Agreed, 1Manchester, it's amazing how the Government seem to think that it can act in a vacuum. Though obviously, with my United hat on it's good.
New Stamford Bridge
- Thread starter Kentonio
- Start date
The difference was only that large because Arsenal received €64m from the Champions League that season while Chelsea made 0 from Europe.
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/competitions/General/02/51/12/21/2511221_DOWNLOAD.pdf
With both clubs being in the Europa League now Chelsea’s revenue will probably be slightly higher than Arsenal’s.
Ross Barclay will be fully fit for next season, so that evens out all this other noise.
Forget Bale, I'd sign Hazard.
I agree. They’re an attractive proposition to potential buyers and the only way I see them really struggling is if Abramovich gets tough and calls in the full amount of that loan in one go without actually selling the club. Whatever issues he has with the UK government, I don’t see him doing that to Chelsea as he comes across as a genuine supporter to me.
Predictions of impending doom for Chelsea seem premature IMO but they may have to take a back seat in any title battle for the foreseeable future while the uncertainty remains.
An attractive proposition when they owe so much money to Abramovich that the new owners would need to pay back?
How do you know he would want it all back? Looks like a “soft” loan to me and he might be prepared to write a sizeable chunk of it off, given the club has risen exponentially in value since he bought it.
Chelsea are like a monopoly board after the Dog chewed all the pieces up. Everything about the club is wrong. It's a mess of a club held together by a billionaire Russian. If he leaves, what is there? A club owing a Russian billionaire a shitload of money? What nut would want to do business with that?
Even if he wrote off 50% that's still well over £500m debt for the new owners to pay. Then they'd need another £1 billion to build the new stadium. All on top of whatever price was fixed for club-purchase.
I'll believe it when I see it. I've been hearing for 7-8 years that "next year" Chelsea will finally overtake Arsenal in natural revenue and it hasn't happened yet. With Arsenal's board finally getting off their arses and signing commercial deals we should have signed years ago and Roman's future up in the air, its far too early to be making conclusions about next year. We'll just have to wait and see
Oh and either way Chelsea won't be third because Liverpool will overtake them next year anyway
Last edited:
Even worse, a club with big problems (not to do with money) over ever building a new stadium on their current site ... and even if they did, they'd face 3 years of playing their home games at Wembley.
Why would he write it off?
He can just make the terms favorable for Chelsea but still require a payment plan. I highly doubt he would just give up £500 million for the good of Chelsea if he was selling. Would make more sense for him personally to keep the debt but have friendly payment plan.
The truth is the moment Roman bought the club, something like this was inevitable. It’ll eventually happen to every club who spend beyond what they’re generating once their sugar daddy owners pull the plug.
Hahaha ...
I been reading on shedend they think they’d get a better owner or some Arab will buy them. Clueless.
If Roman asks for his debts to be repaid they’d struggle to find a owner. Which owner would wanna buy a club with billion pound debt? Not many.
Pocket change for some shiekh who is looking for a fancy new toy
People like that don't stay rich throwing away money they could buy us for what 4 bill?
1 bill to buy
1 bill debt to clear
600-1 bill new stadium
that's before you even start to invest in players and other infrastructure the timing could cripple them with the transfer market.
you could just pay the extra and get a team that already has a good stadium, players, Fan Base (basically Utd
)they only have London as an edge but that's also a double edged sword as it costs more to do things there.
I am no expert but that seems very risky to me and i cant see how a none fan would pay up.
Also you are rely crazy if you think he wont want every penny of that lone back.
Yeah but how many are these around?
Dubai government owns City basically. Qatar government owns PSG. I doubt anybody from those two countries will be investing.
Isn't it Abu Dhabi for City?
Abu Dhabi own City; not sure if the other Emirates would be able to take on a club, but my fear for a while has been that the Saudis will get involved in English football atasome stage and further feck things up, so if Chelsea came up for sale then I'd be looking there. Chelsea as a club always seem to land on their feet after all.
Where is the debt in Chelsea? Thought Roman bailed the club out when he saved it from likely administration?
Also, whatever happened to that Battersea Power Station/Battery Park proposal?
Also, whatever happened to that Battersea Power Station/Battery Park proposal?
Roman's bankrolled them himself as I understand so the 'loan' is from him. If he were to quit I believe he could legally demand his loan back, which would cripple them.
The Battersea power station is now luxury flats, my mate is an architect and he worked on some plans for the new Stamford bridge there but I think they were outbid pretty early on. Would have been an awesome stadium though. I always thought the Millennium Dome would become a stadium eventually as well on that note.
They can always sell Azpilicueta to us
Doesnt the Chelsea Supporter's Trust own the pitch at the Bridge? Makes things complicated to sell.
Agree about the cost of the stadium being prohibitive but if Spurs can find a way to fund the building of a new stadium, those options ought to be open to Chelsea as well. They’re located in one of the most affluent areas of one of the most iconic cities in the world so should be more than capable of securing the funds.
Battersea would have been the most awesome stadium in the world after the Maracana IMO. Really happy they didn't get it
That’s another option for sure. Either way, I’m not of the mindset that Abramovich would f*ck Chelsea over if he feels he needs to sell up.
According to Daily Mail, they seem unwilling to pay the release clause of Sarri which is very puzzling to say the least.
Why pay the release clause for someone who’s already been replaced? Roman also has to pay Conte £9m.
Alright then good luck in trying to negotiate with Napoli now that release clause has expired. Also every other top 6 PL club has gotten their plans for next season started, only Chelsea are lagging behind.
I'm pretty sure that's for the season 2016/17, when Chelsea had no European football whatsoever and Arsenal were in the CL. All things being equal, Chelsea make more than Arsenal. Commercially, they're a fair bit above Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs.
Chelsea did rise above Arsenal. If you look at the money league in 2013, 2014, 2015 they are higher. In the 2016 they are back below them though, which I wouldn't have expected as Chelsea won the league in 2014/15. Maybe that means that Arsenal are back on top.
Maybe but Liverpool won't get to the CL final every season. It all depends on if teams qualify for the CL. Assuming Ro16 in the CL for both teams, Chelsea have the most revenue. I would have said Chelsea have more revenue than Arsenal but, looking at the 2016 version, it seems I was wrong.
Last edited:
Roman isn't going to try to harm the club, why would he want to reduce the value of an asset he wants to sell. He likes making money.
I hope the stadium redevelopment never happens though.
They're talking about 3 seasons away from the bridge.
What have Arsenal won at the Emirates? What have Spurs won recently? Stadium might be good for the value of the club longer term but not much else.
The clubs revenue is mainly from TV, Sponsorship. Matchday is a distant 3rd.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club
We only make 38m less than utd in match day at the moment.
We'll be more successful in our existing ground.
More importantly what happens if the TV money plunges in the next decade? Last thing we need is to be paying a billion off for a stadium.
I hope the stadium redevelopment never happens though.
They're talking about 3 seasons away from the bridge.
What have Arsenal won at the Emirates? What have Spurs won recently? Stadium might be good for the value of the club longer term but not much else.
The clubs revenue is mainly from TV, Sponsorship. Matchday is a distant 3rd.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club
We only make 38m less than utd in match day at the moment.
We'll be more successful in our existing ground.
More importantly what happens if the TV money plunges in the next decade? Last thing we need is to be paying a billion off for a stadium.
Because Sarri is still under contract at Napoli and if I'm not wrong he has contract till 2020.
But Napoli have already signed Ancelotti so they need to get rid of Sarri. The desperation is Napoli's. Ultimately they'll have to settle for less than the clause or risk paying two people for one job.
Sarri isn't on massive wages. He is on 1.4 Million per year which is 12th highest in Napoli squad.
So even if they risk it, it's either they will get 8 million or more or they will have to write off 2.8 million. It's a risk worth taking for Napoli considering Chelsea's position.
The difference is that Spurs saved up money towards our new stadium through many years of low net transfer spend and low wages-spend. Chelsea have not done this - and now if they lose their sugar-daddy too then stadium -funding becomes even more problematic, particularly with well over £1 billion of debt already on their books.
But Chelsea face major stadium obstacles well beyond just funding problems. I doubt they'll even start construction inside the next 5 years, never mind finish it.
Your team figured out a nice litte earner in loaning out 30 odd players a season to try and plug the gap on
having a lot smaller revenue from match day earnings
There's a trust fund in place, Abramovich put £500m of his own money in December 2006.
I just wonder how precarious their position is today. Hopefully the UK government decide to clamp down on Abu Dhabi's human rights infringements.
That £500m doesn't seem like quite as much 12 years on. I wonder how much it's appreciated.
Wait a minute, when did this happen? I wasn’t aware that Spurs had saved up every penny of the cost of their new stadium. I was under the impression that a large percentage of it was being paid for on the drip, just as Arsenal’s was. So in that case, what makes you think Chelsea can’t do the same? Last time I looked, they generated significantly more revenue than Spurs and naming rights alone for a new stadium could net Chelsea £300-£400 million over a 10 year period.