Chelsea 4th in Deloitte World Rich List

Chelsea 4th in World´s Rich List

hehe fast off the blocks here Dicko me old son - don't know why Kenyon et al would be all that fussed as it's bottom line that counts... I mean since when has the worlds highest wage earner been worlds richest bloke?

Peeed on your fireworks didn´t it?!






.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

yeah mate.. maybe we can open some loss making hotels and other facilities and bang them on to our turnover.. sheesh mate... pull those pants up off of your ankles old son and smell the coffee ;_)

Interestingly enough, these figures do not include player sales so with the sale of Robben at 24M and our clubs much reduced net spending over the last 2 transfer windows, our figure would be significantly higher.
this has nothing to do with turnover though mate and it will be interesting to see if it makes any impact at all on your bottom line..

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

last years prize monies... this goes a way to showing the differences in the clubs revenues.. could all obviously change this year..

200M mark!

Roman´s plan marches on and without opening a portuguese replica stadium!

The coffee smells good.

(and it´s the mancs and the scousers who need to pull their trousers up).

:-)







.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

listen mate.. we could have a p!ssing contest or I could teach you something ;_) the choice is yours!

;-)


I´ll let you have the last word - the next post is for you by the way!




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

next post? am I still waiting?

the world-record £92.5 million paid at the Old Trafford gates. Arsenal, with the 60,000-seat Emirates Stadium, are not far behind with a season’s takings of £90.6 million, equivalent to an average of £3.1 million for each home match. Although Chelsea’s seating capacity is low by the standards of the leading clubs, their match-day takings are the third highest at £74.5 million.

[www.timesonline.co.uk]

serious debate... thats a great figure your lot are pulling on a reduced capacity... just how much more do you think could be squeezed out of the market? I mean a new stadium could cost 1/2 a bill all up... when does it become worth it? or maybe just try to add more capacity to SB?

prizemoney everything else being equal is a variable... either of the top three could change that commensurate with onfield performance..

CFCs sponsorship is higher than Arsenals who are locked in with Emirates till 2012 and then should no doubt make up the shortfall as again these should be about the same all things being equal.. United maybe demanding more because of their appeal not withstanding..

Well Chelsea tickets have pretty much been up there in the most expensive tickets to buy - certainly substantially more than say Liverpool and Man Utd.

"Match day revenue" would also include food and drink purchased within the stadium so Chelsea fans are obviosuly a hungry/thirsty lot.

I´ve yet to see the full breakdown (the full report will be released within a few weeks) and what proportion the match day revenue is to other factors (merchandising, TV money etc).

Obviously, with matchday revenue apparantly being pretty much up there with the other top clubs in the list, the issue of a new stadium or increased capacity does not have such a major significance as we first thought however, it´s obvious that we could increase total revenue by say another 15-20% if we did.

All the time we are relatively succesful in the PL and CL then TV income and sponsorship deals are guaranteed but that extra 15-20% could be quite important if we have the odd "duff" season.

We either need Roman to slip a few brown envelopes to the council ideally so that we can build up to a 55,000 capacity OR find a new site for a new stadium (much more expensive) at Earls Court, Olympia, Battersea etc etc. The extra expense can be offset to some degree by allowing the stadium to be sponsored (although "The Adidas Bowl" or whatever would make me cringe).




-



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

a few things (and much as I'd like to - lets keep the jokes to a minimum ;_)... I've given you the prize money figure and that timesonline report gave us the gate money so the corporate side is the difference. One thing of note there is that Arsenal 90m DOES NOT include any catering (confirmed by Edelman recent as we farm out the catering and add the net profit on the bottom line - he said this would be another 10-12m) but anyway yeah that would explain why yours is relatively so high then thanks..

Like I say once you take those petty differences out we are all much of a muchness and it really does then matter what the bottom line is.

This new tv deal is also a bit of a red heering as no doubt this will just be tacked on to wages etc as yourselves and United compete for the biggest money transfers and hence the biggest wages... no doubt ours will go up commensurately but we'll not be the market leader as such with Gallas our top earner on 80k a week.

Interesting your thoughts on the stadium but as Roman is subsidising you anyway he may feel that all things considering its not worth rebuilding... again it would be a case of him looking at the bottom line.

Again not having a dig but l will be interested to see how your overall profitability is this year after some horrendous years... again not a problem as long as Roman wants to subsidise you but a stick to bang over your heads none the less from those that have relied on a realistic business plan approach... it also takes out of your hands such things as having to name your place the Adidas bowl or Emirates stadiums as well - and to be honest I don't know one Arsenal fan that says "I'm going to The Emirates"... it's more a case of going up The Arsenal... or even to Highbury still or Ashburton Grove so its money for nothing when all the p!ss taking is done! ;_)

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

that last link gives the breakdown of figures.. I note also these latest figures are different from those in your article... and incidentally i think these latest ones are the correct ones as Arsenals football turnover was 177m including property it went over 200m but thats like including your loss making incremental ventures ;_)

BTW mate again no p!ssing contest here, these are the breakdowns of the top 3 clubs corporate earnings incl sponsorship: all figures p.a.

United... Kit Sponsors - Nike... 23.3m, Shirt Sponsors - AIG... 14.1m, Residual - 20.7m, totals... 58.1m

Chelsea... Kit Sponsors - Adidas... 12m, Shirt Sponsors - Samsung... 10.2m, Residual - 34.2m, totals... 56.4m

Arsenal... Kit Sponsors - Nike... 13m, Shirt Sponsors - Emirates 6m, Stadium Name - Emirates 2.5m, Residual 21.2m, totals... 42.7m

My question to you is why is your residual amount here so much higher than ours or Manchester Uniteds? I will give you my observations and answer below.

From Arsenals accounts we know that 12.1m of our residual is merchandising and retail, the rest would be from minor sponsorships, those Brazilian games we hosted and suchlike, also the hiring out of Emirates facilities for conferences etc and stadium tours. It also includes I believe some 2.2m worth of catering 'profit' - see below.

Arsenals in total is fairly close to the total of Man Utds 'residual' turnover (I think their merchandising would be higher than ours, whereas our Emirates related revenue would make up the difference - I read somewhere once that Edelman said The Emirates would be the most worked football resource in the world) and theres also the catering...

But if you look Chelseas residual is 14m higher than both of ours and the only reason for this I believe is that it includes hotel and hospitality turnover relating to Chelsea Village, there is just no way that you guys generate more in merchandising than either of us but especially United. This hospitality income should be stripped to give a better comparison I believe.

BTW those figures in my post above now correspond to those we released in our accounts (and presumably Uniteds and CFCs which havent yet been released publicly) and do not include any other grossed up amounts as per Uniteds JVs with Nike and MUTV. What it doesn't include though is Arsenals catering turnover which United and Chelsea does include... this is because we contract ours out and if it was added back in would bring our matchday figure up by 10-12m (I mentioned this previously)... but we would also need to adjust our residual amount by about 20% of this amount (c2.2m) as this is the contracted profit paid to us on the total turnover and was included in our figure of 42.7m

Comments appreciated..

putting things into perspective

I AINT RICH

Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free

Well you´ve given me a fair few posts of info there!

Give me a while to respond...




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

"One thing of note there is that Arsenal 90m DOES NOT include any catering (confirmed by Edelman recent as we farm out the catering and add the net profit on the bottom line - he said this would be another 10-12m) but anyway yeah that would explain why yours is relatively so high then thanks.."

Well, I´m ASSUMING that "matchday revenue" does include catering - it might not do.


"This new tv deal is also a bit of a red heering as no doubt this will just be tacked on to wages etc as yourselves and United compete for the biggest money transfers and hence the biggest wages... no doubt ours will go up commensurately but we'll not be the market leader as such with Gallas our top earner on 80k a week."

Well the TV deal is worth significantly more than preiously and is not to be sniffed at. The policy of top players/high wages will be stepped down now anyway from it´s previous levels with the exception of the odd "big fish" (í.e Ronaldinho) breaking that. Don´t forget Lampard only cost 11M and that fee has already been "amortized", Terry was zero and Ballack was zero - and these are the high earners.

We HOPE that within a few seasons some of the kids will come through (if Arnesen has done his job) and their wages won´t be the highest. He already brought in Alex who only cost 4M.

There are some indirect advantages with paying high wages anyway (1) New players are more likely to come to you (2) It puts pressure on your rivals to pay their players the same to keep hold of them. No doubt, at some point, the likes of Adebayor or Fabregas will soon start demanding parity - or they´ll be off.


Interesting your thoughts on the stadium but as Roman is subsidising you anyway he may feel that all things considering its not worth rebuilding... again it would be a case of him looking at the bottom line.

He and Kenyon definitely want to expand or move - it´s just a case of when and appear to want to find the best solution which is expanding on the Bridge - or if we have to move then it´s got to be at a very good sight in London, close to where we are.


Again not having a dig but l will be interested to see how your overall profitability is this year after some horrendous years... again not a problem as long as Roman wants to subsidise you but a stick to bang over your heads none the less from those that have relied on a realistic business plan approach... it also takes out of your hands such things as having to name your place the Adidas bowl or Emirates stadiums as well - and to be honest I don't know one Arsenal fan that says "I'm going to The Emirates"...

There will still be an overall loss - but less than previously (80M before?) - and this is in line with "the plan". I think their statements re breaking even by 2010 might be optimistic but it won´t be far off that.

Kenyon won´t be able to "resist" raking in all that cash by selling the name of the stadium - too lucrative to turn down unfortunately for us.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:15:01:34:27 by dixon9.

Quote:

N5er
that last link gives the breakdown of figures.. I note also these latest figures are different from those in your article... and incidentally i think these latest ones are the correct ones as Arsenals football turnover was 177m including property it went over 200m but thats like including your loss making incremental ventures ;_)

I´ve seen different figures quoted - the full report is supposed to be out within a few weeks.

I thought your property figures (or part of them were included in the previous years financials???




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
BTW mate again no p!ssing contest here, these are the breakdowns of the top 3 clubs corporate earnings incl sponsorship: all figures p.a.
United... Kit Sponsors - Nike... 23.3m, Shirt Sponsors - AIG... 14.1m, Residual - 20.7m, totals... 58.1m

Chelsea... Kit Sponsors - Adidas... 12m, Shirt Sponsors - Samsung... 10.2m, Residual - 34.2m, totals... 56.4m

Arsenal... Kit Sponsors - Nike... 13m, Shirt Sponsors - Emirates 6m, Stadium Name - Emirates 2.5m, Residual 21.2m, totals... 42.7m

Well United are doing alright out of Nike aren´t they?!!! Almost double our and yours!

Re residual amounts I´m not sure why ours are higher - I would really like to see the full Deloitte official report.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
Arsenals in total is fairly close to the total of Man Utds 'residual' turnover (I think their merchandising would be higher than ours, whereas our Emirates related revenue would make up the difference - I read somewhere once that Edelman said The Emirates would be the most worked football resource in the world) and theres also the catering...

But if you look Chelseas residual is 14m higher than both of ours and the only reason for this I believe is that it includes hotel and hospitality turnover relating to Chelsea Village, there is just no way that you guys generate more in merchandising than either of us but especially United. This hospitality income should be stripped to give a better comparison I believe.

Comments appreciated..

Our merchandising wouldn´t be higher than United´s - as for yours I´m not sure - I know that they are at record levels at the moment (for us) with new markets and wep pages opened up in China and the States.

As for the Hotel income? No idea - haven´t seen the accounts. You could strip it but then you´d have to put it back in somewhere else.

By the way, remember all those years back when Bates presented his vision of the new Bridge with hotel and restaurants etc? Everyone said he was mad and now they are all doing it. In fact, I believe we were the first to corporate hospitality boxes?



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

..and there is a disparity re Deloitte figures. Mine were taken from this article (published in Euros) and then I converted using a currency converter:

HERE




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

..and bang on cue re wages!

Fabregas




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

I´ve seen different figures quoted - the full report is supposed to be out within a few weeks.

I thought your property figures (or part of them were included in the previous years financials???

nope they are out already I have a copy... heres the link

[www.deloitte.co.uk]

would you believe me if I told you Arsenal had another 90m NET (thats after tax) to come from Highbury Redevelopment and AG related properties... only a fraction have gone through Arsenals books so far..



Sorry - unintentional edit - your post is untouched.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:15:15:28:55 by dixon9.

Re residual amounts I´m not sure why ours are higher - I would really like to see the full Deloitte official report.

well mate ask and you will reciive ;_) note my link above and it doesn't even given you the breakdown that I have.. my own research

As for the Hotel income? No idea - haven´t seen the accounts. You could strip it but then you´d have to put it back in somewhere else.

I was only saying for direct comparisons you would have to strip this out... I mean theoretically we could (lets say) have a Arsenal casino... now as you can imagine this would generate untold millions in turnover... our turnover would then be the highest in the world but would that be a fair reflection of where we really stood?

By the way, remember all those years back when Bates presented his vision of the new Bridge with hotel and restaurants etc? Everyone said he was mad and now they are all doing it. In fact, I believe we were the first to corporate hospitality boxes?

and thats where I am coming from here... we could quite as easily built a hotel complex etc... its obviously not envisaged as being profitable in the whole scheme of things and hence we haven't done it. I read somewhere some years ago that yours is losing a lot of money... also the other 'village' operations but regardless you can see my point that for a direct comparison these non football related enterprises should be stripped... otherwise it really does become a p!ssing contest where the likes of United decide to add on JV revenues just to get a ever increasing higher turnover... you have to ask yourself did Bates business model work and by your own new owners own admission it wasnt... didnt you also have other ventures like a travel agency which were disposed of? I guess its hard to turn that hotel into anything else at present and if its earmarked for future expansion selling the place as luxury flats wouldnt be a bright idea either...

Anyway glad this hasnt generated so far into a flame war and its nice to have a civil debate whilst trying to establish some FACTS... and dont know if you were the first with corporate hospitality... depends in what form it is I guess as (and I'm not saying we were first) but I can remember being able to get a meal and a ticket for the game at Highbury's West Stand way back in the 70's...

yeah l saw that earlier about Cesc... tying him into 80k a week for the next 6 seasons sounds like a great move for us... I heard he could potentially go for under ten million in eighteen months with those new rules... heard similar about Lampard for even less but we all want to hold on to our prize assets I guess and it was also a point I made yesterday... you and United will still be the market leaders in that no doubt...

can also see your point re wages and transfer fees and academies but again your talking to the masters here (well Wenger ;_) - he has had this vision for a decade with our academy and the structure he has in place of bringing talent through...

Quote:

N5er
I´ve seen different figures quoted - the full report is supposed to be out within a few weeks.
I thought your property figures (or part of them were included in the previous years financials???

nope they are out already I have a copy... heres the link

[www.deloitte.co.uk]

would you believe me if I told you Arsenal had another 90m NET (thats after tax) to come from Highbury Redevelopment and AG related properties... only a fraction have gone through Arsenals books so far..

Thanks for the link.

The figures do align with mine (283M euros for Chelsea equals 209M pounds according to the cuurency converter from pounds to euros - well it did for me - have you tried converting these figures - remember, they are euros NOT dollars).

Why have they only put a fraction of the development money through the books? Nothing to do with holding a lot of it back before they sell so that Bracewell Smith and co can keep it???



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
Re residual amounts I´m not sure why ours are higher - I would really like to see the full Deloitte official report.
well mate ask and you will reciive ;_) note my link above and it doesn't even given you the breakdown that I have.. my own research

Well I assume you´d need the accounts to do the (accurate) detective work or some informed articles.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
As for the Hotel income? No idea - haven´t seen the accounts. You could strip it but then you´d have to put it back in somewhere else.
I was only saying for direct comparisons you would have to strip this out... I mean theoretically we could (lets say) have a Arsenal casino... now as you can imagine this would generate untold millions in turnover... our turnover would then be the highest in the world but would that be a fair reflection of where we really stood?

Well, of course IF you want a football side/football side comparison then you´d have to omit hotels or casinos. But this was Bates point all those years ago; far too much money was being spent OUTSIDE the club on matchdays and matchdays only totalled about 23-28 a year. The idea was obviously to increase club turnover (decent bars and restaurants within the ground for example).

On the other hand, it would be unfiar to "penalise" a club for having foresight (eg It´s not Chelsea´s or Arsenal´s fault Bogthorpe FC don´t have a restaurant in their stadium).



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
By the way, remember all those years back when Bates presented his vision of the new Bridge with hotel and restaurants etc? Everyone said he was mad and now they are all doing it. In fact, I believe we were the first to corporate hospitality boxes?

and thats where I am coming from here... we could quite as easily built a hotel complex etc... its obviously not envisaged as being profitable in the whole scheme of things and hence we haven't done it. I read somewhere some years ago that yours is losing a lot of money... also the other 'village' operations but regardless you can see my point that for a direct comparison these non football related enterprises should be stripped... otherwise it really does become a p!ssing contest where the likes of United decide to add on JV revenues just to get a ever increasing higher turnover... you have to ask yourself did Bates business model work and by your own new owners own admission it wasnt... didnt you also have other ventures like a travel agency which were disposed of? I guess its hard to turn that hotel into anything else at present and if its earmarked for future expansion selling the place as luxury flats wouldnt be a bright idea either...

Anyway glad this hasnt generated so far into a flame war and its nice to have a civil debate whilst trying to establish some FACTS... and dont know if you were the first with corporate hospitality... depends in what form it is I guess as (and I'm not saying we were first) but I can remember being able to get a meal and a ticket for the game at Highbury's West Stand way back in the 70's...

I think Bates DID envisage that the hotel would make a profit but I think you´re right - it doesn´t.

I think that whatever a club does with it´s money in terms of investment to generate more money in the future could be counted in the total turnover - just like any other company does although I agree with you that to do like for like comparisons you may have to strip certain revenues to do so.

But so what if Real Madrid and open a casino for example? It would generate income for them to buy players and would affect the footballing side. There is nothing stopping other clubs following suit is there? I don´t see how we (Chelsea) should puff out our chests and say "we genrate more matchday income than Real Madrid while they happily generate 60-70 odd more million a year than we do?



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
Anyway glad this hasnt generated so far into a flame war and its nice to have a civil debate whilst trying to establish some FACTS... and dont know if you were the first with corporate hospitality... depends in what form it is I guess as (and I'm not saying we were first) but I can remember being able to get a meal and a ticket for the game at Highbury's West Stand way back in the 70's...

I think the nub of the arguement against Chelsea FC from Arsenal fans and Wenger is the fact that we have in Abramovich a rich benefactor whilst they don´t.

I find this somewhat hypocritical to be honest (and I won´t bring history into this). Let´s get this straight; We have Abramovich you have the Bank of Scotland. Neither is "football generated" although both Abramovich and the Bank of Scotland want the "projects" to eventually make money.

Of course, we have a huge advantage in that Abramovich doesn´t charge interest whilst the Bank of Scotland do. But so what? Are we saying that it is wrong for Abramovich not to charge interest? We are lucky to have him and he obviosuly is in for the long term much to the contrary of nearly every other oppo fans (Well ok, mostly Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal fans if we are honest) opinion when he first bought the club.

Arsenal´s way of paying off the debts and generating income is through football (matchday income through a bigger stadium, youth development etc) and Chelsea ALSO will pay off the investments through football generated income albeit with an initial difference in philosophy.

What Arsenal did with the Bank of Scotland to get their stadium so did Chelsea did with Abramovich to buy some of the best (or most promising) players around - the team component is now paying back that investment through prize money, matchday and tv revenue is it not? The proof is in the report.

The future? Have you seen Cobham? Another abramovich investmnent that gets little press - it is one of the best training camp and academies in the world. Obviously, we can´t and won´t mantain spending on transfers at the first 2 seasons and our net spending on players has reduced significantly. Like Arsenal we recognise that you need your own developed talent to help financially in the future.

Don´t forget - we already had our stadium generating income BEFORE you built the Emirates - and their were times in the past when we could hardly buy any players in the past because of this. The suffering to get the stadium may still form the base for a new stadium - it may not.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

All I can say is that unless we improve capacity at SB (42,000 is quite enough - don't want another 10,000 or 15,000 rich kids in brown suedes and shoes and hunting jackets) or move to another site.... we will always be 4th in any rich list.

Hopefully that has kicked the b***ocks out of the thread, I will say though - FROM HIGHBURY TO EMIRATES STADIUM or Corporate City.

Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free

I agree, with the Bridge as it is we´ll probably stay around 4th and I´m not particularly bothered if we´re 1st or 4th. However, Kenyon and Abramovich probably don´t feel the same -they want us to be no.1 on all fronts SO something will happen in the short/medium term re the Bridge.

However, there´s one thing this rich list shows - financially, we are going in the right direction.

I just hope we stay at our origonal, traditional home - and there´s few clubs these days that can say that.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:15:19:44:57 by dixon9.

In the mad mad money world of Premiership football at the moment if Chelsea decided to knock down the hotels and the restaurants and managed to get the planning permission to demolished those sites to increase the capacity to 55,000 which is one of many plans in the pipeline, I havent got a problem. As long as 10,000 of those seats are priced to attract back the 'real' Chelsea fans and not encourage the 'country set brigade.

My problem with Chelsea would be, that they move out of Stamford Bridge to a new location and that location would be known and called 'a corporate' stadium.

examples

JJB
Reebok
Emirates

Chelsea fans wont allow it and trust me they wont. The fundamentalists fans of the club are beginning to get their say in how the club should be run and the club will listen!!!

Chelsea FC will not sell their soul to 'corporate city' and will not act with the bravado that the Premier League are doing so with trying to get their 39th fixture completed.

The world says no and Chelsea says NO!!

Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free

Hope you are right.

And re ticket prices at least at long last Kenyon appears to be listening. Would an extra 17,000 mean that prices can be streamlined a bit more? The key is to keep the prices reasonable so that fans kids can come along - the future Chelsea fans. If they want to stick a few extra corporate boxes for Rupert and his chums then so be it.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Chelsea are doing the kids thing. The whole East Stand lower in family and prices are comparable.

Chelsea's problem is in creating the 'atmosphere.' Every home game gets 'The Liquidator' treatment and when you look around the ground the song is an up and get em attitude.

Once the game kicks off its the MHL and parts of the Shed v the rest!! Introduce a 'corporate city', we have got no chance!!!

Against Huddersfield, we are going to have 6,000 tykes in the Shed and the MHL is going to go into verbal battle on their own.

Be good fun I cant wait.

Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free

I think the nub of the arguement against Chelsea FC from Arsenal fans and Wenger is the fact that we have in Abramovich a rich benefactor whilst they don´t.

I find this somewhat hypocritical to be honest (and I won´t bring history into this). Let´s get this straight; We have Abramovich you have the Bank of Scotland. Neither is "football generated" although both Abramovich and the Bank of Scotland want the "projects" to eventually make money.
Thats complete hogwash dixon and you know it... I haven't even ventured into that territory anyway so l find it amusing that you have? Must touch a nerve :_)

We don't need a benefactor that is the point... our business generates its own cash and you are completely naive if you believe that our 'football' hasn't generated the vast majority of cash toward the Emirates stadium already. Ok we have a 255m loan at present but the stadium cost 430m of which we pumped into the difference by guess what? generating cash through our football business... sheesh its not rocket science mate...and thats not including the 75m in cash we have sitting in the bank that could if we wish further pay off the loan... its nothing to do with RBOS wanting us to make money!

And dont beat yourself up about having Abramovich... enjoy the ride... you'll never quite get the respect that the rest of English footballs elite has but so what? The likes of Liverpool, Arsenal and United have all lived within their own economic resources, Chelsea haven't and mate if l was to pump the same money as has been pumped into you into Huddersfield or QPR or Leicester City, guess what mate they'll be winning championships so lets get that one straight!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:17:03:40:51 by N5er.

The figures do align with mine (283M euros for Chelsea equals 209M pounds according to the cuurency converter from pounds to euros - well it did for me - have you tried converting these figures - remember, they are euros NOT dollars).

those euro values from the article are averaged rates from the year so when recalculated back won't correspond... the figures l gave are quoted as GBP in the actual Delloites report

Why have they only put a fraction of the development money through the books? Nothing to do with holding a lot of it back before they sell so that Bracewell Smith and co can keep it???

haha your just being mischievious there mate arent you? Firstly what you are suggesting would be completely illegal and would be picked up by shareholders like me BUT the answer is that they are only abiding by accounting convention ... that is the accrual basis of accounting which basically means that revenues and profits are only booked when they are realised... this project is not finished until 2010 so can not be booked until then... you will also see some more AG related profits in the interim reports that will be released very soon... these projects were only realised since June 1st 2007 when our last financial year started..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:17:03:42:41 by N5er.

Well I assume you´d need the accounts to do the (accurate) detective work or some informed articles.

l have the Arsenal accounts and the CFC and MUFC figures I've reconstructed... the info is out there which bit of CFCs corporate revenue do you dispute?

Well, of course IF you want a football side/football side comparison then you´d have to omit hotels or casinos. But this was Bates point all those years ago; far too much money was being spent OUTSIDE the club on matchdays and matchdays only totalled about 23-28 a year. The idea was obviously to increase club turnover (decent bars and restaurants within the ground for example).

On the other hand, it would be unfiar to "penalise" a club for having foresight (eg It´s not Chelsea´s or Arsenal´s fault Bogthorpe FC don´t have a restaurant in their stadium).
Far be it for me to criticise I am trying to explain the reason why your turnover is higher and quite rightly you can do what you like but you do understand the difference between turnover and profit dont you? I mean for ffs l could say for example to every Arsenal fan that comes l will swap a ten pound note for a five pound note... can you imagine what your turnover would be? Now thats an extreme viewpoint and if your hotel and such like was making loads of profit then you could say look Bates was right all along but thats not the case is it? the hotel isnt making a profit and thats my point... but again mate I'm not making any other point than telling you like it is... if Chelsea fans want to jizz over having a higher turnover and being deemed a 'richer' club purely because they are including a loss making hotel as part of their revenue then so be it... but it wont stop me telling you the reason why theres a discrepncy... got me?

and anycase turnover is a terrible way of classifying richness... surely it should be net assets or net shareholders equity (exactly the same term btw)

I think that whatever a club does with it´s money in terms of investment to generate more money in the future could be counted in the total turnover - just like any other company does although I agree with you that to do like for like comparisons you may have to strip certain revenues to do so.

but I havent argued any different mate... I am quite happy for you to include whatever revenue you like... but when it comes down to it... lets compare what we know are equated... gate money, broadcasting and prizemoney and corporate sponsorship and retail... and we can ascertain... the first two are variable... you got higher prizemoney last year cos you went further than us in the CL etc... which can change and you have very good sponsorship deals compared to us... Not going to go into the Umbro payoff but anyway you get my drift.. and glad you did see my point in the end.. ;_)

Of course, we have a huge advantage in that Abramovich doesn´t charge interest whilst the Bank of Scotland do. But so what? Are we saying that it is wrong for Abramovich not to charge interest? We are lucky to have him and he obviosuly is in for the long term much to the contrary of nearly every other oppo fans (Well ok, mostly Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal fans if we are honest) opinion when he first bought the club.

No mate thats completely not right and in actual fact Arsenal shareholders are doing exactly the same as Abramovich in that they are getting no return on their investment... no dividend... you are completely misunderstanding... the average fan is p!ssed because their is no economic reality to the Chelsea business model at present... forget the interest... good luck to you that you are not paying interest but the rest of football is having to live off self generated funds or else die... look at all the administrations in football.

But so what if Real Madrid and open a casino for example? It would generate income for them to buy players and would affect the footballing side. There is nothing stopping other clubs following suit is there? I don´t see how we (Chelsea) should puff out our chests and say "we genrate more matchday income than Real Madrid while they happily generate 60-70 odd more million a year than we do?

And here again you show where you are missing the whole point. Can't you see it really does matter whether these operations are making a profit? thats why turnover revenues are basically meaningless without consideration for underlying profitability which goes back to the whole point l am making with regard to sustainable business models and living within economic realities.

Look put it this way... you have said... and l have read its Romans and CFCs desire to break even and make a profit right? OK fair enough... forget when and if they ever do that but can't you see without that damn hotel (if its not making money) it would be easier? ;_) Gees we are going in circles here..

Arsenal´s way of paying off the debts and generating income is through football (matchday income through a bigger stadium, youth development etc) and Chelsea ALSO will pay off the investments through football generated income albeit with an initial difference in philosophy.

What Arsenal did with the Bank of Scotland to get their stadium so did Chelsea did with Abramovich to buy some of the best (or most promising) players around - the team component is now paying back that investment through prize money, matchday and tv revenue is it not? The proof is in the report.
l'd agree with most of that but it remains to be seen whether he will make a profit and then Dixy l hope you can see its only likely to have been year on year... meaning making a profit for that year... can you not see that you have accumulated losses of at the very least 250m pounds from the last four years losses? You say you want to make a profit sooner or later? Can l ask when is that 250m going to be made up? Thats the whole basic point... anyone can throw money at something if they have no intention or desire to get a return on that investment.

Now Dixy (sorry dont know your name ;_) if you can tell me with a straight face that not only will you make a profit one year (a few million maybe by 2012 or one day ;_) BUT that you'll also make up them other hundreds of millions of pounds worth of accumulated losses then l might agree otherwise SORRY anyone with a benefactor could do the same... there is no economic reality to it... its like you and me mate rattling up credit card debts to accumulate a lavish lifestyle... should our mates be envious of us? You tell me... its the same odds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:17:03:48:08 by N5er.

The future? Have you seen Cobham? Another abramovich investmnent that gets little press - it is one of the best training camp and academies in the world. Obviously, we can´t and won´t mantain spending on transfers at the first 2 seasons and our net spending on players has reduced significantly. Like Arsenal we recognise that you need your own developed talent to help financially in the future.

Don´t forget - we already had our stadium generating income BEFORE you built the Emirates - and their were times in the past when we could hardly buy any players in the past because of this. The suffering to get the stadium may still form the base for a new stadium - it may not.

Yes l have heard and read about your academy.. and lve said nothing about this or your other ventures - yes l do know and realise you had your stadium basically up to date before us (whether you move or not) - but lets also realise the problems Bates got himself into producing that hey?

In conclusion my points above hold firm... think about what l am saying... at the end of the day this has started purely because l have attempted to explain why your revenues were higher (the loss making hotel) its been you thats gone off on the tangent and l have answered you or pulled you up on wrong assumptions and assertions.

Regards,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:17:03:49:39 by N5er.

Quote:

N5er
I think the nub of the arguement against Chelsea FC from Arsenal fans and Wenger is the fact that we have in Abramovich a rich benefactor whilst they don´t.
I find this somewhat hypocritical to be honest (and I won´t bring history into this). Let´s get this straight; We have Abramovich you have the Bank of Scotland. Neither is "football generated" although both Abramovich and the Bank of Scotland want the "projects" to eventually make money.
Thats complete hogwash dixon and you know it... I haven't even ventured into that territory anyway so l find it amusing that you have? Must touch a nerve :_)

We don't need a benefactor that is the point... our business generates its own cash and you are completely naive if you believe that our 'football' hasn't generated the vast majority of cash toward the Emirates stadium already. Ok we have a 255m loan at present but the stadium cost 430m of which we pumped into the difference by guess what? generating cash through our football business... sheesh its not rocket science mate...and thats not including the 75m in cash we have sitting in the bank that could if we wish further pay off the loan... its nothing to do with RBOS wanting us to make money!

And dont beat yourself up about having Abramovich... enjoy the ride... you'll never quite get the respect that the rest of English footballs elite has but so what? The likes of Liverpool, Arsenal and United have all lived within their own economic resources, Chelsea haven't and mate if l was to pump the same money as has been pumped into you into Huddersfield or QPR or Leicester City, guess what mate they'll be winning championships so lets get that one straight!

With all due respect you´re missing my point and the only reason I "ventured" into this territory is that I believe it is Abramovich´s wealth and Chelsea´s spending which causes so much debate.

OF COURSE you will generate funds to pay off the stadium and the interest payments etc - I have never disputed that. My point is that you needed a bank loan to get the stadium built in the first place - your directors didn´t turn round one day and say "Well guess what! We´ve got a few bob from the turnstiles at Highbury - lets build a new stadium!" You NEEDED a bank to lend you the money. You couldn´t have done it without them - yes or no?

Fair enough - no benfactor as in a person but you did need some form of entity from outside of Arsenal to lend you the money. YOU had the Bank of Scotland WE had Abramovich and in fact would you be surprised if by the time you´ve finished
paying for the stadium the total amount would be greater than our net transfer spend to date? What do you reckon?

I don´t think you could deny that Chelsea will eventually break even and eventually Roman will have recouped his investment - just like you will with the Emirates.

As for the "you´ll never get the respect from the elite" with all due respect you can stick that where the sun don´t shine! We don´t need the respect from the "elite" and its that kind of surly condesending attitude which I despise and find so hypocritical.

So many of the so called "elite" forget their own pasts yet ironically harp on about history. Man Utd have been saved twice from liquidation in the past, sold out PLC to generate funds and later sold out to a yank who the fans despise. Arsenal´s own dark history is well known - saved from liquidation, moved away from their origonal home, corruptly promoted, performance enhancing drugs, under the table payments to get the best players in the 30´s etc etc Liverpool with the Moores money from Littlewoods Pools underpinning their success...I could rant on about other so called "elite" clubs on the continent as well but I´ll leave it there for the moment.

Now you tell me WHY we need the respect of clubs like that? Or indeed fans like yourself who pretend that your own club has always adhered to the corinthian spirit so that they can feel better about themselves and gain the moral high ground against the devils spawn which is Chelsea! It´s a joke mate and it´s an attitude borne out of ignorance.

Money has been key to the success of most clubs (I can only think of Ajax that are an exception) but one look at say Spurs or Newcastle these days or numerous examples in the past home and abroad prove that money alone can´t win things.





.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:17:05:43:09 by dixon9.

Quote:

N5er
The figures do align with mine (283M euros for Chelsea equals 209M pounds according to the cuurency converter from pounds to euros - well it did for me - have you tried converting these figures - remember, they are euros NOT dollars).
those euro values from the article are averaged rates from the year so when recalculated back won't correspond... the figures l gave are quoted as GBP in the actual Delloites report ..

Whatever.. If your figures come from the Deloitte report then they must be correct. I took mine from a newspaper which quotes the figures I put in my article - their figures are obviously wrong.

Quote:

N5er

Why have they only put a fraction of the development money through the books? Nothing to do with holding a lot of it back before they sell so that Bracewell Smith and co can keep it???

haha your just being mischievious there mate arent you? Firstly what you are suggesting would be completely illegal and would be picked up by shareholders like me BUT the answer is that they are only abiding by accounting convention ... that is the accrual basis of accounting which basically means that revenues and profits are only booked when they are realised... this project is not finished until 2010 so can not be booked until then... you will also see some more AG related profits in the interim reports that will be released very soon... these projects were only realised since June 1st 2007 when our last financial year started..

I am being a little bit mischievous but also bearing in mind human nature and greed (Would you have believed that Dein, after all his rantings about Abramovich would then very hypocritically sell you out to a Russian? The Russian owns nearly a quarter of Arsenal as from a few days ago as I´m sure you´re aware).

The shareholders wouldn´t permit it? Well they just might do if it´s them trousering the loot mightn´t they?!!!

Just wait and see...




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
Well I assume you´d need the accounts to do the (accurate) detective work or some informed articles.
l have the Arsenal accounts and the CFC and MUFC figures I've reconstructed... the info is out there which bit of CFCs corporate revenue do you dispute?

I don´t dispute ANY of your figures. Well done for the detective work (seriously).





.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
Well, of course IF you want a football side/football side comparison then you´d have to omit hotels or casinos. But this was Bates point all those years ago; far too much money was being spent OUTSIDE the club on matchdays and matchdays only totalled about 23-28 a year. The idea was obviously to increase club turnover (decent bars and restaurants within the ground for example).
On the other hand, it would be unfiar to "penalise" a club for having foresight (eg It´s not Chelsea´s or Arsenal´s fault Bogthorpe FC don´t have a restaurant in their stadium).
Far be it for me to criticise I am trying to explain the reason why your turnover is higher and quite rightly you can do what you like but you do understand the difference between turnover and profit dont you? I mean for ffs l could say for example to every Arsenal fan that comes l will swap a ten pound note for a five pound note... can you imagine what your turnover would be? Now thats an extreme viewpoint and if your hotel and such like was making loads of profit then you could say look Bates was right all along but thats not the case is it? the hotel isnt making a profit and thats my point... but again mate I'm not making any other point than telling you like it is... if Chelsea fans want to jizz over having a higher turnover and being deemed a 'richer' club purely because they are including a loss making hotel as part of their revenue then so be it... but it wont stop me telling you the reason why theres a discrepncy... got me?

and anycase turnover is a terrible way of classifying richness... surely it should be net assets or net shareholders equity (exactly the same term btw)

I don´t know why you seem so upset about our ranking in the list to be honest! Of course I understand the difference between turnover and profit!

You are skewing off my point re Bates by just focusing on the hotel - Bates concept wasn´t just the hotel was it? I´m pointing out that it was his philiosphy that he was derided for yet now everyone´s copying him - nothing wrong with that though!

And I AGREE with the descepancy you point out re non-football revenue streams - can´t think why you think otherwise. It makes no difference to me if Club A have a higher turnover than Club B because they have a casino or whatever on their grounds - if Club B want the same then they are free to do so aren´t they?

Any Chelsea fan who has an ounce of brain will realise the following:

(1) We will make a loss again this financial term
(2) The "Rich List" demonstrates that Abramovich and Kenyon´s plan is going in the right and probably projected direction
(3) If we mantain the status quo then we will eventually make a profit.
(4) Life is good!



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
I think that whatever a club does with it´s money in terms of investment to generate more money in the future could be counted in the total turnover - just like any other company does although I agree with you that to do like for like comparisons you may have to strip certain revenues to do so.
but I havent argued any different mate... I am quite happy for you to include whatever revenue you like... but when it comes down to it... lets compare what we know are equated... gate money, broadcasting and prizemoney and corporate sponsorship and retail... and we can ascertain... the first two are variable... you got higher prizemoney last year cos you went further than us in the CL etc... which can change and you have very good sponsorship deals compared to us... Not going to go into the Umbro payoff but anyway you get my drift.. and glad you did see my point in the end.. ;_)

Honestly can´t think WHY on earth you think I didn´t see the point! There is no argument but I´m sure you´ll agree if Club A has a casino that they´ve paid for then it will help them on the football side if it makes a profit. Clubs B, C and D can do the same IF they want to - it doesn´t bother me.

But you carry on mate!




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
Of course, we have a huge advantage in that Abramovich doesn´t charge interest whilst the Bank of Scotland do. But so what? Are we saying that it is wrong for Abramovich not to charge interest? We are lucky to have him and he obviosuly is in for the long term much to the contrary of nearly every other oppo fans (Well ok, mostly Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal fans if we are honest) opinion when he first bought the club.
No mate thats completely not right and in actual fact Arsenal shareholders are doing exactly the same as Abramovich in that they are getting no return on their investment... no dividend... you are completely misunderstanding... the average fan is p!ssed because their is no economic reality to the Chelsea business model at present... forget the interest... good luck to you that you are not paying interest but the rest of football is having to live off self generated funds or else die... look at all the administrations in football.

Which part of what I said is "completely not right"?

You seem to be saying that what Roman is doing is wrong because he has no dividend NOW?

So what´s wrong with medium or long term?

Are you saying that he won´t end up with Chelsea making a profit?

I don´t see your point to be honest.





.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
But so what if Real Madrid and open a casino for example? It would generate income for them to buy players and would affect the footballing side. There is nothing stopping other clubs following suit is there? I don´t see how we (Chelsea) should puff out our chests and say "we genrate more matchday income than Real Madrid while they happily generate 60-70 odd more million a year than we do?
And here again you show where you are missing the whole point. Can't you see it really does matter whether these operations are making a profit? thats why turnover revenues are basically meaningless without consideration for underlying profitability which goes back to the whole point l am making with regard to sustainable business models and living within economic realities.

Look put it this way... you have said... and l have read its Romans and CFCs desire to break even and make a profit right? OK fair enough... forget when and if they ever do that but can't you see without that damn hotel (if its not making money) it would be easier? ;_) Gees we are going in circles here..

We are but with all due respect I don´t think it´s my fault!

You seem fixated about Bates Motel! I don´t give a monkey´s about the hotel - I hope they knock the bloody thing down and we can expand on the Bridge and stay at our traditional, origonal home (Nice feeling eh?! ;-) )

I´ve already said much earlier that the hotel probably doesn´t make a profit (although if you calculate how much it cost to origonally build BUT then Roman paid for it anyway when he bought the club - I´m sure it generates profit in as far as it´s operation though).

When you mentioned casinos etc I assumed you were talking about clubs in general - of course, if they don´t eventually make a profit then they are a dead weight - I don´t see any dispute here.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
Arsenal´s way of paying off the debts and generating income is through football (matchday income through a bigger stadium, youth development etc) and Chelsea ALSO will pay off the investments through football generated income albeit with an initial difference in philosophy.
What Arsenal did with the Bank of Scotland to get their stadium so did Chelsea did with Abramovich to buy some of the best (or most promising) players around - the team component is now paying back that investment through prize money, matchday and tv revenue is it not? The proof is in the report.
l'd agree with most of that but it remains to be seen whether he will make a profit and then Dixy l hope you can see its only likely to have been year on year... meaning making a profit for that year... can you not see that you have accumulated losses of at the very least 250m pounds from the last four years losses? You say you want to make a profit sooner or later? Can l ask when is that 250m going to be made up? Thats the whole basic point... anyone can throw money at something if they have no intention or desire to get a return on that investment.

Now Dixy (sorry dont know your name ;_) if you can tell me with a straight face that not only will you make a profit one year (a few million maybe by 2012 or one day ;_) BUT that you'll also make up them other hundreds of millions of pounds worth of accumulated losses then l might agree otherwise SORRY anyone with a benefactor could do the same... there is no economic reality to it... its like you and me mate rattling up credit card debts to accumulate a lavish lifestyle... should our mates be envious of us? You tell me... its the same odds.

I´ll say again:

(1) Chelsea FC will probably make progressively reduced losses for the net few seasons.
(2) Chelsea FC will eventually make a profit
(3) Abramovich will eventually see a return on his investment.
(4) The strategy is medium/long term - not get rich quick. Abramovich, Kenyon and the suits at Chelsea want a solid, powerful football club in all respects - and I´m confident this will happen.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
The future? Have you seen Cobham? Another abramovich investmnent that gets little press - it is one of the best training camp and academies in the world. Obviously, we can´t and won´t mantain spending on transfers at the first 2 seasons and our net spending on players has reduced significantly. Like Arsenal we recognise that you need your own developed talent to help financially in the future.
Don´t forget - we already had our stadium generating income BEFORE you built the Emirates - and their were times in the past when we could hardly buy any players in the past because of this. The suffering to get the stadium may still form the base for a new stadium - it may not.

Yes l have heard and read about your academy.. and lve said nothing about this or your other ventures - yes l do know and realise you had your stadium basically up to date before us (whether you move or not) - but lets also realise the problems Bates got himself into producing that hey?

In conclusion my points above hold firm... think about what l am saying... at the end of the day this has started purely because l have attempted to explain why your revenues were higher (the loss making hotel) its been you thats gone off on the tangent and l have answered you or pulled you up on wrong assumptions and assertions.

Regards,

FORGET about the hotel - I doubt it accounts for much of the revenue to be honest!





.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

I don´t think you could deny that Chelsea will eventually break even and eventually Roman will have recouped his investment - just like you will with the Emirates.

yes I do dispute this and touched on this in a latter post.. how the hell you going to make up 250m of accumulated losses mate? please tell me..

I´m enjoying this debate BUT...

Can we keep it to 1 post at a time if we continue?






.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

As for the "you´ll never get the respect from the elite" with all due respect you can stick that where the sun don´t shine! We don´t need the respect from the "elite" and its that kind of surly condesending attitude which I despise and find so hypocritical.

So many of the so called "elite" forget their own pasts yet ironically harp on about history.

Listen mate I said that with direct reference to how business is run now. Seriously you can sit there and talk about histories and l'm quite prepared to acknowledge past misdemeanors but ffs mate some of them were up to ninety years ago? Lets bring up @#$%& Germany and blame Hitlers wrongs on the current population of Germany why dont we? and who exactly has mentioned your past anyway? Again red herrings.. we are talking about fiancial resourcing here..

F me! I´ve ONLY just finsihed writing all the replies!

OK....



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Whatever.. If your figures come from the Deloitte report then they must be correct. I took mine from a newspaper which quotes the figures I put in my article - their figures are obviously wrong.

No again you are not listening.. you got the correct euros values and you converted it at the NOW rate (thats the mistake) they were calculated by the correct GBP figurs l have given you from their report and then converted at the average (for the year) rate.

You converted them yourself didn't you? Can you understand where l'm coming from?

Top rant about perceived iiregularities etc by other clubs mate but totally missing the point surprise surprise..

Quote:

N5er
As for the "you´ll never get the respect from the elite" with all due respect you can stick that where the sun don´t shine! We don´t need the respect from the "elite" and its that kind of surly condesending attitude which I despise and find so hypocritical.
So many of the so called "elite" forget their own pasts yet ironically harp on about history.

Listen mate I said that with direct reference to how business is run now. Seriously you can sit there and talk about histories and l'm quite prepared to acknowledge past misdemeanors but ffs mate some of them were up to ninety years ago? Lets bring up @#$%& Germany and blame Hitlers wrongs on the current population of Germany why dont we? and who exactly has mentioned your past anyway? Again red herrings.. we are talking about fiancial resourcing here..

NO you didn´t.

You were giving it the snooty condescending bit - you know it and I know it. ;-)

History? Well that´s just it aint it? We get "history" rammed down our throats endlessly yet as soon as we respond it´s somehow "not allowed" because it happened a long time ago! You lot can´t have it both ways!

Finanacial resourcing? Exactly - this is why I brought up Norris for example.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:17:06:30:49 by dixon9.

I am being a little bit mischievous but also bearing in mind human nature and greed (Would you have believed that Dein, after all his rantings about Abramovich would then very hypocritically sell you out to a Russian? The Russian owns nearly a quarter of Arsenal as from a few days ago as I´m sure you´re aware).

of course l knew about Usmanov and its very hypocritical re Dein l admit but what has this to do with anything?

The shareholders wouldn´t permit it? Well they just might do if it´s them trousering the loot mightn´t they?!!!

Just dont get your point there at all..

I don´t dispute ANY of your figures. Well done for the detective work (seriously).

thanks its my job ;_)

Quote:

N5er
Whatever.. If your figures come from the Deloitte report then they must be correct. I took mine from a newspaper which quotes the figures I put in my article - their figures are obviously wrong.
No again you are not listening.. you got the correct euros values and you converted it at the NOW rate (thats the mistake) they were calculated by the correct GBP figurs l have given you from their report and then converted at the average (for the year) rate.

You converted them yourself didn't you? Can you understand where l'm coming from?

Of course.

The origonal euro turnover values would still have been too "optimistic" though given that the variance hasn´t been more than 5% I would imagine compared to the pound during the year in question? Whatever...I´m not sure to be honest.

I´ll take the Deloitte report figures any way (which would put both our clubs down by approx 20M from my article).



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

I don´t know why you seem so upset about our ranking in the list to be honest! Of course I understand the difference between turnover and profit
I'm not mate at all and have made that clear... come on Dixie its your article that is crowing about the 4th spot.. you only have to look at vital football today (I cant be arsed going over there to explain to them ;_) but read the comments... higher than francenal etc... listen l'm here in peace l'm explaining the differences thats it... believe me upset is far from my mind.. l am well happy with the financial well being of my club

Quote:

N5er
I don´t think you could deny that Chelsea will eventually break even and eventually Roman will have recouped his investment - just like you will with the Emirates.
yes I do dispute this and touched on this in a latter post.. how the hell you going to make up 250m of accumulated losses mate? please tell me..

Hold on a minute! On one hand you are saying (and I agree with you) that Arsenal will generate enough income over the years to pay off a similar amount of stadium debt and interest payments BUT on the other hand you don´t feel that Chelsea will generate enough income to "pay off" our debt?

How do you work that out?



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Any Chelsea fan who has an ounce of brain will realise the following:

(1) We will make a loss again this financial term

a given

(2) The "Rich List" demonstrates that Abramovich and Kenyon´s plan is going in the right and probably projected direction

well to a degree yes..

(3) If we mantain the status quo then we will eventually make a profit.

carrying on from 2... remains to be seen and a profit on what can you explain that one? a one off year profit? yep probably will... we still havent got to this 25om yet though have we?

(4) Life is good!

no doubt ;_) as long as it lasts you will

Honestly can´t think WHY on earth you think I didn´t see the point! There is no argument but I´m sure you´ll agree if Club A has a casino that they´ve paid for then it will help them on the football side if it makes a profit. Clubs B, C and D can do the same IF they want to - it doesn´t bother me.

But you carry on mate!
lol ok were in agreement of course lots of these posts are crossing each other and a point has probably had to have been made twice but we are on the same wave length there then..

Quote:

N5er
Top rant about perceived iiregularities etc by other clubs mate but totally missing the point surprise surprise..

You said that we will never get "respect· from the "elite" clubs. I´m pointing out that these "elite" clubs are no angels and therefore why should we need respect from them? There´s too much hypocrosiy around to be honest.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
I am being a little bit mischievous but also bearing in mind human nature and greed (Would you have believed that Dein, after all his rantings about Abramovich would then very hypocritically sell you out to a Russian? The Russian owns nearly a quarter of Arsenal as from a few days ago as I´m sure you´re aware).
of course l knew about Usmanov and its very hypocritical re Dein l admit but what has this to do with anything? ..

Your board may change - human nature/greed - Dein as an example.

Quote:

N5er

The shareholders wouldn´t permit it? Well they just might do if it´s them trousering the loot mightn´t they?!!!

Just dont get your point there at all..

See above.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Which part of what I said is "completely not right"?

You seem to be saying that what Roman is doing is wrong because he has no dividend NOW?

So what´s wrong with medium or long term?

Are you saying that he won´t end up with Chelsea making a profit?

I don´t see your point to be honest.

The interest component, you are saying people have a problem with that..

And your getting along the right lines... yeah you keep harping back to this making a profit.. I want to know how much you expect to make? because seriously if its just a couple of million or whatever in another five years time and you cant see that to get to that stage youve had to so far spunk 250m and whatever else to we get to that time then basically l'm wasting my time..

FORGET about the hotel - I doubt it accounts for much of the revenue to be honest!

but you see thats wher l think your wrong mate... depends of course on how much you think is a lot but l thinks its circa 15m which is the difference between residual revenues on us and United that l pointed out the other day

and l was just about to suggest the same re one post... unfortunately have just worked my way down to this post of yours..

Quote:

N5er
I don´t know why you seem so upset about our ranking in the list to be honest! Of course I understand the difference between turnover and profit I'm not mate at all and have made that clear... come on Dixie its your article that is crowing about the 4th spot.. you only have to look at vital football today (I cant be arsed going over there to explain to them ;_) but read the comments... higher than francenal etc... listen l'm here in peace l'm explaining the differences thats it... believe me upset is far from my mind.. l am well happy with the financial well being of my club

I´m sure you´ll agree that the Deloitte report news is something worth putting up (albeit on this very modest board) and this is why I wrote a brief article on it.

Anyone should recognise that whilst we will still make a loss we are going in the right direction? To achieve what Roman and Kenyon want we would have to up there in the top 10 of the Deloitte list wouldn´t we? It´s just good news - we are going in the right direction.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

F me! I´ve ONLY just finsihed writing all the replies!

lol how we going to proceed here then? l'll read the last post now

´m sure you´ll agree that the Deloitte report news is something worth putting up (albeit on this very modest board) and this is why I wrote a brief article on it.

Anyone should recognise that whilst we will still make a loss we are going in the right direction? To achieve what Roman and Kenyon want we would have to up there in the top 10 of the Deloitte list wouldn´t we? It´s just good news - we are going in the right direction.

hey firstly l enjoy your articles am not knocking them ... having a bit of debate is all about the content... re going in the right direction again of course but we still have got to arrive at the conclusion of this debate which inevitably is going to be profitability and when you envisage making the 250m profit back... because without that surely you can see my point about the whole thing?

NO you didn´t.

You were giving it the snooty condescending bit - you know it and I know it. ;-)

History? Well that´s just it aint it? We get "history" rammed down our throats endlessly yet as soon as we respond it´s somehow "not allowed" because it happened a long time ago! You lot can´t have it both ways!

Finanacial resourcing? Exactly - this is why I brought up Norris for example.
Ok yeah it was a swipe l can't deny ;_) but the rest of your bringing up the histories is irrelevent to the case in point

I´ll take the Deloitte report figures any way (which would put both our clubs down by approx 20M from my article).
no problems ours is definately 177m football related.. l have the accounts in front of me... yours havent been publicly released yet

Quote:

N5er
Which part of what I said is "completely not right"?
You seem to be saying that what Roman is doing is wrong because he has no dividend NOW?

So what´s wrong with medium or long term?

Are you saying that he won´t end up with Chelsea making a profit?

I don´t see your point to be honest.

The interest component, you are saying people have a problem with that....

Not with you still - I´m saying people have a problem with "interest payments"???? Sorry!

Quote:

N5er

And your getting along the right lines... yeah you keep harping back to this making a profit.. I want to know how much you expect to make? because seriously if its just a couple of million or whatever in another five years time and you cant see that to get to that stage youve had to so far spunk 250m and whatever else to we get to that time then basically l'm wasting my time..

How much would I expect us to make a season - in the future?

I can´t predict with great certainty just how much money will be in the PL and CL in the future although it wouldn´t surprise me if it´s even more than what there is now (and its awash in money at the moment).

Hmmmm...well say that Man Utd were making 30-40M profit before Glazer took over? I´d imagine it would be at least that - probably more in the future.

It´s an impossible question to answer accurately - it depends upon:

(1) Revenues available, prize miney etc etc in the future
(2) A reasonably succesful academy
(3) Success on the field
(4) Matchday attendances

BUT that´s the same for ALL clubs in the future isn´t it?



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:17:06:51:55 by dixon9.

Hold on a minute! On one hand you are saying (and I agree with you) that Arsenal will generate enough income over the years to pay off a similar amount of stadium debt and interest payments BUT on the other hand you don´t feel that Chelsea will generate enough income to "pay off" our debt?

How do you work that out?
twofold actually I mean have a look at your accumulated losses and your wages budget... they are horrendous and a lot greater than ours... you know that... we made 42m last year before paying interest and honestly the way you are going l just can't see you ever getting to the stage you are paying back what has been accumulated in losses over time... break even yes but not rack up what could be by the 4/500m of past losses and to be honest mate l dont think Abramovich even cares but thats not my point... my point is AGAIN that you have had this advantage that the rest of us havent, good luck to you but dont be telling me that your fiscal policies are working and that you eventually will be doing things the same way as us.

By the way that 255m we owe is offset by 75m in cash we have now and 90m that will be liquidated in 2010... so we have to find over 20 years about 90m from profitability and a lot less than your perceived 4/500m

Quote:

N5er
FORGET about the hotel - I doubt it accounts for much of the revenue to be honest!
but you see thats wher l think your wrong mate... depends of course on how much you think is a lot but l thinks its circa 15m which is the difference between residual revenues on us and United that l pointed out the other day

and l was just about to suggest the same re one post... unfortunately have just worked my way down to this post of yours..

Much as I´d like it to be, I really can´t imagine the hotel turnover is around 15M! Still, who knows?

Ás I´ve said before, I´d prefer a higher capacity stadium and knock the hotel down. (Bates will try his best to stop us doing that though).



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

You said that we will never get "respect· from the "elite" clubs. I´m pointing out that these "elite" clubs are no angels and therefore why should we need respect from them? There´s too much hypocrosiy around to be honest.
well ok lm not going to dispute that but anyway again irrelevent to my total argument and l admitted l was being mischeivious myself with my earlier comment ;_)

Not with you still - I´m saying people have a problem with "interest payments"???? Sorry!
an earlier post you mentioned people have a problem that Roman is lending to Chelsea interest free... I'm saying that isn't so... it's more the fact that CFC can operate in a completely uneconomically unreal scenario and l'm still waiting for you to answer how you are going to make up the accumulated losses which is the crux of my point... we;ll get there eventually ;_)

How much would I expect us to make a season - in the future?

I can´t predict with great certainty just how much money will be in the PL and CL in the future although it wouldn´t surprise me if it´s even more than what there is now (and its awash in money at the moment).

Hmmmm...well say that Man Utd were making 30-40M profit before Glazer took over? I´d imagine it would be at least that - probably more in the future.

It´s an impossible question to answer accurately - it depends upon:

(1) Revenues available, prize miney etc etc in the future
(2) A reasonably succesful academy
(3) Success on the field
(4) Matchday attendances

BUT that´s the same for ALL clubs in the future isn´t it?

yes and we both arrived at about a 40m mark but remember youve been market leaders in paying wages etc so unless you are going to come back to the fold your profit will be less than ours per se? agree? l mean everything else being equal and hey l'll even chuck in the Emirates higher gates being equal then the most your lot are going to make is about 40m abd to be hionest thats a long way down the track from here when you are losing 80m a season over 4 years..

Much as I´d like it to be, I really can´t imagine the hotel turnover is around 15M! Still, who knows?
its a best guess from those figures l gave you mate but it might include other related Chelsea Village revenue l'm not aware of... whatever weve seen that its about that figure different..

Quote:

N5er
Hold on a minute! On one hand you are saying (and I agree with you) that Arsenal will generate enough income over the years to pay off a similar amount of stadium debt and interest payments BUT on the other hand you don´t feel that Chelsea will generate enough income to "pay off" our debt?
How do you work that out?
twofold actually I mean have a look at your accumulated losses and your wages budget... they are horrendous and a lot greater than ours... you know that... we made 42m last year before paying interest and honestly the way you are going l just can't see you ever getting to the stage you are paying back what has been accumulated in losses over time... break even yes but not rack up what could be by the 4/500m of past losses and to be honest mate l dont think Abramovich even cares but thats not my point... my point is AGAIN that you have had this advantage that the rest of us havent, good luck to you but dont be telling me that your fiscal policies are working and that you eventually will be doing things the same way as us.

By the way that 255m we owe is offset by 75m in cash we have now and 90m that will be liquidated in 2010... so we have to find over 20 years about 90m from profitability and a lot less than your perceived 4/500m

So we won´t "pay off" the "debt" (accumulated losses) because our wage bill is too high is essentially what you are saying?

Well. to say that and be right you would need a crystal ball (as I would!) BUT.. you´re assuming that our wage bill will always be at it´s current % level of turnover (?). Even if it did the debt may still be able to be paid off if the turnover is very high - agreed? ....or if the wage bill % is reduced?

I feel that everything is falling into place financially and the academy (for example) will eventually bear fruit.

Don´t get me wrong, I still think we will make the odd big signing (Ronaldinho for example in the summer).

It may well be another 3-4 seasons before we break even - and another 5-6 years after before Romans investment is recouped - but we will get there I´m certain.

We seem to be reasonably sure of success on the field and ALL that that brings.

Who knows - maybe we´ll get there before you finsih paying for your stadium.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

So we won´t "pay off" the "debt" (accumulated losses) because our wage bill is too high is essentially what you are saying?

Well. to say that and be right you would need a crystal ball (as I would!) BUT.. you´re assuming that our wage bill will always be at it´s current % level of turnover (?). Even if it did the debt may still be able to be paid off if the turnover is very high - agreed? ....or if the wage bill % is reduced?

I feel that everything is falling into place financially and the academy (for example) will eventually bear fruit.

Don´t get me wrong, I still think we will make the odd big signing (Ronaldinho for example in the summer).

that was one of my points but l guess your Ronaldinho throw away just about sums it up mate... seriously its like Shevchenko, Veron. Mutu and Crespo before them... it's just a matter of going out and buying these players and caring (or not carrying as the case may be) later... can you see my point? l mean you talk about paying back Roman and l'm telling you here and now he doesnt care about being paid back.. if he does he does if he doesnt he doesnt and thats the complete economic unreality of your situation... seriously if you cant see that then theres been no point to any of this... its been my point from the start

Quote:

N5er
Not with you still - I´m saying people have a problem with "interest payments"???? Sorry! an earlier post you mentioned people have a problem that Roman is lending to Chelsea interest free... I'm saying that isn't so... it's more the fact that CFC can operate in a completely uneconomically unreal scenario and l'm still waiting for you to answer how you are going to make up the accumulated losses which is the crux of my point... we;ll get there eventually ;_)

No no no! I´m not saying that people are ONLY bothered about the fact that we are not charged interest as other clubs are on bank loans. They are principally bothered because a rival has a very rich benefactor and they therefore have reduced chances of success as a consequence - end of!

You also contend that Roman is not interested in making a profit or the club being profitable - I personally find that supposition laughable ...but hey ho!

His outlook is medium or LONG TERM (his son will eventually take over). Chelsea is not a whim for him - why would he build Cobham (for example) if it was?




.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

It may well be another 3-4 seasons before we break even - and another 5-6 years after before Romans investment is recouped - but we will get there I´m certain.

I honestly dont know how you can be mate but anyway look l have been around these boards for ten years and l'll be round for another ten... we'll see then then ok?

Quote:

N5er
How much would I expect us to make a season - in the future?
I can´t predict with great certainty just how much money will be in the PL and CL in the future although it wouldn´t surprise me if it´s even more than what there is now (and its awash in money at the moment).

Hmmmm...well say that Man Utd were making 30-40M profit before Glazer took over? I´d imagine it would be at least that - probably more in the future.

It´s an impossible question to answer accurately - it depends upon:

(1) Revenues available, prize miney etc etc in the future
(2) A reasonably succesful academy
(3) Success on the field
(4) Matchday attendances

BUT that´s the same for ALL clubs in the future isn´t it?

yes and we both arrived at about a 40m mark but remember youve been market leaders in paying wages etc so unless you are going to come back to the fold your profit will be less than ours per se? agree? l mean everything else being equal and hey l'll even chuck in the Emirates higher gates being equal then the most your lot are going to make is about 40m abd to be hionest thats a long way down the track from here when you are losing 80m a season over 4 years..

A long way down the track? Well that depends if you want a quick profit or you are going for a medium/long term return doesn´t it?

I think we lost about 80M last financial term - I´ve no idea what the losses will be this time - 50M? I´m sure the losses will be progressively (more or less) reduced.

If turnover increases and/or wage % of turnover changes then the club cannot fail to eventually make a profit.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

No no no! I´m not saying that people are ONLY bothered about the fact that we are not charged interest as other clubs are on bank loans. They are principally bothered because a rival has a very rich benefactor and they therefore have reduced chances of success as a consequence - end of!
well that wasnt the stance from before mate... l'm not going to chase the post but your above has a lot more legs.. but apart from saying good luck to you with regard having that benefactor there is also an argument (my argument) with regard to the uneconomic reality that places your club at an advantage..

you believe your model will break even and eventuall repay everything to Roman.. and that MAY happen but l dont think its a problem anyway because hey listen say you break even in 3/4 years time but then everyone else has basically caught up... I'm talking 6/7 clubs where the current top 4 are today... is Roman going to be worried about his money owed or is he going to be pumping even more into the pot to stay in front?

You also contend that Roman is not interested in making a profit or the club being profitable - I personally find that supposition laughable ...but hey ho!

His outlook is medium or LONG TERM (his son will eventually take over). Chelsea is not a whim for him - why would he build Cobham (for example) if it was?
and no l havent said that in the meantime he wont be building the business up - obviously he will as it will eventually cost him less - he is a successful businessman in his own right but at the end of the day money is not an object to him as far as this project is concerned..

But hey mate you have said 3/4 years and then 5/6 on top of that to recoup 1/2 Billion... thats a lot of dosh to pay back in 5/6 years when you are saying yoursef profit could only realistically be about 40m pa

Quote:

N5er
So we won´t "pay off" the "debt" (accumulated losses) because our wage bill is too high is essentially what you are saying?
Well. to say that and be right you would need a crystal ball (as I would!) BUT.. you´re assuming that our wage bill will always be at it´s current % level of turnover (?). Even if it did the debt may still be able to be paid off if the turnover is very high - agreed? ....or if the wage bill % is reduced?

I feel that everything is falling into place financially and the academy (for example) will eventually bear fruit.

Don´t get me wrong, I still think we will make the odd big signing (Ronaldinho for example in the summer).

that was one of my points but l guess your Ronaldinho throw away just about sums it up mate... seriously its like Shevchenko, Veron. Mutu and Crespo before them... it's just a matter of going out and buying these players and caring (or not carrying as the case may be) later... can you see my point? l mean you talk about paying back Roman and l'm telling you here and now he doesnt care about being paid back.. if he does he does if he doesnt he doesnt and thats the complete economic unreality of your situation... seriously if you cant see that then theres been no point to any of this... its been my point from the start

Why is my Ronaldinho comment a "throwaway" comment? It´s only a personal opinion anyway - I may be very wrong about Ronaldinho.

HOWEVER, you would agree that the strategy of Abramovich is have a club which is very succesful on the field in order to generate funds? Buying good players has been a very important part of that strategy.

There has to be a balance though. Success is important and so is the infrastructure - what´s the good of the infrastructure (stadium to pay for, academy etc etc etc) if the team goes down to the Coca Cola championship?

For example, it´s no use having a shiny new stadium (for example) with no success on the field. What would happen if there was no prize money, TV money coming in? What would happen if the stadium was only half full?

The balance is all important - you need the infrastructure AND a reasonably successful team.

To try and pretend that Roman doesn´t want a bigger stadium or a top class academy (as examples) is just laughable.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

I have to get off... no doubt l will come back later and finish this off.. bye for now..

Quote:

N5er
It may well be another 3-4 seasons before we break even - and another 5-6 years after before Romans investment is recouped - but we will get there I´m certain.
I honestly dont know how you can be mate but anyway look l have been around these boards for ten years and l'll be round for another ten... we'll see then then ok?

I´ve a vision of you tapping fingers on table for the next 10 years - impatiently waiting for each Deloitte report and Chelsea accounts to come out!

;-)




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Well you seem to be saying that you may agree with me that is IS possible that we will or could EVENTUALLY make a profit (Roman is a successful businessman in his own right).???

Basically you feel it´s "not fair" that some clubs have to go to banks to help build their clubs up whilst we don´t - we have a rich man. We are not restricted by a Mr Stuffy Bank Manager and other clubs are?

Well, history is littered with examples of rich men buying football clubs - from Preston North End when they were first formed to Inter Milan (Moratti) nowadays. You won´t be complaining about the "morals" of those examples because it doesn´t affect Arsenal hardly - BUT you will complain about us because we are on your doorstep (firing 50 pound notes on your lawn!) and you compete with us on a regular basis.

Was it fair that Man Utd were saved twice - or yourselves once by businessman? What might City have achieved if that hadn´t of happened? Would Spurs have been much more successful if Norris hadn´t saved you and moved you up on their doorstep? Was it fair that Real Madrid have been propped up by the government in their past, that Franco executed the Barcelona president and stopped the catalans signing Di Stefano? Etc etc etc etc...There are HUNDREDS more examples.

There really is nothing wrong (in my view) with a rich businessman coming in, buying a club and embarking on an ambitious project - whether it be short, medium or long term - putting the money in and hoping to BUILD soemthing that he can be proud of.

The Premier League was formed by certain clubs so that they could try and ensure that it was them that got the lions share of the pie - ditto G14 - what about the economic and sporting morals of that?

Richmen buying clubs has been going on for years. The trouble is the old guard of clubs have had their noses knocked out of joint, their party has been gatecrashed - that´s the problem.




.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:17:08:04:41 by dixon9.

A long way down the track? Well that depends if you want a quick profit or you are going for a medium/long term return doesn´t it?

I think we lost about 80M last financial term - I´ve no idea what the losses will be this time - 50M? I´m sure the losses will be progressively (more or less) reduced.

If turnover increases and/or wage % of turnover changes then the club cannot fail to eventually make a profit.
Yep 308m accumulated losses since 2003/04 apparent 88m, 140m and 80m and you are guestimating 50m this term...

Apart from an extra 18/20m from the new tv deal l dont see hwere too many additional profits are coming from mate so I'm really at a loss how that 50m is from last year is going to be much more than say halved next year and lets say you get down to brek even by (say) 2011... 400m I'd say minimum

I might be wrong but I really can't see where additional revenues are coming from? And apart from being accross the board... meaning it wont just be yourself that will earn extra revenue, your competitors can be expected to earn commensyurately... I'd reckon that any incrementals are bound to be offset by higher wages... it's an ever vicious circle... seriously cut it everyway you want but the ability to make up that 400m I'd say is doubtful. And especially if for example Arsenal then use their advantage because remeber they are going to have this money freely available by then all things being equal... is Roman going to sit back and let himself be outspent in the name of business? I don't think so and that's why l think its an unrealistic supposition that this money will be paid back... break even maybe... pay him back? nope sorry can't see it and thats the crux of my argument mate..

Why is my Ronaldinho comment a "throwaway" comment? It´s only a personal opinion anyway - I may be very wrong about Ronaldinho.

HOWEVER, you would agree that the strategy of Abramovich is have a club which is very succesful on the field in order to generate funds? Buying good players has been a very important part of that strategy.

There has to be a balance though. Success is important and so is the infrastructure - what´s the good of the infrastructure (stadium to pay for, academy etc etc etc) if the team goes down to the Coca Cola championship?

For example, it´s no use having a shiny new stadium (for example) with no success on the field. What would happen if there was no prize money, TV money coming in? What would happen if the stadium was only half full?

The balance is all important - you need the infrastructure AND a reasonably successful team.

To try and pretend that Roman doesn´t want a bigger stadium or a top class academy (as examples) is just laughable.
Was just using that line as an example l wasnt taking it as gospel... and l acknowledge what your startegy is.. theres no dispute with the rest there and who has said you dont "want" a new stadium or a top class academy.

I´ve a vision of you tapping fingers on table for the next 10 years - impatiently waiting for each Deloitte report and Chelsea accounts to come out!

;-)
yeah well not quite but if you're site is still around and you are still writing your articles.. we'll see, l'm sure you know a lot can change over time in football and a decades a long time..

Quote:

N5er
A long way down the track? Well that depends if you want a quick profit or you are going for a medium/long term return doesn´t it?
I think we lost about 80M last financial term - I´ve no idea what the losses will be this time - 50M? I´m sure the losses will be progressively (more or less) reduced.

If turnover increases and/or wage % of turnover changes then the club cannot fail to eventually make a profit.
Yep 308m accumulated losses since 2003/04 apparent 88m, 140m and 80m and you are guestimating 50m this term...

Apart from an extra 18/20m from the new tv deal l dont see hwere too many additional profits are coming from mate so I'm really at a loss how that 50m is from last year is going to be much more than say halved next year and lets say you get down to brek even by (say) 2011... 400m I'd say minimum

I might be wrong but I really can't see where additional revenues are coming from? And apart from being accross the board... meaning it wont just be yourself that will earn extra revenue, your competitors can be expected to earn commensyurately... I'd reckon that any incrementals are bound to be offset by higher wages... it's an ever vicious circle... seriously cut it everyway you want but the ability to make up that 400m I'd say is doubtful. And especially if for example Arsenal then use their advantage because remeber they are going to have this money freely available by then all things being equal... is Roman going to sit back and let himself be outspent in the name of business? I don't think so and that's why l think its an unrealistic supposition that this money will be paid back... break even maybe... pay him back? nope sorry can't see it and thats the crux of my argument mate..

You are assuming that wages % to turnover will INCREASE - I don´t agree with that. Turnover will probably mantain at current levels and probably increase over the forthcoming seasons and in all probability, more lucratibe sponsorhip deals etc wiill transpire.

Short or medium term, more and more youngsters and nearly developed youngsters scouted abroad will also gradually integrate into the team (this is key and why we were so aggressive in recruiting Arnesen) - not all these will be on Ballack/Lampard/Terry type salaries (and don´t forget, 2 of those mentioned probably won´t be at Chelsea in say 2,3-4 years time). Alex, for example, is an Arnesen/De Visser product - he only cost approx 4M and is on about a 1/3 of what the high earners are on.

This is why I don´t agree with you that wage % to turnover will increase and why I believe we will eventually make a profit.

We may now and then, sign some big fish on high wages to help enable success on the field BUT the general emphasis will be on "Alex" type finds/products.

400M accumulative losses after breaking even? Fair enough - what´s to say IF I´m right and we end up making say 40M/50M or even more profit each season? The "debt" could easily be paid off - even before you have finsihed paying for your stadium (for example).



.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Was just using that line as an example l wasnt taking it as gospel... and l acknowledge what your startegy is.. theres no dispute with the rest there and who has said you dont "want" a new stadium or a top class academy.

I never said that you said or implied that we didn´t want a top class academy - I used Cobham as an example of Roman´s commitment to the club (Do you know, he even has had cameras fitted there so that while he´s on his travels he can watch the players/kids train?) and that this one demonstration that Roman doesn´t intend JUST to buying the finished article which would only damage Chelsea´s chances of breaking even and making profit.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Well you seem to be saying that you may agree with me that is IS possible that we will or could EVENTUALLY make a profit (Roman is a successful businessman in his own right).???

Basically you feel it´s "not fair" that some clubs have to go to banks to help build their clubs up whilst we don´t - we have a rich man. We are not restricted by a Mr Stuffy Bank Manager and other clubs are?

well turned there but lm sure you dont really think that was what l was saying at all ;_) infact l specifically said differently but if that's your take I've lost you..

Quote:

N5er
Well you seem to be saying that you may agree with me that is IS possible that we will or could EVENTUALLY make a profit (Roman is a successful businessman in his own right).???
Basically you feel it´s "not fair" that some clubs have to go to banks to help build their clubs up whilst we don´t - we have a rich man. We are not restricted by a Mr Stuffy Bank Manager and other clubs are?

well turned there but lm sure you dont really think that was what l was saying at all ;_) infact l specifically said differently but if that's your take I've lost you..

Wasn´t trying to "turn" anything you said - just attempting to narrow down to the nub of what you´re saying. I´ll try again...

You feel that it is morally wrong that we have an investor (a very rich one) who is prepared to invest long term in us and try and build the club up by accepting losses for a while before he eventually sees profit?

Is that it?

Or you contend that Roman is just having fun and doesn´t care about losses and whether the club makes profit in the future?




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:02:17:09:31:50 by dixon9.

you see Dixie mate you've resorted to type right at the end there... what is it? you're history lesson? or is it that you're man Roman has just embarked on a differing financing philosophy? Actually I preferred you argument for the latter because at least that made sense even if I thought it was over optimistic... falling back on the history stories just makes you appear bitter... I'm sure you'd like to believe it's the other way round but at the end of the day surely sport is suppose to be about fair competition? and as such l'd suggest that living within ones own financial resources is the vey essence of this belief..

You are assuming that wages % to turnover will INCREASE - I don´t agree with that. Turnover will probably mantain at current levels and probably increase over the forthcoming seasons and in all probability, more lucratibe sponsorhip deals etc wiill transpire

you see l'm not so sure about this.. everyone has just about spent their new tv money already... spurs are increasing their wage budget and will to, to have any chance of breaking into the top 4... l think your and our turnover will top out now for a few years or at least until new sponsorship deals are negotiated.. you might be right that they will continue to spiral but then so will wages... there is a correlation and any belief that it will just be yourselves that can manage to increase turnover while keeping wages budget in check is a very dangerous supposition..

400M accumulative losses after breaking even? Fair enough - what´s to say IF I´m right and we end up making say 40M/50M or even more profit each season? The "debt" could easily be paid off - even before you have finsihed paying for your stadium (for example).

well considering the information l gave you with regard our financials.. quite happy to give you a more detailed breakdown by email if you like 'then5er@hotmail.com' I'd doubt that very much and still stand by what l said in my previous with regards turnovers and wages etc and to be honest you talk about this academy as if it will be your saviour... you could be very disappointed... i've no doubt you will produce some youth but theres no reason to suggest you will be any more competetive in that field than we are or the mancs..

Quote:

N5er
you see Dixie mate you've resorted to type right at the end there... what is it? you're history lesson? or is it that you're man Roman has just embarked on a differing financing philosophy? Actually I preferred you argument for the latter because at least that made sense even if I thought it was over optimistic... falling back on the history stories just makes you appear bitter... I'm sure you'd like to believe it's the other way round but at the end of the day surely sport is suppose to be about fair competition? and as such l'd suggest that living within ones own financial resources is the vey essence of this belief..

Oh dear!

Come on mate!

Fair competition? I asked you for your views on the PL being formed and G14 in an earlier post - is that " fair competition" in the good old corinthian spirit? Yes or no?

I gave you other examples where clubs were saved from liquidation (and in your case, moved bang on the doorstep of another) and therefore reducing the chances of success of those clubs that didn´t have any financial problems at the time - is that "fair and in the spirit of competition"? Yes or no?

I´d be really interested in your answers on those points above by the way.

I´ve given you my reasons why I don´t believe Chelsea is just a toy to him and why I believe he does want the club to become a viable entity (in fact, he wants us to be the most succcessful, powerful club in the world) and make profit. OK - you don´t think Roman will eventually recoup his investment and I do - time will tell who is right so we´ll have to wait on that one.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

You feel that it is morally wrong that we have an investor (a very rich one) who is prepared to invest long term in us and try and build the club up by accepting losses for a while before he eventually sees profit?

Is that it?

Or you contend that Roman is just having fun and doesn´t care about losses and whether the club makes profit in the future?
I answered this about two posts above... morally wrong would be too strong but flying fair in the true spirit of competition yeah why not? but anyway now your edging your bets... btw I realaistically thought you did have a business plan whereby you'd repay this 400m eventually l could accept your argument and you do deviate down that line only to jump back to your back up stance... history lessons etc..

And re Roman and a bit of fun... yeah well l personally get the impression he's not all that concerned if it never breaks even much less that he ever gets his money back.. again my percerption... proof will no doubt be in the pudding..

Quote:

N5er
You are assuming that wages % to turnover will INCREASE - I don´t agree with that. Turnover will probably mantain at current levels and probably increase over the forthcoming seasons and in all probability, more lucratibe sponsorhip deals etc wiill transpire
you see l'm not so sure about this.. everyone has just about spent their new tv money already... spurs are increasing their wage budget and will to, to have any chance of breaking into the top 4... l think your and our turnover will top out now for a few years or at least until new sponsorship deals are negotiated.. you might be right that they will continue to spiral but then so will wages... there is a correlation and any belief that it will just be yourselves that can manage to increase turnover while keeping wages budget in check is a very dangerous supposition..

Any business and especially football clubs can be very risky investments - but we have over a 100 years of businessman investing in football clubs haven´t we?!

Emirates could be dangerous - a calculated risk at least. Financial viability could be affected IF you were to have a few bad seasons, no CL and reduced attendances etc... Unlikely maybe - but possible.

Any football club depends upon success on the field doesn´t it?

Who dares wins I suppose!

I´ve answered your point on wages in a previous post.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Fair competition? I asked you for your views on the PL being formed and G14 in an earlier post - is that " fair competition" in the good old corinthian spirit? Yes or no?

ok lets answer them one at a time and as honestly as possible.. to be honest I can see your point about the PL but again I would suggest anyone can get to the PL so there is competition there and yes it is fair... the likes of Reading and Wigan have shown that anyone can rise to the PL. Regarding G14 again they were a lobby group... turned out to be a bunch of @#$%& as it goes as one of their criteria covered a lot l am talking about a wages vs turnover ratio... were you aware of that?

Quote:

dixon9

Quote:

N5er
Well you seem to be saying that you may agree with me that is IS possible that we will or could EVENTUALLY make a profit (Roman is a successful businessman in his own right).???
Basically you feel it´s "not fair" that some clubs have to go to banks to help build their clubs up whilst we don´t - we have a rich man. We are not restricted by a Mr Stuffy Bank Manager and other clubs are?

well turned there but lm sure you dont really think that was what l was saying at all ;_) infact l specifically said differently but if that's your take I've lost you..

Wasn´t trying to "turn" anything you said - just attempting to narrow down to the nub of what you´re saying. I´ll try again...

You feel that it is morally wrong that we have an investor (a very rich one) who is prepared to invest long term in us and try and build the club up by accepting losses for a while before he eventually sees profit?

Is that it?

Or you contend that Roman is just having fun and doesn´t care about losses and whether the club makes profit in the future?

.

So it´s the latter of the two scenarios then?




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

I gave you other examples where clubs were saved from liquidation (and in your case, moved bang on the doorstep of another) and therefore reducing the chances of success of those clubs that didn´t have any financial problems at the time - is that "fair and in the spirit of competition"? Yes or no?
again how far you want to go back in history.. have admitted that there were many misdeeds in years gone past but where do you want to draw the line? it wouldnt happen these days that another club would be allowed to move but its happened and a bl**dy long time ago... would it be fair to happen now... of course not

Quote:

N5er
Fair competition? I asked you for your views on the PL being formed and G14 in an earlier post - is that " fair competition" in the good old corinthian spirit? Yes or no?
ok lets answer them one at a time and as honestly as possible.. to be honest I can see your point about the PL but again I would suggest anyone can get to the PL so there is competition there and yes it is fair... the likes of Reading and Wigan have shown that anyone can rise to the PL. Regarding G14 again they were a lobby group... turned out to be a bunch of @#$%& as it goes as one of their criteria covered a lot l am talking about a wages vs turnover ratio... were you aware of that?

Reading and Wigan had to have investment to give them a chance of surviving in the prem and getting promoted in the first place - the gap financial gap between the Coca Cola Championship and the PL makes life very very difficult for any club once they get promoted - no where near as fair as what is was with the old 1 Division, 2nd Division - and the PL formation was orchestrated by the likes of Liverpool and yourselves!

G14 lobby/pressure group - totally built on self interest and no corinthian spirit at all. As for the turnover/wages rule that was very often ignored as I´m sure you are well aware! To take things futher, a certain Real Madrid had over 130M of losses some time ago which was payed off by the council by buying their training ground off them and giving it back to them! How is that fair on other potential opponents in Europe? Would you go on any Real Madrid forum and have a pop at them? I think we both know the answer to that but you could ask yourself why you wouldn´t.... ;-)




.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

OK - you don´t think Roman will eventually recoup his investment and I do - time will tell who is right so we´ll have to wait on that one.

yep we sure will and with two competitors now that are on an equal footing with you with regard financing we'll see how close he comes to his ambition wont we? My bet (still to be proved) of course is that money will remain no object and the least of his desires as he continually chases this dream... a dream we all have btw... only Romans got deep pockets and each tim ehe opens his his ability to get repaid will widen and widen as will your claim that thats what his objective was the whole time..

I mean can l ask you... do you think that the Chelsea business model is more robust than the Arsenal model? We'll leave United out of it for a minute for a few reasons. Personally l think they are comnparable but are we going to be the industry leaders in paying wages etc l very much doubt it..

Quote:

N5er
400M accumulative losses after breaking even? Fair enough - what´s to say IF I´m right and we end up making say 40M/50M or even more profit each season? The "debt" could easily be paid off - even before you have finsihed paying for your stadium (for example).
well considering the information l gave you with regard our financials.. quite happy to give you a more detailed breakdown by email if you like 'then5er@hotmail.com' I'd doubt that very much and still stand by what l said in my previous with regards turnovers and wages etc and to be honest you talk about this academy as if it will be your saviour... you could be very disappointed... i've no doubt you will produce some youth but theres no reason to suggest you will be any more competetive in that field than we are or the mancs..

Saviour? No! Important component for the future of the club - yes.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Emirates could be dangerous - a calculated risk at least. Financial viability could be affected IF you were to have a few bad seasons, no CL and reduced attendances etc... Unlikely maybe - but possible.
we had our risky period up until we moved into The Emirates.. maybe this year was the last year to dent us but the risk has subsided. Email me and I'll send you some info. Of course no one ever knows 100% if they are to remain successful but l would bet the likes of ourselves and yourselves and United will be for the forseeable future..

Quote:

N5er
You feel that it is morally wrong that we have an investor (a very rich one) who is prepared to invest long term in us and try and build the club up by accepting losses for a while before he eventually sees profit?
Is that it?

Or you contend that Roman is just having fun and doesn´t care about losses and whether the club makes profit in the future?
I answered this about two posts above... morally wrong would be too strong but flying fair in the true spirit of competition yeah why not? but anyway now your edging your bets... btw I realaistically thought you did have a business plan whereby you'd repay this 400m eventually l could accept your argument and you do deviate down that line only to jump back to your back up stance... history lessons etc..

And re Roman and a bit of fun... yeah well l personally get the impression he's not all that concerned if it never breaks even much less that he ever gets his money back.. again my percerption... proof will no doubt be in the pudding..

I´m not "hedging" any bets at all. I´m trying to put it across to you that whilst you complain about he "unfairness" of the Chelsea situation there is a degree of hypocrosiy ANYWAY in what you say given that history is littered with examples of rich businessman affecting football history (í.e You seem only concerned about the "Chelsea Example" if you will - why not the mancs or yourselves...or Liverpool with Moores?)

My attempted history lesson if you will is seperate from what my view is re the Abramovich business plan.



.





.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Reading and Wigan had to have investment to give them a chance of surviving in the prem and getting promoted in the first place - the gap financial gap between the Coca Cola Championship and the PL makes life very very difficult for any club once they get promoted - no where near as fair as what is was with the old 1 Division, 2nd Division - and the PL formation was orchestrated by the likes of Liverpool and yourselves!
not denying that but its still not a closed shop and far from it to aspire to the Premiership heights.. and as for going back to the 1910's zzzzzzz mate there were plenty of clubs that didnt cut the mustard back then and died... had we not been successful we would have been one of them..

To take things futher, a certain Real Madrid had over 130M of losses some time ago which was payed off by the council by buying their training ground off them and giving it back to them! How is that fair on other potential opponents in Europe? Would you go on any Real Madrid forum and have a pop at them? I think we both know the answer to that but you could ask yourself why you wouldn´t.... ;-)

an interesting argument... l cant speak Spanish mate but l guess it has never affected us and there was an argument that it would take Chelsea winning the CL a couple of times before those guys (the European clubs) would become involved in the Chelsea situation..

Quote:

N5er
I gave you other examples where clubs were saved from liquidation (and in your case, moved bang on the doorstep of another) and therefore reducing the chances of success of those clubs that didn´t have any financial problems at the time - is that "fair and in the spirit of competition"? Yes or no? again how far you want to go back in history.. have admitted that there were many misdeeds in years gone past but where do you want to draw the line? it wouldnt happen these days that another club would be allowed to move but its happened and a bl**dy long time ago... would it be fair to happen now... of course not

So seeing as you do accept there has been "unfair competition" in the past, and as we are constantly getting history rammed down our throats at any opportunity...could we not be justified in saying that whats good for the goose etc..???



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

that history is littered with examples of rich businessman affecting football history (í.e You seem only concerned about the "Chelsea Example" if you will - why not the mancs or yourselves...or Liverpool with Moores?)
Moores was a businessman.. he didnt subsidise Liverpool... they lived off their own resources..

Quote:

N5er
OK - you don´t think Roman will eventually recoup his investment and I do - time will tell who is right so we´ll have to wait on that one.
yep we sure will and with two competitors now that are on an equal footing with you with regard financing we'll see how close he comes to his ambition wont we? My bet (still to be proved) of course is that money will remain no object and the least of his desires as he continually chases this dream... a dream we all have btw... only Romans got deep pockets and each tim ehe opens his his ability to get repaid will widen and widen as will your claim that thats what his objective was the whole time..

I mean can l ask you... do you think that the Chelsea business model is more robust than the Arsenal model? We'll leave United out of it for a minute for a few reasons. Personally l think they are comnparable but are we going to be the industry leaders in paying wages etc l very much doubt it..

More robust? Hmmmm...possibly or maybe not and I´ll tell you why:

Any club who invests heavily in infrastructure relies on success on the field and the loyalty of their fans to make sure the repayments are met - perfomance related basically - and that is risky for any football club.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

N5er
Reading and Wigan had to have investment to give them a chance of surviving in the prem and getting promoted in the first place - the gap financial gap between the Coca Cola Championship and the PL makes life very very difficult for any club once they get promoted - no where near as fair as what is was with the old 1 Division, 2nd Division - and the PL formation was orchestrated by the likes of Liverpool and yourselves! not denying that but its still not a closed shop and far from it to aspire to the Premiership heights.. and as for going back to the 1910's zzzzzzz mate there were plenty of clubs that didnt cut the mustard back then and died... had we not been successful we would have been one of them..

Of course its not a closed shop BUT you can´t deny the corinthian spirit is much less apparant wuth the formation of the PL can you? Greed - not fair competition was the order of the day when Parry came up with that little gem.

And forget 1910 - try the old first division etc in the 1980´s.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

mate you can say what you like... at no time have l ever said what you are doing is illegal... I havent even stretched it to being immoral.. you brought that one up... l've given you my opinion but in anycase we have completely digressed off of what this whole debate was in the first place and that was the richness or otherwise of clubs and especially your own with regard to the Deloittes report and my attempt at explaining to you why there was a difference..

Unfortunately it has mainly deteriorated (not bad naturedly l might add ;_) into the p!ssing contest l warned about at the beginning

Any club who invests heavily in infrastructure relies on success on the field and the loyalty of their fans to make sure the repayments are met - perfomance related basically - and that is risky for any football club.
l can live with that definition.. my point was though and my question wasn't really answered whether you believe you have an economic or for that matter any advantage over Arsenal... this whole debate has digressed off what we were initially discussing anyway..

so basically we have come full circle anyway... this Deloittes list was an instrument for a p!ssing competition after all ;_)

Quote:

N5er
that history is littered with examples of rich businessman affecting football history (í.e You seem only concerned about the "Chelsea Example" if you will - why not the mancs or yourselves...or Liverpool with Moores?)
Moores was a businessman.. he didnt subsidise Liverpool... they lived off their own resources..

Well that´s another can of worms and another debate (which I´ve had many times!)

Fact is Shankly was getting frustrated trying to get out of the old 2nd Division, Moores, one of the richest families in Britain and WHILST chairman of Everton bought 20-25% of Liverpool and put his cheif accountant on the Liverpool board to sign the cheques for players! Can you imagine that nowadays - and we talking relatively recent football history here.

I would agree that the funds were managed well (in general) but to pretend that the cash of such a rich family didn´t affect Liverpool FC is ludicrous.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

lol and you have proof? ;_)

theres many an urban myth out there mate... anyway l'm being nagged by the missus... if you want to drop me an email feel free other wise l'll catch up with you soon no doubt ;_)

So have we finished then?!

I have enjoyed it by the way!










"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

yeah l gotta go mate.. will catch up soon though.. enjoyed it too - hope l bumped your hits!

Quote:

N5er
lol and you have proof? ;_)

Do you mean a link (yes, I do) or if you mean Moores investment affecting Liverpool then I would ask what was he doing there in the first place if he didn´t!




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.