Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Buying Players. Is it worth it?
- Thread starter Yorkie
- Start date
hitony
Administrator
by my reckoning, thats about 180 million in 2 years, it makes a joke of football, like a game of 3 card brag, he with the most money wins !!! 
As long as Roman is in charge.
They will cut down the spending as Jose doesnt believe inlarge squads.
They will cut down the spending as Jose doesnt believe inlarge squads.
Seagullible
Super Keeper
Yorkie said:
be owned by a billionaire!
Stinky Kat
Tripping
Do you think Chelsea really care about their debt, Abramovich can pay it off just like that
Stumpy Tim
Well-known member
And what happens when he gets bored of his toy? Chelsea have a massive number of over-paid players on their books - and we have another Leeds on our hands
Stinky Kat
Tripping
not our problem
Kent Seagull
Well-known member
I'd like to know what happens if Abramovich walked away/died or whatever. With losses of 100 mill per year who else would take the business on? If I was a Chelski fan I'd be very worried that the club could suddenly find itself with no-one to play fairy godmother whilst having massive debts and contracts to pay for. Has Abramovich set up any sort of trust fund to ensure the clubs survival if he dies?
HampshireSeagulls
Moulding Generation Z
It's not as bad as it looks. If you dig deeper into the story, this figure doesn't include some income/sponsorship deals, plus other ventures that Chelsea are involved in. If you pulled Abramovich's finances to pieces, you would probably find that he is using Chelsea as a write-off area at the moment (ie not paying tax on the declared losses) whilst other ventures are bringing in money. I'd love us to be in that position!
*************************************
As if to reassure potential investors, Bruce Buck, Chelsea chairman and Abramovich's mergers and acquisitions lawyer, has been banging the drum of "long-term" involvement and stability. "Mr Abramovich has invested a lot of money, but I emphasise the word investment. And, on top of that, we have changed our business model, brought in the right sponsors, changed the kit company, the management team, the structure," Buck said this week. "I don't see it stopping. I don't see why Roman would sell. If it was the case that he was going to win the European Cup and disappear, why spend £25 million on a training ground that wouldn't be built for 2½ years? If you knew him, you would quickly realise that he was not in for the short haul."
Buck also confidently claimed the club were on target to meet Abramovich's plan to make Chelsea profitable in five years. The latest figures do not include the new shirt deal with Samsung, which came into force this season and brings in £11 million per year, or the Adidas deal which brings in £10 million per year.
*************************************
As if to reassure potential investors, Bruce Buck, Chelsea chairman and Abramovich's mergers and acquisitions lawyer, has been banging the drum of "long-term" involvement and stability. "Mr Abramovich has invested a lot of money, but I emphasise the word investment. And, on top of that, we have changed our business model, brought in the right sponsors, changed the kit company, the management team, the structure," Buck said this week. "I don't see it stopping. I don't see why Roman would sell. If it was the case that he was going to win the European Cup and disappear, why spend £25 million on a training ground that wouldn't be built for 2½ years? If you knew him, you would quickly realise that he was not in for the short haul."
Buck also confidently claimed the club were on target to meet Abramovich's plan to make Chelsea profitable in five years. The latest figures do not include the new shirt deal with Samsung, which came into force this season and brings in £11 million per year, or the Adidas deal which brings in £10 million per year.
maffew
Well-known member
Kent Seagull said:
they're not losing 100m per year. They've invested a lot of money in the first year in the squad and dont need to spend that kind of money now. Over 5 years it wont be 500m, could be in profit
Gully
Monkey in a seagull suit.
What would make me laugh is if during the whole bung and fraud investigation the FA discovered that Chelsea was being used to launder money by Romanski. In all seriousness, if he pulled the plug the club would be left right in the mire, their outgoings on costs and wages must be far higher than their income. I can't really believe that he will remain interested in what has rapidly become the most expensive game of subbuteo in history for more than another couple of years, despite saying that he wanted to build a dynasty to last 100 years.
bailey
New member
Kent Seagull said:
The rest of the business is probably pretty sound with the majority of the expense being the players budget. If he did walk a good management team would immediately sell a number of players and re-negotiate the contracts of those that stay. Chelsea might sit end up mid-table for a few seasons but they wouldn't dissapear.
Personally, I think this is something that the FA should regulate. Playing budgets and wages should be capped to level the playing field (if you pardon the pun!).
Albion Dan
Banned
Is this the daftest thread EVER? Asking if it is worth buying football players to play for a football club?
If 1066 had started this this thread it would have been flamed so much it would have melted imo.
If 1066 had started this this thread it would have been flamed so much it would have melted imo.
Last edited:
Silent Bob
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Dec 6, 2004
- 22,172
Forever and a day when you've got someone with Abramovich's unfathomable wealth in charge.Yorkie said: