Unfortunately you do not get awarded extra premiership points for good housekeeping so you'll have to settle for the Kudos you believe it brings
This is true, but the financial fair play regulations UEFA are bringing in will mean that clubs like Chelsea and City will have to make sure that they are earning more in operating profits than they are spending on transfers and wages over a 3 year period. Needless to say at present neither City or Chelsea are doing that.
although we are in debt as is every team in the prem,we do make a profit every year after paying wages etc.once this new fifa sanction comes in.you will see the ones who are buying the title will be going bye bye very soon.man citeh.chelski.im no city banker or money expert but i know the difference between "in debt" and "bankrupt".nough said.
They don't really though. banning those clube from European competition is a last resort. It will never come to fruition, as shown by Chelsea and City continuing to bid big for top players. What's interesting is that UEFA have said that incurring losses is acceptable, provided that the clubs concerned show signs of reducing their losses annually. So, in theory, City could spend £400 million this summer and incur a huge loss and then spend a little less in future summers, thus reducing their losses.
Well I say if people want the game to be fair in monetary terms lets make all grounds capacities the same then there will be no bully bourgeoisie to cry about unearned money and the game can then be regulated properly. But the bourgeoisie don't want that do they!
If you want all ground capacities to be the same, then why don't Chelsea increase their capacity to match that of Old Trafford? After all, it's not like Roman can't afford to do this. But 30,000 empty seats for every home game wouldn't go down very nicely, would it? That's what fans don't get. Old trafford isn't just the biggest due to financial muscle (Emirates certainly cost more). It's the biggest due to simple supply and demand theory. Chelsea aren't going to attract 76,000 fans, no matter how much financial doping goes into the playing side, so why bother trying?
United are in operating profit (which is what matters for financial fair play). The club is a profitable organisation. If it wasn't, it would go bust as they don't have an Arab or a Russian buying their way to the top, do they?
For clubs like us its impossible due to space but for others who possibly could probably cannot due to financial reason's. Personally I'm for leaving it as it is but all we hear is this cry from bourgeoisie clubs and their fickle fans that its not fair! I'm only putting forward a suggestion that would be a part of a regulation to make things an even playing field for everybody. All I'm saying is you can't have it both ways, or like the Tory party the rich will just get richer. You cry for fairness and equality but want it looking down from ivory towers.
We don't need it both ways. I'm all for a motion that would see Stamford Bridge hold 76,000 fans. Because it would show up how popular Chelsea really are. Yes, there might be some protests against such a move but if Chelsea really wanted a 76,000 seater ground, they would have it, given the owner they have. Chelsea couldn't sell their ground out but I am all for every club in England extending their capacity to 76,000 in the interest of fairness.
I think other clubs couldn't do it due to not being able to fill the stadium. As Arsenal showed, it is perfectly possible to raise the debt to finance a stadium expansion and pay the interest out of the extra ticket revenue. The capacity thing is demonstrated by the fact that Utd and Arsenal, the two clubs with the largest stadia in the EPL, are also the two clubs with the fewest empty seats at games, on average. And even if all stadiums were the same size, clubs like Utd and Arsenal would still be able to charge higher prices and make more revenue cos they will be able to skim the richest fans from their larger fanbase. Also, how far down the league structure will we maintain this equal stadium capacity? Do you have to make your stadium smaller if you get relegated, so the Championship is also fair? Ultimately football is never going to be completely fair - clubs like Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal will always be bigger than clubs without the same history and global brand. Even if they don't have the advantage in money, they will have the advantage in terms of being able to attract players. But there are a lot of things that could reasonably be done to even the playing field. FFP is one of them, as is distributing the CL and EL revenue throughout the whole of football, with the qualifiers only getting nominal bonuses for their success in the competition. Also a salary cap would help, although the image rights thing would probably be used to get round it, and the EU would probably come along and **** it all up. Still, the fact that football can't be made completely fair doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Also, wasn't the main reason for FFP that UEFA was worried about clubs being in danger of failing, rather than being too successful? IIRC UEFA didn't have a huge problem with Chelsea, for example, buying their way to success, but they were worried about what would happen if Abramovich suddenly stopped financing them, leaving the club facing similar problems to those faced by Leeds and Portsmouth at various points over the last decade or so. In fact, the FFP regulations are only a strengthening of the existing regulations - Pompey were refused a UEFA license last season cos they were in administration. All FFP does is mean that clubs that are putting themselves at risk of administration, or are effectively being saved from administration by regular cash injections from an outside source, are also at risk of being refused a license.
I don't think you can use the Leeds Utd model against Chelsea as we only have a small residual debt. UEFA's FFP is unfair to smaller clubs as it is designed to keep the bourgeoisie in their ivory towers. QPR or clubs of that ilk even if the had a sustained period of success would never get bigger crowds or the revenue of Arsenal etc so therefore are destined to relative obscurity in financial matters.
Well no, the entirety of Abramovich's debt is still owed by Fordstam Plc, which owns Chelsea. So you have a very large residual debt, and if Abramovich wants it back the club will still end up having to pay him. The key difference is you owe all your money to one man, not to a bank. Not really. Like I said above, it only extends the existing rules. Besides which, in 2009/10 Liverpool would also have missed out on FFP due to their loss of £25 million. And even without FFP the "ivory tower" clubs as you call them are still very much dominant - for all Chelsea's spending they have still been markedly less successful than Utd since the Abramovich takeover. Also, how does FFP make it any less fair? It just means that any one club can be shot above all its peers purely to achieve the aims of some bored billionaire. You may claim that's more "fair" for the club that is pushed up the division, but how is it fair for the other 10-20 clubs that are forced downwards and even further away from Europe and the trophies?
Chelsea owe nothing to Fordstam or Abramovich as the statement issued on the 19th May 2010 below CLUB STATEMENT ON FINANCE Posted on: Wed 19 May 2010 Chelsea Football Club has released a statement today (Wednesday) following media stories on club finance. The statement reads: 'Contrary to media reports today, other than a small residual balance Chelsea Football Club and our parent company Chelsea FC plc are debt free and do not owe any money to our shareholder (Fordstam Ltd). Neither do we owe any money to Roman Abramovich.' Chelsea's rise to prominence has involved considerable cost of course as its been done quickly as opposed to the 40 years it took united to outspend everybody else to achieve the same ends. But I love your bitter statement about Roman being a bored billionaire Bored enough to have set up a dynasty for his son to take over one day and his heirs too. Doesn't sound like boredom to me?
Yes. But Fordstam owes £700 million to Abramovich. It's all a bit complicated, but the best example is if you consider Chelsea FC to be like a house, with Fordstam as the owner. There is no mortgage on the house, but the owner still has over £700 million of personal debt. And as Abramovich is the only shareholder in Fordstam, he is free to demand the money back from Fordstam, and hence Chelsea, at any time. I'm not saying that he ever will. Based on his past form it seems unlikely that he has any sort of long term plan to make the club pay the money back out of future profits whilst he is still the owner. But the debt is still there, and if Abramovich or his heirs ever came to sell the club it's a fair bet he'd want the money back. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not trying to have a pop (unlike you of course ). I'm going on statements made by one of Abramovich's aides / business partners around the time of the takeover. They basically said he was bored of being so restricted in the actions he took in Russia. He couldn't invest any of his money in anything particularly high profile as he'd risk Putin seeing him as a political threat and locking him up like he did to Khordokovsky. So he looked for investments elsewhere where he would have free reign to spend, and build his empire like you said, out of the shadow of the Russian government.
If Liverpool's ticket prices were as high as ours they wouldn't sell 76,000 either!! At the end of the day, United and Liverpool have both benefited from long term success that increased their fan base and have benefited from Irish fans adopting them also. Chelsea aren't as popular as these clubs, probably never will be. However if we carry on as we are, there is no reason why we couldn't fill a bigger stadium. We're realistically never going to be as big as United but so what??
Wrong 'Contrary to media reports today, other than a small residual balance Chelsea Football Club and our parent company Chelsea FC plc are debt free and do not owe any money to our shareholder (Fordstam Ltd). Neither do we owe any money to Roman Abramovich.' Love the rummour bit from a Russian aide
