Maybe. But Arsenal's ticket prices are higher and they still sell 60,000 I know accounting is a difficult concept to understand, but it's really quite simple: Chelsea and Chelsea FC do not owe any money to Fordstam. Chelsea and Chelsea FC do not owe any money to Abramovich. But Fordstam owes a hell of a lot of money to Abramovich. And Fordstam owns Chelsea. It's similar to the PIKs used by the Glazers to buy United. They weren't issued by the club, and the club weren't liable for the debt. But the money was still owed to the banks, and if the Glazers hadn't been able to pay them off then United would have been the ones left holding the bag. Oh, and I remembered a quote from Abramovich to back up what his aide said: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3039750.stm "I don't want to throw my money away, but it's really about having fun" Sounds like a bored billionaire to me But that's not to say that's a bad thing - most rich people who buy football clubs often do it cos they are bored with just making money and want to enjoy it.
Wrong: A spokesman for the club confirmed that: “Recapitalisation of loans happened at the level of Chelsea FC plc, not the holding company (Fordstam), therefore making the football club debt free. BTW a bitter BBC article from 2003 doesn't cut any ice either but a good try nonetheless
I dunno - on the one hand the bored money man will spend on the team, but if the team becomes too dependent on his spending then they may collapse when it stops (like Blackburn after Walker stopped spending and Newcastle after John Hill). H&G is a bad example as they failed to boost Liverpool's revenues enough, but the Glazers have, imo, introduced much better financial discipline and faster revenue growth to Utd, and when they finally come to sell we will be far and away the richest and most profitable club in the PL. And of course the Glazers haven't hindered our success since their takeover, so that's a win-win situation for us, although season ticket holders will obviously disagree due to the price increases. Lol, keep that head firmly buried in the sand! Is that the same as the club statements that Mourinho and Wilkins left under "mutual consent" Ah, I see. Anyone who discusses Chelsea without loving them is now bitter. Is that the new "mantra"?
Yes by selling the best player United ever had then used the money to pay off the interest on the massive PIK loans. Them there Glazers certainly do know how to milk a cow don't they
It's your club and your opinion and of course he didn't put in the length of service that others did but for a couple of seasons he was as good as anything i've seen in English Football. He's certainly the best United player to play under Fergie in my view though Giggs, Scholes etc were more important due to the number of games they played for you.
Careful. If you shove your head any further down you'll get sand in your vagina And selling one of our top players for a massive profit seems like much better business than paying £18 million to sack your most successful manager of all time. I still haven't got round to writing Roman a thank you letter for than one! Maybe that's the view from looking out but I know of plenty of Utd fans who wouldn't even have him in their greatest all time XI. He was a quality player, but not consistent enough and had to make the team all about him. I agree that no one will fully match it without achieving a similar level of success, but Arsenal have emulated it pretty well, and Liverpool are looking to copy it as well. It's quite instructive that if you look at the Football Money League in 2006 the revenues were: Utd: 246 million Euros Chelsea: 220 million Euros Liverpool: 181 million Euros Arsenal: 171 million Euros And in 2011: Utd: 350 million Euros Arsenal: 274 million Euros Chelsea: 256 million Euros Liverpool: 225 million Euros So over the last five years both Liverpool and Arsenal have increase their revenue by more than Chelsea, in spite of both clubs having won no trophies at all in this time and Chelsea having won two PL titles, the double and reached the CL final. And Utd have left you trailing in our wake. Even Spurs and Villa have managed more revenue growth than Chelsea. That's the impact of having to grow your revenues in order to spend, rather than just relying on the big man at the top to throw cash at you.
barely spent in the past few years and as swarbs points out.......ronaldo money. consider this thread a fail and move on.
Wow some crap in this thread. Chelsea wont ever come close to Liverpool or United. United and Liverpool are institutions who set standards and the rest follow. This isnt because we were brutal and evil. Its because we did our talking either on the pitch, off it or both. Ronaldo as a player is easily one of the best to ever play for United. His contribution isnt as good as many many players but comparing player to player he is top 10, perhaps top 5 without doubt. Some would say he is the best. Chelsea would struggle to fill a stadium of Newcastles size for more than half their games in a season btw.
When you are investing, net doesn't come into it does it, net spend is a nice way of saying your club is doing financialy but doesn't tell us one litle bit how much ye spent. City have yet to start making their returns, ye have been well established for the last how many years so yeah net spend will be good, so will City have a good net spend in a few years after the initial outlay of cash. Chelseas is better than it was in 2006? City will be earning more cash next season in hte CL, and the advert of city in that comp will help generate more cash. I don't think they are just dumping money in without a strategy or without the new rules well in mind. Neither City or Chelsea will be in trouble with the new rules when tey come in
While I agree tat Liverpool and ManU are institutions ideally, to us and in their communities, in reality they are corporate assets. Either of our great clubs can be dragged down a hole, H&G. If a corporation so chooses they can move a team out of England, imagine the Glaziers moving the United Franchise to America to play in their league, I mean not gonna happen but can they do that? I was fairly concerned and if RBS were in a tighter hole than they were they might have not been so lenient or if H&G had won their court battle, jaesus. Chelsea if they keep in there at the top for the next 20 years, they will be regarded as same. Chelsea need spell of pure dominance though, about 7 titles in 10 years would do it, though they will always lose the "History" argument
SAF has simply been patient with the profit we got from the Ronaldo sale. He could do this because of Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs having Indian Summers All United fans wanted was to see that money re-invested in the team rather than the owners pockets. It's hardly the same as what Chelsea and City do is it
