or to join or start a new Discussion

111 Comments
Article Rating 1 Star

We will only be loaning players this window

Confirmed in a press conference. Kroenke is not the problem though

posted on 10/1/19

Their spending matches their income. Hmmm last I’d read on Roman he’d stopped investing in the squad.

posted on 10/1/19

comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 14 seconds ago
Their spending matches their income. Hmmm last I’d read on Roman he’d stopped investing in the squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Chelsea have less net income than Arsenal because of our larger stadium and ergo match day income. Remember they also didn't qualify for the Champions League. They have however a greater net spend last summer and have already spent another £55m on the kid from Dortmund this Jan. We have a shortfall. Where do you think the loss albeit a more manageable one these days comes from?

Net spend over 5 years:

Nett Per Season
1 Manchester City £747.4 M £254.6 M £492.9 M £98.6 M
2 Manchester United £594.5 M £194.1 M £400.5 M £80.1 M
4 Chelsea £735.1 M £434.9 M £300.3 M £60.1 M
3 Arsenal £385.7 M £163.8 M £222.0 M £44.4 M
5 Everton £400.0 M £197.0 M £203.0 M £40.6 M
6 Liverpool £583.5 M £424.1 M £159.4 M £31.9 M

Btw RA cash injections are just added as debt. Which is why I suggested UEFA need to look at who the banker is for Chelsea. This is something our new CEO and in fact the old one didn't want.

posted on 10/1/19

(the last figure is net spend per season for the last 5 years)

posted on 10/1/19

But ffp is based amortisation so net spend is irrelevant. Where are do wonder about the ownership investment is paying fees upfront, if necessary. But as most transfers are conducted on a staggered payment basis it’s hard to know whether they have or have needed to.

posted on 10/1/19

comment by Sheriff John Brown - Wenger Till I Die (U7482)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Wenger Till I Die (U7482)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
There are 2 problems with Kroenke:
1) The caant is not liquid. This always made Usmanov the better bet for us to actually improve and compete.
2) His hands-off style allowed Wenger and Gazidis to absolutely ruin the club with their incompetence. A host of astoundingly mediocre players on high wages who we can't get rid off. A number of stars allowed to run down their contracts and leave for pittances. The only one we managed to salvage, Ozil, absolutely pulled down our pants and facked us over with no lube - I can't think of a dumber contract in the entire sport. Then there is all that money wasted on poor transfer targets over the last dozen years or so: the Mustafis, and Xhakas, and Chambers or the world. Kroenke allowed those 2 to run down the club, but the Wenger apologists in particular are now trying to reframe and revise history to make it out like Kroenke was the main problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idiot, if you have two completely diff managers who are both not spending despite deficiencies then it doesn't take a facking rocket scientist to realise the man who hasn't put a penny of his own money into the club is the issue.

Ffs sometimes I wish I was as daft as you so I wouldn't be constantly frustrated with your idiocracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This facking buffoon still thinks Wenger, running a far bigger transfer and wage budget than Spurs, who he finished behind in his last 2 seasons, had no money to spend.
Emery is in a different situation from Wenger. Emery is actually facked because the incompetence of Wenger and Gazidis has left him with less purchasing power than a host of mid-table clubs despite revenue over £400m.

Imagine there are actually still cretins trying to defend Wenger's incompetence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you complete and utter idiot

posted on 10/1/19

comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
But ffp is based amortisation so net spend is irrelevant. Where are do wonder about the ownership investment is paying fees upfront, if necessary. But as most transfers are conducted on a staggered payment basis it’s hard to know whether they have or have needed to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Amortisation is just an accounting technique for the balance sheet. Keep in mind sponsorships are also paid over a number of years and wages are also a fixed cost per season which all affect the profit and loss. Chelsea also run a very top class and very very expensive youth system but for some reason prefer to sell the youth, instead buying other very young players for very high fees.

There is also something called cash flow solvency. As I explained Chelsea are in the same boat as Arsenal for the CL but Arsenal have greater match day revenue. Arsenal are heading for a loss which is why Arsenal are tightening the purse strings until some players whose contracts are ending are off the books. RA is still loading debt. And you will find when 2018/19 close they are getting the cash flow shortfall is paid from RAs pocket just like he has been doing forever. That is the very definition of financial doping and what ffp was designed to prevent.

posted on 10/1/19

Yes and by all accounts it’s what Arsenal are struggling with, Chelsea aren’t because of their player trading.

posted on 10/1/19

comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 18 seconds ago
Yes and by all accounts it’s what Arsenal are struggling with, Chelsea aren’t because of their player trading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Net spend includes player sales! Thats what net means. Buys - Sales = Net Spend.

posted on 10/1/19

Net spend isn’t used in the profit and loss accounts for for ffp, though. There’s also the loan payments they receive from the 30 odd players they have on loan that cover the amortised contracts.

posted on 11/1/19

I know you are trying very hard "ed woodward" to come up with plausible explanations for Chelsea and Man City. But it doesn't wash. As explained in the "times" article printed in July 2018, RA is still subsidising Chelsea and then converting it to debt on the club. Man City are also still finding dubious means to cover their spending. Neither club has the stadium or match day income to cover their spending. Their sponsorships are dubious to say the least. Thats the truth.

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
1 Vote

Average Rating: 1 from 1 vote

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available