Lets start by saying this is not a competition on who is better on the pitch as even Rio could work that one out.
As we speak I am arguing with a Liverpool fan who started by laughing at Terry ban and then proceeding with the classic "Chelsea will not get into the Champions League because of FFP" and "Chelsea have terrible revenue".
I objected to this and I understand that Chelsea actually earn more than Liverpool as shown by this article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16951878 . Please can someone clarify this and feel free to continue the argument.
This is not a dig at Liverpool fans as this is merely a very bitter individual that would rather see Chelsea lose than Liverpool win but I am still interested in the debate. Sorry for the dig at the start.
Chelsea VS Liverpool
posted on 27/7/12
comment by Sideshow™ (U11809)
posted 13 minutes ago
Read this;
http://www.weaintgotnohistory.com/2012/7/25/3186862/chelsea-fc-are-beating-ffp-in-6-simple-steps
------------------------------
1) contracts pre-2010 can only be ignored if two other criteria are met, one of which is proof the losses are decreasing, and the other I don't quite understand. The wording is:-
It proves that the aggregate break-even deficit is only due to the annual break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 which in turn is due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010 (for the
avoidance of doubt, all renegotiations on contracts undertaken after such date would not be taken into account).
2) you cannot rely 100% on resale value of younger players as you cannot guarantee how they will develop or what injuries they will sustain. given the massive amounts you paid for the likes of lukaku, any resale value will be minimal.
3) again takes resale value into account which cannot be relied upon.
4) the only point which makes sense. it is better to buy now while the levels of loss are at their highest rather than having to make big money purchases down the line.
5 & 6) technically the same point, and very similar to resale value for players. you can fill your youth teams with as many kids as you want, it doesn't mean any will break through into the first team. liverpool have had some promising kids come through in recent years but never made the jump to the first team. it is a big risk replacing an established player with a youth product especially for a top team who can't afford to drop many points over a season.
the whole report is hopeful but not based on 100% probability.
posted on 27/7/12
Theres this big myth that we were "nothing" before Roman but in reality it was Matthew Harding that saved us. Although we had to pay every penny back thus crippling the club financially we wouldn't be where they were without that investment.
I believe from 1997-2000 we had the players to win the league but unfortunately not the mentality.
In 97/98 we were front runners in the title race and 2nd but had a terrible 2nd half of the season which subsequently led to a fall out between Gullit and Bates and the sacking of the former.
In 98/99 we finished 4 points off the title and dominated United in both league games we played them but in typical Chelsea fashion we threw it away by losing to West Ham at home and then surrendering a 2-0 lead to midtable Leicester having been 2-0 up with 8 mins to go looking comfortable.
In 1999/00 we had CL football and got to the QF, it more than took its toll on our league form though. We started that season abysmally.
The facilities were poor until Hardings investment but then we turned it around and Roman took us to the next level
posted on 27/7/12
There are a lot of misconceptions about Chelsea FC due to false media reporting
posted on 27/7/12
comment by Lucas The Destroyer - Borini Is World (U11770)
posted 12 minutes ago
Wow, i thought your facilities were awful before abramovich came in, what were you doing with all that money
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We spent a long and expensive legal battle to win the right to stay at stamford bridge, we then rebuilt the ground, stand by stand (except the East Stand) completing it the season before Roman arrived. And whilst doing that we bought in Hodlle, Gullit, Vialli, Di Matteo, Zola etc and started consolodating our position in top flight football, we weren't hanging around doing nothing.
I know you guy's think we have no history but honestly, it might not be anywhere near illustrious as yours but we have it
posted on 27/7/12
@comment by Big Ears ™
you overspent for years chasing success with cash you didn't have and then went bankrupt.
Then Roman saved you from administration and pumped in a half billion or so quid to take you to the next level.
posted on 27/7/12
Aardave, we could go around all night, I have no idea how Liverpool are set for FFP but I am not comcerned with our position.
posted on 27/7/12
comment by redconn > (U5676)
posted 2 minutes ago
@comment by Big Ears ™
you overspent for years chasing success with cash you didn't have and then went bankrupt.
Then Roman saved you from administration and pumped in a half billion or so quid to take you to the next level.
-----------------------------------------------
Could argue the same when Bates bought us for a quid.
posted on 27/7/12
I wish we went bankrupt by overspending on players
Instead we went bankrupt funding high interest acquisition loans during a sustained period of negative spend on players
At least you had 'good' irresponsible financials
posted on 27/7/12
We were in a worse state under Mears than we ever were under Bates. Rumour Has it that beating you to CL meant we would have been okay anyway but had we not made CL we would most likely have gone into administration.
Liverpool were 24 hours from administration and insolvency and still spending £20m on players so you can't talk redconn
posted on 28/7/12
Lost all faith in football the day fans started arguing over club revenue and such, can't help but feel Chelsea's millions created this problem