That's a fair point Ensil but in seems nearly all clubs are operating like this. In fairness this is an issue we are trying to address. Once our top earners with the clauses go. i.e Lampard, JT, Drogba, Anelka, Malouda etc who are on excess of £100k per week, our wage bill will gradually increase. Anelka will be gone by June 1st and he alone is setting us back £5m per year, when out other senior players soon follow I reckon we'll be down to £150m or so It's an issue that massively concerns me and could get worse with Toure and Aguero reportedly in excess of £200k per week Because of the tax rate etc we simply can't compete with Barca and Real, soon to be Malaga, Anzhi and PSG for top wages
Sorry I think you've misunderstood my point. I was just trying to point out that we perform relatively well compared to how much we spend overall. At least no worse than we should when compared to other teams and the league table. It was a response to you saying we more than make up for our low wages because of our transfers. In response to your turnover argument - it is a fair point that you can spend more if you earn more. But I wouldn't look at turnover as what you earn. That would be profits. I think in your case - the reason for your higher spending is much more to do with a super rich owner rather than turnover. That is the key piece of information you are missing out You are right about money always playing a part. But I think it's fair to say that some have benefited much much more from outside money than others. In some cases IMO the advantage gained is bordering on excessive.
Thank you for your response and I appreciate you smoothing things out. I agree that you perform well given your wage structure as do Everton and Wolves etc. Our owner isn't even in the top 3 wealthiest, it's how you spend it that matters, we are lucky to be in a position whereby our owner has given us a huge loan in order to enable us to redevelop the stadium and invest in playing staff etc In the past our owners have been nowhere near as wealthy as others, same with City so it's swings and roundabouts.
When Abramovich redevelops Stamford Bridge as a load of luxury flats (bar the pitch and turnstiles) and then moves them in with Fulham or QPR, SF.
Abramovich completely wiped out there debt by turning them into shares so although they are debt free there wages are bloody crazy so there losses would put them at serious risk under the FFP rules. Problem is Abramovich could personally finance a new 60k seat stadium ....whether they would be able to fill it is a question for another day though On a seperate note If uefa do nothing about Etihad's sponsorhip of City then expect the FFP rules to be nothing more than a mockery anyway.
Chelsea's debt seems to be a controversial matter. Some seem to think that the debt has been wiped out, whereas others suggest that it hasn't.
On the face of it the FFP will not be able to rein the big boys as they will have a teams of legals finding a multitude of loopholes.
I'm aware of that Ensil, but there are various rumours about how the debt is structured and whether it ever needs to be repaid. I was just offering the balanced view.
Spot on. They have to act if there was ever any intention to curb the extent to which club's can be run irresponsibly, or by a super-rich person(s) that just wants to have a new plaything.
