double on any player pay twice the wages and then can replace them a year later for a fraction of the price. i don't think Arsenal have ever been in that position? It just puts cfc and mcfc on a completely untouchable level, which Arsenal were never on......because we were based on reality and always had restrictions.

Anyway I know you Godotelli you will stick to it like a dog with a bone,, you can try and justify it, but for me it just doesn't work :))
 
Keeping the likes of Seaman, Adams and Wright and adding players like Bergkamp and Platt had little to do with your following success? Ok...

I'm not talking about investors. I'm talking about benefactors. Just because it's less money(tho money is relative to the time it is spent - fees and wages have grown ever since football began) it doesn't make it an investment. There are very few investors in football, esp. in the past when football was less cartelised and more unpredictable

I'm not trying to justify anything. City have done nothing wrong. It is what it is. It takes huge amounts of money for a sole actor to break a greedy cartel
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry to intervene in this discussion, but inluis like Arsenal and Man Utd have the same unfair advantages towards clubs of other leagues.

If Ajax would have recieved as much television money as Arsenal, then Bergkamp would never have left Ajax.

Arsenal was the first team to field 11 foreign players, this says enough.

It is ashame that clubs like Ajax, Anderlecht and my Racing Genk can't hold on to their youth players.

I know i've said this countless times, but it baffled met that people always attack Chelsea and Man City. What they did is the result of the glass ceiling their clubs instigaties. What Chelsea and Man City are doing As the only logical way to break through the glass ceiling. THEY created the sugar daddies.

Also look at the difference between the EPL and the rest of the English leagues...look at the parachute payments for instance.
 
Yeah, i know bobby. I realise that i must sound like a broken record,cut that is my opinion and every time somebody complaints about Chelsea and City, i feel compelled to react.
 
Last edited:
damn it!!!! gerd why on earth did you pulled the plug :BRICK: this was by far the most entertaining. The most I read of Bob`s viewpoint :SNACK:

Why cant Chelsea build a bigger stadium? (no where to bu?ld)
Why cant City fill theirs? (Manchester is still red)

I can careless about Chels/City financial doping. One owner one problem. I enjoy City`s style of play much more to Chelsea they have no brand of play and just moment of it.
 
Which is hilarious because that same defence conceded 8 against Southamption :LOL:

Shows great character to then take that and put in a display like the one yesterday so fair play.
 
Oh to be in the top 2 again.

I'd have the piss taken out of LFC 24 hours a day. Then again, LFC has the piss taken 24 hours a day anyway regardless of league position, form, etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom