Cos there in debt Genius, Madrid and Barca owe spanish banks etc loads of money, Man U are also in debt. This then limits them heavily on what they can spend, and you are not allowed to borrow etc forever and Madrid constantly borrow more to spend big amounts on players

Barca are still paying off Henry's fee to Arsenal aren't they?

Your club was sold for a £1.

=====================
Indeed it was, great bit of business ,turning a club worth a pound into the 7th richest in the world.......how gutted do you feel ?

6th actually and only 1.3m euros off arsenal I'll have you know

Oscar............Debt has little to do with it.
The key is Income Versus Expenditure & all of these teams expenditure on wages is only around 50% of turnover, Chelsea's is roughly 122%.....................


Madrid are underwritten by the Madrid Local Authority Financial Guarantee. Any debt could be offset against a mortgage on the Bernabeu................

Barca are similarly underwritten by certain individual shareholders, they also own property & land in Barcelona worth hundreds of millions. Their debt payments reflect less than 20% of their income stream.

You are all quoting income from the CL, however you have almost cancelled this out by your signings who are all on BIG wages..............................your expenditure V Income will still be way too excessive for FFP.

This is not jealousy as stated, it is fact & it is amazing how you guys fail to acknowledge this.

Why not. You are spending more than your club generates through legitimate football business, some dodgy deal with a russian gas/oil company does not consistite money generated by Chelsea FC however much you care to dress it up.
===================
So now sponsorship doesn't count ? ...........you really are making yourself look obtuse Sandy.

That is very true and the club have been working hard to offset high earners for the past 3 summers now, add to that a few new sponsors this summer and I think we could have cut our losses significantly for 2012 in comparison to 2011. I do think that when we release our 2013 or 2014 figures we'll have broke even or near enough and if not we still have many revenue streams to explore

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

When an article is created about Chelsea who would you expect to reply to it thicko? ......Run forest run !!!!
----

Perhaps sot the same 4 or 5 chelsea wums who are always connected 24/7. It's embarrassing.

Campiona....................................Uefa are looking at sponsorship deals and their legitimacy.

For instance City got a deal for naming rights of the Etihad, coincidentally this was from the brother in law of Sheik Mansour.

Chelsea get a deal worth ????????? from Gazprom:

Russian energy giant Gazprom has inked a three-year sponsorship deal with Roman Abramovich's Chelsea football club.

The contract announced late Tuesday commits the company, which is half-owned by the Russian state, to supplying gas and electricity to the European champions.

Neither side disclosed the value of the deal, which comes just over a week after Gazprom became an official UEFA Champions League sponsor through 2015.

"This is another very exciting global partnership for the club, and demonstrates the ever-growing appeal of Chelsea FC," the club quoted chief executive Ron Gourlay as saying.

"Our huge fan base around the world will help Gazprom reach their key markets in Europe and Asia, while we will benefit from their support in developing further our wide-ranging CSR programs," he said, referring to corporate social responsibility.

Abramovich's spending sprees in recent seasons have meant Chelsea are struggling to meet UEFA financial fair play targets.

The regulations encourage clubs to be self-sufficient, spending only what they generate in revenue.

Abramovich sold his stake in oil giant Sibneft to Gazprom in 2005.

As Abramovich no longer owns a stake in Gazprom then this deal might be seen as appropriate.

You are all quoting income from the CL, however you have almost cancelled this out by your signings who are all on BIG wages..............................your expenditure V Income will still be way too excessive for FFP.

No it wont. As I understand it under FFP any signings are averaged out over the terms of the contract I.E a player signed for 50m on a five year deal = 10m per year..this gets even lower if the club extends the players contract.

Gazprom seems fairly legitimate they have sponsored other clubs such as schalke and zenit after all

You are all quoting income from the CL, however you have almost cancelled this out by your signings who are all on BIG wages..............................your expenditure V Income will still be way too excessive for FFP.
----------------------------
Not quite here genius, bar Hazard none of the players we have signed will be getting over something like 100k, i doubt most of them are even touching 80k. That's been the club's strategy of buying players at higher prices but are on lower wages. The big earners have all left/leaving the club too such as Anelka, Drogba, Kalou and probably malouda, benayoun and maybe a few more. As has also been mentioned we've signed something like 2-3 sponsorship deals as well as the CL money. Not saying we've sufficient, but significant strides are being taken to do so

ampiona....................................Uefa are looking at sponsorship deals and their legitimacy.

For instance City got a deal for naming rights of the Etihad, coincidentally this was from the brother in law of Sheik Mansour.

Chelsea get a deal worth ????????? from Gazprom:

Russian energy giant Gazprom has inked a three-year sponsorship deal with Roman Abramovich's Chelsea football club.

The contract announced late Tuesday commits the company, which is half-owned by the Russian state, to supplying gas and electricity to the European champions.

Neither side disclosed the value of the deal, which comes just over a week after Gazprom became an official UEFA Champions League sponsor through 2015.

"This is another very exciting global partnership for the club, and demonstrates the ever-growing appeal of Chelsea FC," the club quoted chief executive Ron Gourlay as saying.

"Our huge fan base around the world will help Gazprom reach their key markets in Europe and Asia, while we will benefit from their support in developing further our wide-ranging CSR programs," he said, referring to corporate social responsibility.

Abramovich's spending sprees in recent seasons have meant Chelsea are struggling to meet UEFA financial fair play targets.

The regulations encourage clubs to be self-sufficient, spending only what they generate in revenue.

Abramovich sold his stake in oil giant Sibneft to Gazprom in 2005.

As Abramovich no longer owns a stake in Gazprom then this deal might be seen as appropriate.
=======================
geniusgreaves, I'm not for one second professing I fully understand FFP and there may well be some twists that could potentially have a detrimental effect . I just think that Chelseas board would not have spent what they have spent if it couldn't be justified.

And I'm pretty sure RA has FA to do with Audi

Herr Abramovitz

I see Sandy has legged it

All this is why it was so sickening for Chelsea to win the champions league last season after finishing 6th

A yr or 2 out of the champions league would of had a massive effect on them instead its us that has suffered big time

It was a massive moment in time for both clubs and we lost out big time and still totally guttes about it all to be honest

season Chelsea have spent roughly £250 million, and have recouped roughly 36 million.

Sandy really?!

you must realise that you are a

You are so wrong i am not even going to correct you!

you mean they spent more ............

Weare.... how is this our fault?

you lost out i get it.

you lose.

you are a loser


you are the sort of person who loses


losing is something you have become accustom to


when you lose all is right in the world


here's to losing

im used to watching Tottenham lose out but that does not make the person a loser

our time will come

no you are right but i was just calling you a loser for the fun of it!