Apparently it doesnt matter where the money comes from anymore, Just ask City and PSG. We've been the only club (out of the clubs that have been financially backed) to comply with FFP.
And to the poster who said we are spending the going rate for average players... Yes we are but whether we spend £250m on 250 players or 2 players, the money is still being spent. We need people who have a clue about football spending that money not Marina Granovskaia.
This is just a footnote to a paragraph on a page in a chapter of a book in a series of books that covers the story of Chelsea.
The page will turn and the story will go on.
If RA can't go to games, or even come into the country, I don't see the attraction for him.
If he sells then we just hope the new owners are good owners like he has been. If he stays, then let’s see what happens next. Chelsea will still be here whatever.
Likely to be sold to asset strippers, I'm afraid.
And I see that as a bad thing, never had a problem with Chelsea as a club.
good, honest supporters
great club philosophy (since the 1960s in fact)
always played the 2nd most entertaining football in the top league
it's bad for the league - although obviously good for united and city - and it will amuse the sad heads that follow the Holloway diving club
No real good will come from this, but we all knew it was coming.
maybe somebody as wealthy, or wealthier, will grab them, but why would anyone do that when there are bigger potential opportunities to get a higher return on capital employed.
No it is not likely to be sold to asset strippers.
Stop talking out of your anu$.
comment by IAmMe (U18491)
posted 36 minutes ago
Likely to be sold to asset strippers, I'm afraid.
And I see that as a bad thing, never had a problem with Chelsea as a club.
good, honest supporters
great club philosophy (since the 1960s in fact)
always played the 2nd most entertaining football in the top league
it's bad for the league - although obviously good for united and city - and it will amuse the sad heads that follow the Holloway diving club
No real good will come from this, but we all knew it was coming.
maybe somebody as wealthy, or wealthier, will grab them, but why would anyone do that when there are bigger potential opportunities to get a higher return on capital employed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Strippers would be great on matchday. Half-time entertainment?
Zappacosta has actually looked pretty good when I've seen him playing. Not sure about his defensive capabilities but he's a threat in attack. Rudiger too did well once he came into the team on a regular basis
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
No it is not likely to be sold to asset strippers.
Stop talking out of your anu$.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be too harsh on him, he's far from the only opposition fan that comes onto the Cheslea board to talk out of their backsides
We're quite used to it here
Superb
This is also on our board and the same poster talks utter $hite on our board.
He thinks our keeper is a clown, for instance.
He probably thinks Messi is crap as well then.
The CPO only came about after the last lot of asset strippers and they are there to safeguard against the next lot, so that poster clearly doesn't have a scooby.
Likely to be sold to asset strippers, I'm afraid.
---------------------------------------------------------------
It's amazing how people still think this in 2018.
We've been self sufficient for years, in the top 10 clubs in the world for commercial revenue, and have the best youth academy in England. What investor in the world would look at this as a bad opportunity?
Worse case scenario would be ending up with an owner who either doesn't care or accepts mediocrity (i.e. Arsenal's situation), but the club will be absolutely fine.
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 1 day ago
comment by RED666👺. (U6562)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
“Abramovich's visa issues.”
There seems a lot of questions need answering by Abramovich it really does seem he’s been running the club with dirty money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the fact we have complied to FFP for nearly a decade and spent what we earn, you are correct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramovich's has allegedly ploughed nearly £2bn into Chelsea, the question is how much of that is dirty money?
As for being FFP compliant for “nearly a decade” just remind me how long has Abramovich owned Chelsea? Plus there seems to be a few loopholes in how to stay compliant!
It's not rocket science red, you take what the club earns and deduct what it's spent. When associating Romans spend they tend to focus on Chelsea's expenditure and ignore income.
JFDI
Like i said there are loopholes!
Absolutely, given the guy has been worth from 7 billion to over 20 during his time with Chelsea I'm pretty sure the paper trail would be pretty tough to follow.
That aside this isn't about dirty money or loopholes if it was it is over a decade late.
comment by RED666👺. (U6562)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 1 day ago
comment by RED666👺. (U6562)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
“Abramovich's visa issues.”
There seems a lot of questions need answering by Abramovich it really does seem he’s been running the club with dirty money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the fact we have complied to FFP for nearly a decade and spent what we earn, you are correct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramovich's has allegedly ploughed nearly £2bn into Chelsea, the question is how much of that is dirty money?
As for being FFP compliant for “nearly a decade” just remind me how long has Abramovich owned Chelsea? Plus there seems to be a few loopholes in how to stay compliant!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check how much revenue Chelsea have earned over the last decade
2013/15 they made massive losses but still managed to be compliant.
I think you've lost yourself now Red.
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 18 minutes ago
I think you've lost yourself now Red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No just showing there are loopholes to stay compliant!
comment by RED666👺. (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 18 minutes ago
I think you've lost yourself now Red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No just showing there are loopholes to stay compliant!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have over simplied FFP rules. There are clearly stated rules over which types of expenditures are exempt from FFP and there is also a timeline consideration so just stating the amount invested in the club is a huge over simplication.
However we know there are loopholes around sponsorship income which PSG exploited.
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 6 minutes ago
However we know there are loopholes around sponsorship income which PSG exploited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PSG know exactly how it’s done.
Sign in if you want to comment
Chelsea
Page 2 of 3
posted on 1/6/18
Apparently it doesnt matter where the money comes from anymore, Just ask City and PSG. We've been the only club (out of the clubs that have been financially backed) to comply with FFP.
And to the poster who said we are spending the going rate for average players... Yes we are but whether we spend £250m on 250 players or 2 players, the money is still being spent. We need people who have a clue about football spending that money not Marina Granovskaia.
posted on 1/6/18
This is just a footnote to a paragraph on a page in a chapter of a book in a series of books that covers the story of Chelsea.
The page will turn and the story will go on.
posted on 1/6/18
If RA can't go to games, or even come into the country, I don't see the attraction for him.
posted on 1/6/18
If he sells then we just hope the new owners are good owners like he has been. If he stays, then let’s see what happens next. Chelsea will still be here whatever.
posted on 1/6/18
Likely to be sold to asset strippers, I'm afraid.
And I see that as a bad thing, never had a problem with Chelsea as a club.
good, honest supporters
great club philosophy (since the 1960s in fact)
always played the 2nd most entertaining football in the top league
it's bad for the league - although obviously good for united and city - and it will amuse the sad heads that follow the Holloway diving club
No real good will come from this, but we all knew it was coming.
maybe somebody as wealthy, or wealthier, will grab them, but why would anyone do that when there are bigger potential opportunities to get a higher return on capital employed.
posted on 1/6/18
No it is not likely to be sold to asset strippers.
Stop talking out of your anu$.
posted on 1/6/18
comment by IAmMe (U18491)
posted 36 minutes ago
Likely to be sold to asset strippers, I'm afraid.
And I see that as a bad thing, never had a problem with Chelsea as a club.
good, honest supporters
great club philosophy (since the 1960s in fact)
always played the 2nd most entertaining football in the top league
it's bad for the league - although obviously good for united and city - and it will amuse the sad heads that follow the Holloway diving club
No real good will come from this, but we all knew it was coming.
maybe somebody as wealthy, or wealthier, will grab them, but why would anyone do that when there are bigger potential opportunities to get a higher return on capital employed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Strippers would be great on matchday. Half-time entertainment?
posted on 1/6/18
Zappacosta has actually looked pretty good when I've seen him playing. Not sure about his defensive capabilities but he's a threat in attack. Rudiger too did well once he came into the team on a regular basis
posted on 1/6/18
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
No it is not likely to be sold to asset strippers.
Stop talking out of your anu$.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be too harsh on him, he's far from the only opposition fan that comes onto the Cheslea board to talk out of their backsides
posted on 1/6/18
We're quite used to it here
posted on 1/6/18
Superb
This is also on our board and the same poster talks utter $hite on our board.
He thinks our keeper is a clown, for instance.
posted on 1/6/18
He probably thinks Messi is crap as well then.
posted on 1/6/18
The CPO only came about after the last lot of asset strippers and they are there to safeguard against the next lot, so that poster clearly doesn't have a scooby.
posted on 1/6/18
Likely to be sold to asset strippers, I'm afraid.
---------------------------------------------------------------
It's amazing how people still think this in 2018.
We've been self sufficient for years, in the top 10 clubs in the world for commercial revenue, and have the best youth academy in England. What investor in the world would look at this as a bad opportunity?
Worse case scenario would be ending up with an owner who either doesn't care or accepts mediocrity (i.e. Arsenal's situation), but the club will be absolutely fine.
posted on 2/6/18
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 1 day ago
comment by RED666👺. (U6562)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
“Abramovich's visa issues.”
There seems a lot of questions need answering by Abramovich it really does seem he’s been running the club with dirty money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the fact we have complied to FFP for nearly a decade and spent what we earn, you are correct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramovich's has allegedly ploughed nearly £2bn into Chelsea, the question is how much of that is dirty money?
As for being FFP compliant for “nearly a decade” just remind me how long has Abramovich owned Chelsea? Plus there seems to be a few loopholes in how to stay compliant!
posted on 2/6/18
It's not rocket science red, you take what the club earns and deduct what it's spent. When associating Romans spend they tend to focus on Chelsea's expenditure and ignore income.
posted on 2/6/18
JFDI
Like i said there are loopholes!
posted on 2/6/18
Absolutely, given the guy has been worth from 7 billion to over 20 during his time with Chelsea I'm pretty sure the paper trail would be pretty tough to follow.
That aside this isn't about dirty money or loopholes if it was it is over a decade late.
posted on 2/6/18
comment by RED666👺. (U6562)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 1 day ago
comment by RED666👺. (U6562)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
“Abramovich's visa issues.”
There seems a lot of questions need answering by Abramovich it really does seem he’s been running the club with dirty money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the fact we have complied to FFP for nearly a decade and spent what we earn, you are correct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramovich's has allegedly ploughed nearly £2bn into Chelsea, the question is how much of that is dirty money?
As for being FFP compliant for “nearly a decade” just remind me how long has Abramovich owned Chelsea? Plus there seems to be a few loopholes in how to stay compliant!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check how much revenue Chelsea have earned over the last decade
posted on 2/6/18
2013/15 they made massive losses but still managed to be compliant.
posted on 2/6/18
I think you've lost yourself now Red.
posted on 2/6/18
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 18 minutes ago
I think you've lost yourself now Red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No just showing there are loopholes to stay compliant!
posted on 2/6/18
comment by RED666👺. (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 18 minutes ago
I think you've lost yourself now Red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No just showing there are loopholes to stay compliant!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have over simplied FFP rules. There are clearly stated rules over which types of expenditures are exempt from FFP and there is also a timeline consideration so just stating the amount invested in the club is a huge over simplication.
posted on 2/6/18
However we know there are loopholes around sponsorship income which PSG exploited.
posted on 2/6/18
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 6 minutes ago
However we know there are loopholes around sponsorship income which PSG exploited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PSG know exactly how it’s done.
Page 2 of 3