Their new owners will continue to fund them?

I demand to speak to an accountant who can explain this!!

I always said when spurs fans were talking about Chelsea as If they were nothing, wait til the new owner arrives.

Roman wanted assurances on spending/investment in the squad so spending, and spending big after the big debt got cleared, was inevitable. Romans loan was interest free I'm sure and hardly the big deal it was made out to be....when the club was run on oil and steel money

Stirling, ake and koulibaly are top class signings with real pedigree. Hard to see spurs passing them if they get them deals through. I'd also expect a striker to arrive.

When you compare Chelsea defence and mf it seems way better than spurs tbh. Still time for both sides to spend and maybe sway things but I'd be shocked if chelseas signings didn't overshadow spurs. They should do when they are so much further forward in their squad development

This would never be an article when Utd were relevant in the grand scheme?
But now it is.

How the mighty fall.

comment by ...TUX... (U22398)
posted 5 minutes ago
This would never be an article when Utd were relevant in the grand scheme?
But now it is.

How the mighty fall.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

We did similar articles on here about Chelsea and City when SAF was still manager.

Thanks for your continual poor input, though.

Koulibaly and Sterling for about £80m yet Koulibaly, Sterling and Ake will be near £150m? Lol

You are missing a lot I'm afraid. Nothing has been written off, the debt was covered in the sale, Roman won't see it because he is sanctioned. Just about anything and everything relating to Chelsea under Roman is covered by the 4 billion plus that the new owners paid for the club. You really need the help of a corporate accountant if you want to fully understand what's happened but in short, the above.

Anyone reason you stopped at 3 seasons and didn’t include the season before when chelsea made £100 million profit?

Doesn’t FFP only cover a rolling 3 year period.

But even with your logic then of going back an extra year and including that 100m. Net loss as a business of 50m

Just net spent 100m+

comment by Raheemer (U5245)
posted 8 minutes ago
Koulibaly and Sterling for about £80m yet Koulibaly, Sterling and Ake will be near £150m? Lol
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I for some reason thought koulibaly was 45 not 35 so 85 for those two plus ake apparently 40+ is what 125.

125 net this year
-1 net last
210 net year before

334m net spend from a business who’s last 3 books show a business making a loss reliant on fordham to stay afloat.

So I ask again, what’s the point of FFP?

Clubs are permitted to spend up to €5 million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed that level to a limit if it is covered by a direct contribution from the club's owner.

Chelsea are one of the biggest earning clubs in Europe, have you been living under a rock for the last ten years?

Seems only City are subject to FFP rules these days.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 20 minutes ago
Chelsea are one of the biggest earning clubs in Europe, have you been living under a rock for the last ten years?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No

In 18/19 they made a loss of 96m
In 19/20 they made a 32m profit
In 20/21 they made a loss of 145m

So in a rolling 3 year period that’s a loss of 210m

How is that FFP compliant and clearly not “doped” by owner?

Now unless 21-22 which is due out shortly is going to show a 300m profit how can they now be throwing another 125m net spend on top of it?

I guess I figured that in recent times Chelsea had become pretty much self sufficient but clearly they were still being massively doped by Roman

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 37 minutes ago
Chelsea are one of the biggest earning clubs in Europe, have you been living under a rock for the last ten years?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not even in the top 6.

Didn’t realise there were only six rich clubs in Europe.

“One of” means top 6

Everybody no this

Love it that a utd fan is complaining about high transfer and wages.

Anyway... I think all clubs struggled during covid. So I'm pretty sure they changed the rules to reflect that. Looks like utd were similarly affected
https://www.statista.com/statistics/383903/manchester-united-profit-loss/

be careful when looking at sites like transfermarkt too they put some player sales on the u23 page, so 23m for guehi etc wont be accounted for.

Another 3 transfers expected after we complete the deals for Ake and Koulibaly. Probably end up spending £250m. New owners mean business.

They did the change the rules for Covid.

They allowed teams to roll 20 and 21 into a single year

So 17/18 - profit of 60m
18/19- loss of 96m
19/20+20/21 combined loss of 113m

Rolling “three” year loss of 146m. Way above the allowed 30m euro loss.

Also I’m not “complaining” hence me asking if I’m missing something because this seems to be completely non-compliant with FFP

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 37 minutes ago
Chelsea are one of the biggest earning clubs in Europe, have you been living under a rock for the last ten years?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not even in the top 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are if you discount clubs like City who are sponsored by their owners

comment by Raheemer (U5245)
posted 3 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 37 minutes ago
Chelsea are one of the biggest earning clubs in Europe, have you been living under a rock for the last ten years?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not even in the top 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are if you discount clubs like City who are sponsored by their owners
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange comment considering Chelsea have literally been sponsored by its owners for the last 2 decades 🤨

Simple, grease the palms of those that matter and these things will miraculously disappear and be forgotten about.

Their awful little club is built on cheating and dodgy business practice.