Ffp

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Sun_Tea_Car_Zoo_La

Sun_Tea_Car_Zoo_La

Member
May 30, 2011
215
2
18
Bradford
is any other team really bothered about FFP apart from Arsenal, look at Chelsea they are buying a midfielder almost every week!!!
I cant see Uefa giving out any big sanctions, it will probably be a fine which these kind of clubs will have no problem paying or they will just make up sponsorship deals like Man City £400 million Etihad deal..
Lampard
Oscar
ramires
Hazard
Mata
De Bruyn
Van Ginkel
Moses
Mikel
Willian
Essien
Schurlle

I might have missed a couple out there
 
FFP is a load of balls. Chelsea continue to buy top quality midfielders at high prices with high wages, yet have a small stadium and limited revenue. Bloody joke.
 
I know mate, that's exactly what i'm saying, no chance in hell UEFA are going to ban any of these big clubs. I expect them to fine or give them suspended fines
 
A fine for clubs who breach FFP regulations would be the biggest joke in the history of football (after Spurs). It would be tantamount to a bribe: "Let me put all this money into the club and I'll give a cut to UEFA".

Has to be points deductions or expulsion from European competitions.
 
No CL / European football would be the only real deterrent they can put in place as it's an invited competition, and one which the players want to play in.

It would hit the clubs financially & prestige wise. Not sure they can give them points deductions, that's up to the PL to hand out for breaking their rules.
 
They could conceivably deduct points in their Champions League group though right?
 
FFP is going to be useless. The premiership regulations might be more constructive.

There is no doubt that the league do not want 2 under-supported teams like Chelsea and Manchester City to be dominant. This would be very bad for business.
 
London's Only EC Winners said:
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/...tball-money-league/infographic-2013/index.htm

Revenue fifth biggest in Europe. 30m more than Arsenal.\

In top 6 of European revenue earners for a decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League
Click to expand...

You will notice that the revenue came mainly from commercial sources (Abramadaddy) and broadcast revenues due to the CL win.

Their matchday income is some 21M less than Arsenal's. Well over 15% less. Their costs exceed Arsenal's by a significant margin. Essentially Abramovich paid out around 150M to earn an extra 50M or so revenue.

These numbers show exactly why Chelsea are bad for the league. Thanks for posting them.
 
ToledoTrumpton said:
You will notice that the revenue came mainly from commercial sources (Abramadaddy) and broadcast revenues due to the CL win.

Their matchday income is some 21M less than Arsenal's. Well over 15% less. Their costs exceed Arsenal's by a significant margin. Essentially Abramovich paid out around 150M to earn an extra 50M or so revenue.

These numbers show exactly why Chelsea are bad for the league. Thanks for posting them.
Click to expand...

Ahead of Arsenal for revenue pre-Abramovich, 99/00, 00-01 and 01/2. Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument
 
London's Only EC Winners said:
Ahead of Arsenal for revenue pre-Abramovich, 99/00, 00-01 and 01/2. Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is here. Arsenal have grown over the last 15 years. I quite often point out that Arsenal were no bigger than half a dozen clubs before Wenger, and that we have grown not because of, but perhaps despite our owner. I attribute our growth to Wenger, but others may pick a different person.

I don't see why that is relevant to the current size of the clubs or their support.
 
Same list was posted on the BBC not long ago I think. I was surprised at both Chelsea's and Liverpool's rank in that. I thought Liverpool had a bigger fan base in Asia.
 
gent said:
Same list was posted on the BBC not long ago I think. I was surprised at both Chelsea's and Liverpool's rank in that. I thought Liverpool had a bigger fan base in Asia.
Click to expand...

Chelsea have been hammering the Asia market for a while and our matches sell out quicker than Liverpool's.

Winning the European cup helps.

When arsenal win it, your support will probably overtake Chelsea
 
London's Only EC Winners said:
Chelsea have been hammering the Asia market for a while and our matches sell out quicker than Liverpool's.

Winning the European cup helps.

When arsenal win it, your support will probably overtake Chelsea
Click to expand...

Safe for a while then <wah>

I always felt that FFP was doomed, there will always be ways around it ("sponsorship deal"), sadly as in life there will be those who toe the line and others who will find ways around it.
 
London's Only EC Winners said:
Chelsea have been hammering the Asia market for a while and our matches sell out quicker than Liverpool's.

Winning the European cup helps.

When arsenal win it, your support will probably overtake Chelsea
Click to expand...


I take it, that you weren't aware of our recent -hugely successful- preseason tour of Asia. Sold out stadiums in Jakarta(pulled in a much larger crowd than even Arsenal Managed to), Thailand, Australia ( sold out a full capacity of 95000 in less than 25mins!).

We have a huge fanbase in Asia. Chelsea has a large following in Africa, down to the fact that you've had some big African names in your squad over the years. But it's not particularly the most attractive for PR or Marketing though. Arsenal And Us have the stronghold in Asia along with ManU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back