Chelsea announce record losses

All I can say is that if Abramovich ever decides to pull out anytime soon then Chelsea are is serious serious trouble because its not likely that anyone is willing to take on a club with their wage structure and serious debt like that. Wonder if the government will buy their training ground from them for stupid amounts like a certain Real Madrid :D
 
Chelsea will never make a profit if they continue to throw lavish amounts of money for transfers, its all small change for Abramovich though.
 
Last edited:
£140M losses on a turnover of £146M :eek:

I suppose thats just a couple of days interest on his billions though.

Losing £23m on Veron should be down as an 'inevitable' rather than an 'exceptional' item ;)
 
Jazz said:
Takes the mick doesn't it that they are able to make such loss and still able to brush it off like it isn't that bad.
As mentioned, by G|mppy our aim is to break even in 2009/10. That's an executive decision which basically means RA ain't going nowhere. Buck & Kenyon state that the first part of the plans have been achieved. Success on the pitch had to come first, achieved. Wage & transfer bill reduced, achieved. It's still a big target they've set but the man with the purse strings who's already spent over £400m on the club doesn't care, so why should anyone else care about the finances?:)
Jazz said:
A breath of fresh air for football this club are ;)
Indeed they are. Maybe not to an Arsenal fan who's enjoyed years of playing PL tennis with Man.U., but to plenty of others they are. It's not entirely our fault you're crap now you now;)
 
JohnnyG said:
As mentioned, by G|mppy our aim is to break even in 2009/10. That's an executive decision which basically means RA ain't going nowhere. Buck & Kenyon state that the first part of the plans have been achieved. Success on the pitch had to come first, achieved. Wage & transfer bill reduced, achieved. It's still a big target they've set but the man with the purse strings who's already spent over £400m on the club doesn't care, so why should anyone else care about the finances?:)

Didn't PK say last year they hoped to break even within 2 years? Chelsea could be royally screwed if new rules are introduced to tie wages into turnoever, or some kind of debt related competition structure.
 
Dunno to be honest:/ I'm only going by the club's latest statement & financial plans wouldn't be made public without the consent of the head of finance(RA), if he's happy so what?
Assuming the type of rules you mention were to be introduced I'd guess they would be by the FA or PL & they wouldn't dream of doing anything that would be to the financial detriment of any 'big' club, they're gutless:)
 
I cant see RA walking away from them for a good few years yet

Although is he did they would be up **** creek
 
Still in a big debt though;)
Rumours are that Barca are going to offer big money for him. The money's obviously no object, but if the player wants to go, he can. More worrying is the fact that Gallas looks set to leave. He's always said that he wants to finish his career abroad (Italy I think) & it seems that time is coming:(
 
MU's debt is sustainable though, since they are making such humongous profits. It did make me laugh the way the media tried to put some negative spin on the profit they announced, going on about a £12.3m decline :) The fact is, they made a £46m profit for that time period, and I can't think of any other club which is making that kind of dough - especially considering the fact that they didn't actually win anything that year.

That said, Chelsea's debt is probably sustainable as well, as I can't see RA going anywhere in the near future. Expenditure on players is naturally at it's highest when he first takes over, and then the new manager comes in, but I doubt they are gonna be averaging £100m/year on players for ever.

As Kenyon pointed out, there's also things to take into consideration such as they huge £25m payoff they gave Umbro - without the benefit of the new sponsorship deal with Samsung being taken into consideration.

Chelsea will continue to make a loss due to their massive wagebill, but lets not forget that players typically only have contracts lasting 3-5 years, so if the benefactors funds were to dry up, in the long term it wouldn't be a big deal, they could simply sell a couple of players and if necessary allow the big earners' contracts to expire over time.
 
I wondered who would bring this up and its no surprise its a suffering gooner.
Actually the losses have been taken in this year to bring on the turn around faster.
They are paying Bills that need not be payed at this time but are aiming to be in the Black asap.
I think seeings as we are Number one and performing like the Champions we are these losses and our inevitable move into the Black will happen sooner rather than later.

Yes i am Gloating. You Gooners and Mancs had your time and now its ours. Be happy for us. especially gooners as at least its another London club holding the title rather than those fake fanned Mancs.
 
Last edited:
Wengers take on it all. I do think to a certain extent Chelsea are fubarring up the Transfer market. It's inevitable that if they have virtually limitless spending power clubs are going to hold out to get more. Take Shaun Wright Philips - I'm 99.9% certain he would have joined us Gooners if Chelsea hadn't bid all that money for him which he clearly isn't worth.

Anyway here's Wenger lol ....quoted from Sky Sports

Arsene Wenger has outlined his belief that clubs should be restricted to spending within their natural limits, after Chelsea posted a mammoth loss of £140 million for last year.

The Blues have altered the financial landscape of English football under Roman Abramovich, and their extravagant spending has led Arsenal boss Wenger to previously declare them to be 'financially doped'.

The Russian's almost bottomless resources have seen Chelsea maintain a dominant position in the transfer market, but Wenger - an Economics graduate - believes that clubs should only be able to spend what they can naturally afford to.

"The rules should be that you live with your natural resources," said Wenger.

"They have no financial compulsory rules. We all dream of that.

"If we lose £140 million, we are bust. They can afford to make a loss if they can budget to get it back in two or three years with a plan.

"It is only in football you can imagine that. If you had that in another business it would put too much pressure on the market."

However Chelsea have a long term plan to become profitable, despite their immense initial outlay, and the Gunners boss believes such a policy is prudent for the long term health of his London rivals.

"It is normal that they do that, because for the club's sake they cannot imagine that Abramovich will be there for 100 years," said Wenger.

"So they have at some stage to try to balance their own budget.

"Maybe Abramovich makes immediate calculations that he puts for five years £150 million in, and through that success they will generate more income, and that income will then allow them to balance, and him to put less money in."

Despite Wenger's feelings of inadequacy in the face of Chelsea's financial power, the Gunners gained two notable advantages over their rivals in the January transfer window.

Arsenal beat The Blues to the signing of Southampton wonderkid Theo Walcott, as he turned down the riches on offer at Stamford Bridge to join his idol Thierry Henry, and also saw off interest from Jose Mourinho to land Abou Diaby from Auxerre.

However Wenger still concedes that his Portuguese rival holds all the aces in the transfer market.

"When I contact a club and say, `Listen I am interested in your player', you all know what answer I get. `Thank you very much, Chelsea is on the case as well'.

"It is like that everywhere - even in South America.

"I tell them, `First try to sell him to Chelsea, and then call me back'."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom