Chelsea in profit

hhh that is one season man pumped by rare CL win, and commercial deals & selling players

 

Mmmm.

Chelsea will be fine though when complying with FFP.

 

by selling more players every year and winning CL every year

 

Do you even know anything about FFP?

There will be an increase in TV deals and this annual profit DOESN'T include any of our 4-5 new sponsors.

 

I put this on their board.. Will have an impact on profit I believe..


Chelsea FC get Nuclear weapons
ROMAN Abramovich has bought the Trident weapons system as part of a plan to shore up Chelsea’s defences.



The £25 billion price tag represents a club record and sends a signal that Abramovich is serious in his ambitions for Chelsea FC to be feared globally.

Footballologist Wayne Hayes said: “The question is, would Chelsea seriously deploy nuclear warheads to prevent Ashley Young from making a surging run from midfield?

“They’d prevent a certain goal but in the process annihilate London, kill millions of people and condemn many more to a slow, agonising death – and all for three points. Would it be worth it?

“Nuclear weapons can be a strategic boon, but they present managers with big moral decisions, affecting not only the outcome of the match but the survival of humanity.”

Defence expert Stephen Malley said: “This signals the beginning of a football arms race. Arsene Wenger has just maxed out his budget with four broken Chieftain tanks.

“Stoke have converted their restaurant into a laboratory and are hoping to enrich uranium in time for the re-opening of the weapons transfer window.

“And Manchester City’s owners have bought the Star Wars Missile Defence system, but are still working out a way to make it only cover the blue quarter of the City.”

 

TV increase goes for all clubs .. so Chelsea will have less advantage over other clubs like before .. beside this will lead to increase of players price and wages anyway

and again you must be dreaming to think you can keep profits of laughable £1m by selling players for £20m every season and winning CL every season like you did in this account .. how more darker the picture can be ?

 

How do you know this?

What's to stop Chelsea getting 30+ sponsors? and sailing through FFP? (Even though we already comfortably are)

 

Funniest part of that was the idea of Ashley Young making a surging run

 

Yeah it's about as rare as a grant holt goal..

 

1st - chelsea is where they are now bcz you always had an advantage over other clubs in terms of buying and wages .. if you rely on TV now .. other clubs will be as competitive if not more
2nd- that is an economical fact .. if an actor was taking 5m for a film.. bcz it used to make 50m revenue .. he will not demand same if he start seeing his movies starting to make 100m or 200m revenue.. so players wages will increase and sure clubs will be asking for more.. do you think players at 70s or 80s used to be paid same wages as now ? the increase of players wages within time is not even related to inflation but is a lot higher bcz football started to make good money bcz of TV

 

We have the second biggest revenue in England. We don't rely on TV money at all, it's just a bonus.

You're second point is just moronic. Every year Chelsea have been increasing their revenue but their wages don't shoot up? How do you explain this? It's actually gone down in the last few seasons.

Also, you didn't answer my last question. What's to stop Chelsea getting 30+ sponsors like United?

 

Chelsea could get 4,000 sponsors but they still wouldn't bring in as much money as United's 30 sponsors. Put simply, United is a far bigger, global brand. Not that I'm saying that's a good thing, I find the whoring of the United brand very distasteful.

 

Chelsea are no where near as big or successful as United. That's why.

I bet when Chelsea did their account's the money from players sold went straight in as income but players bought was amortised over the length of the contract. Will probably need to sell 20 mil of players each year just to maintain 1 mil profit. Can kiss goodbye to new signing unless a major new source of income is opened up.

 

I'm not doubting that, bt we could still bring in quite a lot of revenue.

In 2008 we signed a 4 year deal with Singha worth 8mil. We have since signed another 5 year deal with them.

Let's say 20 sponsors = 40mil per year. Do you really think we won't comply with FFP?

 

Who honestly gives a s hit.. So what Chelsea have shown a small profit.. Good for them and the rest of football that they are becoming a properly run football club. No Chelsea fans are here arguing they are bigger or better. I can only see it being better for football that they are now living within their means. Sooner city do the same the better.




Pointless thread.


We have a game against villa surely there are better things to bitch about..

 

Not if your wage bill remains so high and you continue to spend 50-100million on transfers every season.

Also as you increase the number of sponsors you reduce the amount you can charge them. Companies will pay through the nose for exclusive sponsorship rights. If they are one of dozens of sponsors then their message becomes diluted and therefore the value of the sponsorship decreases.

I go back to the question as to why it's so important for some Chelsea fans to assert that the modern club and it's recent success is not based on Roman's investment. You got lucky, enjoy your luck instead of pretending that debts being written off and privately funded player purchases haven't taken place.

 

We won't be spending 50-100mil every season anymore though. We had to do it because we waited so long to replace the old guard.

 

My thoughts on the subject, not sure why the Chelsea fan needed to put it on our forum.

 

Why is this on the United board? Is the OP that desperate for attention?

 

Didn't realise it was done by a Chelsea fan.. Thought it was one of us..




Ban this c unt