Football Banter

still answered not where the £70m+ came from for torres and luiz? also dont forget the £25m to payoff scolari and his staff. chelsea and like other companies have a pr department which produces more spin than a sharne warne "wrong'un".

after spending £70m+ chelsea would fail the ufea financial fair play rules.

debt is not bad but not keeping control the debt is bad.

i think lindor mentioned if these billionaires suddenly left what would happen? well the clubs would go into administration. some would out of it but some would go bust and cease to be football clubs. the people i feel sorry for are the non-football staff eg tea lady, receptionist.

(22-03-2011 22:54 )bigguy01 Wrote:  still answered not where the £70m+ came from for torres and luiz? also dont forget the £25m to payoff scolari and his staff.

It was actually £12m rather than the exaggerated £25m you claim. Plus the sum has been accounted for already in Chelsea's accounts for 2008-09. Contrary to what you imply, Chelsea do not owe Mr Scolari or his staff any money and nor do Chelsea have any debts arising from having made those payments.

(22-03-2011 22:54 )bigguy01 Wrote:  debt is not bad but not keeping control the debt is bad.

Chelsea have no debt to control. The last club accounts show and emphasise that Chelsea FC is debt free.

so where did the £70m for torres and luiz come from?

(22-03-2011 19:51 )lindor Wrote:  From next season clubs will only be allowed to spend a certain percentage of their gate receipts on players' wages and transfer fees etc (or something along those lines) which will be interesting. So if Manchester City for one want to keep hold of their current squad of over-paid under-achievers then they'd better get cracking on building that 780,000 capacity stadium pretty sharpish!
Like the old Chinese proverb says "we live in interesting times..."

Exactly the reason I think J.W Henry should stop fucking about with the stadium debate & just throw some bricks, mortar & steels into Stanley Park & build a 80,000 capacity stadium & if the man himself would like to come in & read the Babeshows Football Banter & Liverpool threads, all he needs to do is ask & he'll be told "YES OF FUCKIN COURSE WE'LL FILL IT EVERY OTHER WEEK"!!!

malicious fan I have thought this many a times, how the hell are Chelsea gonna recoup all the roubles Roman has spent, they will have to do the treble every season for the next... Fuck knows how many seasons!!!

(22-03-2011 20:25 )Regenerated Wrote:  There are many teams these days spending way above their means. Clubs that are in the red can keep operating as a business because the banks / financiers recognise that the club is a brand, and that there are high chances of any loans being able to be paid back.

Yup, this very reason is why I was shitting one when Tommy fuckin Pricks was trying to use the very reasons in your post to keep his dirty mits on our sleeping giant of a football club.

Some good posts on this point boy, well done chaps

(22-03-2011 23:41 )bigguy01 Wrote:  so where did the £70m for torres and luiz come from?

I would say from Roman Abramovich's £11.2 billion fortune.

(22-03-2011 23:46 )Master Yoda Wrote:  

(22-03-2011 23:41 )bigguy01 Wrote:  so where did the £70m for torres and luiz come from?

I would say from Roman Abramovich's £11.2 billion fortune.

if so does that make it a loan to chelsea?

where is a different take on jt press conference
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footbal...meant.html

i would give man utd and man city a few years before they have to seel their players to service any debt

Yoda ^^^^^^ .... In a nutshell!!!

(22-03-2011 23:53 )bigguy01 Wrote:  if so does that make it a loan to chelsea?

Roman Abramovich owns Chelsea so how can it be a loan??

He is investing his own money in his company. It's not a loan.

(23-03-2011 00:00 )Master Yoda Wrote:  Roman Abramovich owns Chelsea so how can it be a loan??

He is investing his own money in his company. It's not a loan.

he owns the hold company and the holding company owns chelsea fc. owners can loan their businesses money. what the sheik at man city class it has a "gift" therefore man city do not pay it back.

(23-03-2011 00:06 )bigguy01 Wrote:  he owns the hold company and the holding company owns chelsea fc. owners can loan their businesses money. what the sheik at man city class it has a "gift" therefore man city do not pay it back.

This is just the way people in that part of the world use their words.

These two situations are both the same, some dude has bought the club & put up a shit load of money without thinking about it as they have more money than they will ever need, but since the resession has hit it's these type of individuals that have lost millions & the very same reason they won't be spending silly money every year.
The £70m I think would've been what Roman had planed for the next two windows January & the summer but thought it was vital to spend it all in January given the way the season has panned out & given the rise of City & Tottenham so I would be surprised if Chelsea spend more than £10-£15m in the summer, City will probably sell 2 or 3 players & then spend another silly amount which will be £20-£30m on top of what they recoup???