Chelsea 2020/21 - General discussion

[TheLord]

Firstly, this seems to somehow ignore that Roman 'lent' Chelsea over a billion pounds. It's cute how folks are buying the PR spin, you probably also believe that United are able to make signings no one else can dream of.

The whole point of my post was that if Roman cares to get excited again, other teams can't compete.

Chelsea under Abramovich have had great success. That is undeniable. And impressive. But it would not have been possible and will not continue to be possible without Roman reaching into his own personal piggy bank to fund signings. Chelsea kind of faded for a bit there because he demanded they become self-sufficient. Then, after that little transfer ban, he spent an absurd amount again. And lo and behold, those players won him the CL.

United have spent badly, I have no idea why people can't hold that in their head, and also hold the other thought that United spent United's money, and are constrained by things like revenue. So are Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal and so forth.

If Haaland becomes available and Roman wants him, he can buy him. If Chelsea's cash is at $100m, but Haaland is $150m, Roman will enable the extra spend. Ditto City on Kane, Grealish or whomever.

If Roman just had a decent ETF he will have increased his wealth by literally billions in the past 2 years. My post was simply highlightin the fact that if he wants to pump that into one of his hobbies, we're all in trouble.

To the comment of becoming self-sufficient - in the last 5 years cumulatively Chelsea have lost $50m. That includes the incredibel player sales in that time. Most enterprises couldn't lose $50m acrosss htat time period and still exist.

I have no issues with most of your points.
Just wanted to highlight that in the last decade or so, Roman hasn't spent a fraction of the money the media keeps highlighting.

United's biggest problem is not that the owners have sucked us dry, but how badly we have managed our player transfers in the last 8-10 years. When Paul Pogba leaves us for free in June 2022 at the age of 29, after having bought him for 90m only a few years back, it will be the epitome of everything wrong with the club. I don't care if it is "United spending United's money" or anyone else's.

And if we did things better, and had better people running transfer business, we shouldn't be scared of anyone, sugardaddy or not, unlike what you alluded to in your earlier post.


But we will most like screw up this transfer window as well.

 

[Bob Rivers]

Tell you what, ourselves and Liverpool should be pretty damn frustrated at Roman rediscovering his love of football. Given his wealth, you just know he's made a few billion in the past few years just from existing, and why not pump it back into his toys. New yachts, helicopters and of course football players.

In the end, other clubs cannot compete with Chelse and City when the owners choose to spend. Imagine if Chelsea do purchase a top level striker, that'll mean in the past couple of windows they'll have added (all Euros from transfermrkt)
Ziyech (40m)
Werner (53m)
Havertz (80m)
Pulisic (64m)
+ Top level striker (80m or so at least)

Just in the forward positions. Before that Kovacic and Jorginho to midfield, and of course a hefty fee for Chilwell.

For all our dreaming of a big summer - THAT is the kind of spending that only the sugar-daddy clubs can make real.

And it shoudl really scare us, Pool, Arsenal and Spurs imo.

To be fair, those fees are in euro, not pounds.

 

[Zaphod2319]

I agree Chelsea is Roman’s pet project, but the 220m last window is a bad example. That money came from player sales and loan army profit and no money spent in a transfer window. The loan army generates some serious revenue. Roman did put 300-400m of his own money into the academy recently, so yes, he is still building aspects of the club out of pocket. Football operations seems to be handled pretty damn good by his staff.

 

[Pow]

I agree Chelsea is Roman’s pet project, but the 220m last window is a bad example. That money came from player sales and loan army profit and no money spent in a transfer window. The loan army generates some serious revenue. Roman did put 300-400m of his own money into the academy recently, so yes, he is still building aspects of the club out of pocket. Football operations seems to be handled pretty damn good by his staff.

Loan army for this season already started with tomori for 28 mil
This added too the other loanees and squad players who will be sold I wouldn't be surprised if we recoup at least 100 mil.

 

[Dave Smith]

Loan army for this season already started with tomori for 28 mil
This added too the other loanees and squad players who will be sold I wouldn't be surprised if we recoup at least 100 mil.

Believe Spartak had to buy Moses for €5m if they finished top two, which they did, so I think you can add that as well.

 

[BorisManUtd]

Can Chelsea be classified biggest club in London now with 2 CLs won? I know they won most of their trophies after Abramovich took over but when you look at European trophies, they had more success than Arsenal even before 2003. Domestically though Arsenal have won much more. 29 to 19 domestic trophies won, 13 to 6 leagues and 14 to 8 FA cups.

 

[WeePat]

Can Chelsea be classified biggest club in London now with 2 CLs won? I know they won most of their trophies after Abramovich took over but when you look at European trophies, they had more success than Arsenal even before 2003. Domestically though Arsenal have won much more. 29 to 19 domestic trophies won, 13 to 6 leagues and 14 to 8 FA cups.

I think we have to close the gap in league titles - 7 is quite a big gap. Our European triumphs does carry a lot of weight though. I'll leave that argument to.others however. I'm just enjoying my week. The buzz from the weekend still hasn't worn off.

 

[Dave Smith]

Can Chelsea be classified biggest club in London now with 2 CLs won? I know they won most of their trophies after Abramovich took over but when you look at European trophies, they had more success than Arsenal even before 2003. Domestically though Arsenal have won much more. 29 to 19 domestic trophies won, 13 to 6 leagues and 14 to 8 FA cups.

Nationally, no. Arse have too many Leagues and FA Cups on them atm. If they get another 3-4 leagues before them, then it will be close.

Internationally however, I think they are the biggest in London and probably by some distance.

 

[ZolaWasMagic]

Tell you what, ourselves and Liverpool should be pretty damn frustrated at Roman rediscovering his love of football. Given his wealth, you just know he's made a few billion in the past few years just from existing, and why not pump it back into his toys. New yachts, helicopters and of course football players.

In the end, other clubs cannot compete with Chelse and City when the owners choose to spend. Imagine if Chelsea do purchase a top level striker, that'll mean in the past couple of windows they'll have added (all Euros from transfermrkt)
Ziyech (40m)
Werner (53m)
Havertz (80m)
Pulisic (64m)
+ Top level striker (80m or so at least)

Just in the forward positions. Before that Kovacic and Jorginho to midfield, and of course a hefty fee for Chilwell.

For all our dreaming of a big summer - THAT is the kind of spending that only the sugar-daddy clubs can make real.

And it shoudl really scare us, Pool, Arsenal and Spurs imo.

Made about 2 billion in the last few months i think. 18bn he is worth now. It's true though that if he fancies a splurge, we could in theory blow many clubs away. Apart from City and PSG

 

[Zaphod2319]

Made about 2 billion in the last few months i think. 18bn he is worth now. It's true though that if he fancies a splurge, we could in theory blow many clubs away. Apart from City and PSG

18 billion he admits to. Russia is pretty good about money we don’t talk about.

 

[terraloo]

Firstly, this seems to somehow ignore that Roman 'lent' Chelsea over a billion pounds. It's cute how folks are buying the PR spin, you probably also believe that United are able to make signings no one else can dream of.

The whole point of my post was that if Roman cares to get excited again, other teams can't compete.

Chelsea under Abramovich have had great success. That is undeniable. And impressive. But it would not have been possible and will not continue to be possible without Roman reaching into his own personal piggy bank to fund signings. Chelsea kind of faded for a bit there because he demanded they become self-sufficient. Then, after that little transfer ban, he spent an absurd amount again. And lo and behold, those players won him the CL.

United have spent badly, I have no idea why people can't hold that in their head, and also hold the other thought that United spent United's money, and are constrained by things like revenue. So are Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal and so forth.

If Haaland becomes available and Roman wants him, he can buy him. If Chelsea's cash is at $100m, but Haaland is $150m, Roman will enable the extra spend. Ditto City on Kane, Grealish or whomever.

If Roman just had a decent ETF he will have increased his wealth by literally billions in the past 2 years. My post was simply highlightin the fact that if he wants to pump that into one of his hobbies, we're all in trouble.

To the comment of becoming self-sufficient - in the last 5 years cumulatively Chelsea have lost $50m. That includes the incredibel player sales in that time. Most enterprises couldn't lose $50m acrosss htat time period and still exist.

Far far too simplistic a view of matters

First off the way in which RA has structured things to say he has lent over £1 billion isn’t actually as simple as that.

Chelsea FC Ltd is debt free.

100% of the shares in the football club are owned by a Company Fordstam Ltd which in turn are owned 100% by RA.

RA has injected over £1.2 billion into Fordstam.This money was spent buying the club from Ken Bates and others, building the training complex etc. Fordstam Inject capital into Chelsea FC ltd and the number of shares is increased accordingly. Finance then flows from RA to Fordstam and then to the football club

The debt is actually at holding company level (Fordstam ).

It was explained to me that the should at some point in the future Fordstam sell their shares in the football club for say £2 billion then the loans would have to be repaid first which in turn would reduce the profit made by Fordstam and by so doing reduce any tax liability.

As for the $50 million loss over the last 5 years the fact that Chelsea had to pay in 2017 a sum of £67 million to buy themselves out of a long term £30 million p a shirt deal with Adidas which still had 6 years to run. That enabled us to sign a £920million deal with Nike.

 

[TheLord]

Can Chelsea be classified biggest club in London now with 2 CLs won?

Recent success should theoretically count more than what happened several years or decades back. But Arsenal are still the biggest London club to me. If Chelsea win another three or so PL titles (or CL), without Arsenal winning anything, then Chelsea will certainly have all the bragging rights. Internationally, they are ahead of everyone else, bar United.

 

[terraloo]

Recent success should theoretically count more than what happened several years or decades back. But Arsenal are still the biggest London club to me. If Chelsea win another three or so PL titles (or CL), without Arsenal winning anything, then Chelsea will certainly have all the bragging rights. Internationally, they are ahead of everyone else, bar United.

I often wonder when people talk about clubs history as a clear indicator as to a clubs size does that mean say for instance Wanders FC who won the FA Cup 6 times are bigger than say one time winner Southampton or bringing it down a level are Royal Engineers FC one time winners bigger football club than say Newport County?

Chelsea prior to 2003/4 were a smaller club in all ways than Arsenal but time moves on and other than attendances its difficult to argue that in the short term they are the bigger club

 

[Beachryan]

Far far too simplistic a view of matters

First off the way in which RA has structured things to say he has lent over £1 billion isn’t actually as simple as that.

Chelsea FC Ltd is debt free.

100% of the shares in the football club are owned by a Company Fordstam Ltd which in turn are owned 100% by RA.

RA has injected over £1.2 billion into Fordstam.This money was spent buying the club from Ken Bates and others, building the training complex etc. Fordstam Inject capital into Chelsea FC ltd and the number of shares is increased accordingly. Finance then flows from RA to Fordstam and then to the football club

The debt is actually at holding company level (Fordstam ).

It was explained to me that the should at some point in the future Fordstam sell their shares in the football club for say £2 billion then the loans would have to be repaid first which in turn would reduce the profit made by Fordstam and by so doing reduce any tax liability.

As for the $50 million loss over the last 5 years the fact that Chelsea had to pay in 2017 a sum of £67 million to buy themselves out of a long term £30 million p a shirt deal with Adidas which still had 6 years to run. That enabled us to sign a £920million deal with Nike.

So point 1: The way Roman lent Chelsea the money is cleverly designed to not actually sit on the Football Club balance sheet, because of a shell company. Totally legit and not in any way designed to allow simple narratives to say Chelsea FC is debt free on a technicality.

Point 2: Chelsea only lost money because of a business decision they made to enable them to make another business decision. Also like how you made the Adidas deal in per year terms, but the Nike deal as an aggregate sum over the 15 years. More cleverness.

My point: 5 years in business is a long time. 5 years in football is a really long time. Chelsea FC lost money during that time. That's not a problem because:

a. Chelsea FC are really awesome and what football club relies on things like income outstripping expenditure anyway?!
b. Chelsea FC, sorry, Fordstam Ltd, have an owner who is willing to subsidize these losses

Listen it's great, everyone wants a football club that can spend more than it makes, buy fancy players and win trophies. It's the dream. I'm merely saying for thoes not quite so fortunate, it should be annoying to have to exist outside that dream, where a failed transfer results in the lost ability to buy a player next season, or even force the sale of other players, or not repair roofs.

 

[terraloo]

So point 1: The way Roman lent Chelsea the money is cleverly designed to not actually sit on the Football Club balance sheet, because of a shell company. Totally legit and not in any way designed to allow simple narratives to say Chelsea FC is debt free on a technicality.

Point 2: Chelsea only lost money because of a business decision they made to enable them to make another business decision. Also like how you made the Adidas deal in per year terms, but the Nike deal as an aggregate sum over the 15 years. More cleverness.

My point: 5 years in business is a long time. 5 years in football is a really long time. Chelsea FC lost money during that time. That's not a problem because:

a. Chelsea FC are really awesome and what football club relies on things like income outstripping expenditure anyway?!
b. Chelsea FC, sorry, Fordstam Ltd, have an owner who is willing to subsidize these losses

Listen it's great, everyone wants a football club that can spend more than it makes, buy fancy players and win trophies. It's the dream. I'm merely saying for thoes not quite so fortunate, it should be annoying to have to exist outside that dream, where a failed transfer results in the lost ability to buy a player next season, or even force the sale of other players, or not repair roofs.

Point1.

Well in reality the football club is free of debt that’s a fact. As for it being done purely to support a narrative I would suggest that’s a naive take on matters because many including yourself easily picked up on the whole debt thing. Suspect it’s far more complex than trying to create an illusion

Point 2

You chose the arbitrary 5 year period all I did was point to one transaction in that timescale which in itself is in excess of the $50 you quoted.As for quoting the deals in the way I did it’s quite simply because the Adidas deal was indeed £30 million pa for another 6 years whereas the Nike deal is over 15 years and some say it’s £60 million PA but of course that would only be £900 million.

 

[Cascarino]

Listen it's great, everyone wants a football club that can spend more than it makes, buy fancy players and win trophies. It's the dream. I'm merely saying for thoes not quite so fortunate, it should be annoying to have to exist outside that dream, where a failed transfer results in the lost ability to buy a player next season, or even force the sale of other players, or not repair roofs.

Ignoring the argument about where the money comes from for the moment, has any club in the world other than city got a bigger net spend than Manchester United in the last 5 years?

 

[terraloo]

TRANSFER ACTIVITY OF THE LAST 10 YEARS (VALUE IN MILLIONS)

Club	20/21	19/20	18/19	17/18	16/17	15/16	14/15	13/14	12/13	11/12	Total
	-1051.40	-782.48	-927.95	-710.94	-697.25	-536.47	-509.49	-364.37	-263.37	-160.49	-6004.20
Arsenal	-66.35	-106.75	-72.25	5.15	-102.69	-24.00	-91.18	-37.10	9.85	12.82	-472.51
Villa	-98.58	-156.50	-2.95	15.03	-39.70	-1.85	-12.14	-11.74	-24.63	23.41	-309.65
Brighton	-7.90	-66.44	-73.60	-66.10	-8.75	-13.47	9.42	3.20	-0.67	-4.15	-228.47
Burnley	-1.10	-10.30	-25.00	14.26	-44.40	-5.01	-12.62	4.11	6.35	2.73	-70.99
Chelsea	-188.40	112.27	-125.55	-65.90	-23.90	-9.01	5.11	-52.42	-84.25	-64.89	-496.94
Palace	-2.40	47.78	-11.50	-45.95	-51.10	-23.40	-28.35	-33.00	14.67	-0.77	-134.03
Everton	-70.45	-40.50	-71.15	-76.82	-25.20	-37.90	-38.26	14.30	-2.90	19.60	-329.28
Fulham	-37.25	-8.50	-111.15	-1.97	-1.77	0.86	0.47	-25.15	21.42	-10.46	-173.50
Leeds	-105.78	30.40	-4.10	-10.93	-1.00	-1.46	3.72	-1.17	2.38	3.85	-84.09
Leicester	-4.23	-15.80	-18.80	-38.25	-26.05	-40.45	-22.86	0.65	-1.72	-16.71	-184.20
Liverpool	-39.45	31.20	-140.88	10.62	5.48	-35.95	-52.16	-25.60	-60.15	-42.43	-349.31
Man City	-107.65	-88.52	-20.99	-226.15	-179.65	-140.76	-72.28	-104.20	-17.65	-59.85	-1017.69
Man Utd	-65.40	-145.60	-52.15	-152.90	-137.75	-53.93	-146.09	-75.33	-66.80	-48.51	-944.45
Newcastle	-38.73	-37.26	-8.70	-25.28	36.63	-102.28	-21.15	22.07	-17.17	-10.16	-202.02
Sheffield Utd	-62.70	-70.15	5.70	-5.64	4.19	1.40	0.73	0.06	5.15	2.19	-119.09
Southampton	-11.00	-31.30	-36.15	37.10	16.15	-7.40	27.83	-35.40	-41.50	8.73	-72.94
Spurs	-97.20	-84.00	5.35	-19.70	-31.20	16.58	-4.33	15.87	-0.47	34.25	-164.85
WBA	-34.54	15.77	11.41	-51.45	-10.93	-29.98	-22.58	-4.30	-1.28	1.98	-125.89
Westham Utd	-8.70	-64.57	-86.04	12.22	-42.50	-34.19	-30.75	-23.47	-18.85	-2.69	-299.52
Wolves	-3.60	-93.70	-89.45	-18.29	-33.11	5.73	-2.02	4.26	14.84	-9.45	-224.80

 

[Dave Smith]

TRANSFER ACTIVITY OF THE LAST 10 YEARS (VALUE IN MILLIONS)

Club	20/21	19/20	18/19	17/18	16/17	15/16	14/15	13/14	12/13	11/12	Total
	-1051.40	-782.48	-927.95	-710.94	-697.25	-536.47	-509.49	-364.37	-263.37	-160.49	-6004.20
Arsenal	-66.35	-106.75	-72.25	5.15	-102.69	-24.00	-91.18	-37.10	9.85	12.82	-472.51
Villa	-98.58	-156.50	-2.95	15.03	-39.70	-1.85	-12.14	-11.74	-24.63	23.41	-309.65
Brighton	-7.90	-66.44	-73.60	-66.10	-8.75	-13.47	9.42	3.20	-0.67	-4.15	-228.47
Burnley	-1.10	-10.30	-25.00	14.26	-44.40	-5.01	-12.62	4.11	6.35	2.73	-70.99
Chelsea	-188.40	112.27	-125.55	-65.90	-23.90	-9.01	5.11	-52.42	-84.25	-64.89	-496.94
Palace	-2.40	47.78	-11.50	-45.95	-51.10	-23.40	-28.35	-33.00	14.67	-0.77	-134.03
Everton	-70.45	-40.50	-71.15	-76.82	-25.20	-37.90	-38.26	14.30	-2.90	19.60	-329.28
Fulham	-37.25	-8.50	-111.15	-1.97	-1.77	0.86	0.47	-25.15	21.42	-10.46	-173.50
Leeds	-105.78	30.40	-4.10	-10.93	-1.00	-1.46	3.72	-1.17	2.38	3.85	-84.09
Leicester	-4.23	-15.80	-18.80	-38.25	-26.05	-40.45	-22.86	0.65	-1.72	-16.71	-184.20
Liverpool	-39.45	31.20	-140.88	10.62	5.48	-35.95	-52.16	-25.60	-60.15	-42.43	-349.31
Man City	-107.65	-88.52	-20.99	-226.15	-179.65	-140.76	-72.28	-104.20	-17.65	-59.85	-1017.69
Man Utd	-65.40	-145.60	-52.15	-152.90	-137.75	-53.93	-146.09	-75.33	-66.80	-48.51	-944.45
Newcastle	-38.73	-37.26	-8.70	-25.28	36.63	-102.28	-21.15	22.07	-17.17	-10.16	-202.02
Sheffield Utd	-62.70	-70.15	5.70	-5.64	4.19	1.40	0.73	0.06	5.15	2.19	-119.09
Southampton	-11.00	-31.30	-36.15	37.10	16.15	-7.40	27.83	-35.40	-41.50	8.73	-72.94
Spurs	-97.20	-84.00	5.35	-19.70	-31.20	16.58	-4.33	15.87	-0.47	34.25	-164.85
WBA	-34.54	15.77	11.41	-51.45	-10.93	-29.98	-22.58	-4.30	-1.28	1.98	-125.89
Westham Utd	-8.70	-64.57	-86.04	12.22	-42.50	-34.19	-30.75	-23.47	-18.85	-2.69	-299.52
Wolves	-3.60	-93.70	-89.45	-18.29	-33.11	5.73	-2.02	4.26	14.84	-9.45	-224.80

Cannot believe how close Arsenal are to Chelsea.

 

[Beachryan]

Ignoring the argument about where the money comes from for the moment, has any club in the world other than city got a bigger net spend than Manchester United in the last 5 years?

Firstly yes, City have spent more, but regardless. The fact that our CEO is an utter dipsh*t, the laughing stock of world football is hardly a barometer to use in evaluating such things. I'm not arguing that United are some how good in all this - quite the opposite, we're terrible.

All I'm saying is that it's kind of scary what a motivated Abramovich could achieve, in terms of sheer spending. Scary to the competition side of things, for everyone.

People seem to forget how dominant and out of scale Chelsea were in the mid 00s, it was staggering. Maybe we've just all become numb to it now.

 

[Pow]

M

Cannot believe how close Arsenal are to Chelsea.

My thoughts exactly it's shocking. Just goes to show how well we've sold for 10 years.

 

[Beachryan]

Point1.

Well in reality the football club is free of debt that’s a fact. As for it being done purely to support a narrative I would suggest that’s a naive take on matters because many including yourself easily picked up on the whole debt thing. Suspect it’s far more complex than trying to create an illusion

Point 2

You chose the arbitrary 5 year period all I did was point to one transaction in that timescale which in itself is in excess of the $50 you quoted.As for quoting the deals in the way I did it’s quite simply because the Adidas deal was indeed £30 million pa for another 6 years whereas the Nike deal is over 15 years and some say it’s £60 million PA but of course that would only be £900 million.

Point 1: Chelsea FC are debt free, cool yes of course it is. Coincidentally, here's a list of football clubs in the world that have spent more on transfers since Roman took over:
But yeah, a club that loses more than it makes and has done for 20 years is debt free, course it is.

Point 2: Great, so we should expect Chelsea FC to start making big profits soon, and repaying Fordham Ltd in the near term. Definitely going to happen.

It just boggles my mind that people seem to forget the impact Abramovich had on English football, and even make out that the club is profitable or a good business model.

 

[Cascarino]

Firstly yes, City have spent more, but regardless. The fact that our CEO is an utter dipsh*t, the laughing stock of world football is hardly a barometer to use in evaluating such things. I'm not arguing that United are some how good in all this - quite the opposite, we're terrible.

All I'm saying is that it's kind of scary what a motivated Abramovich could achieve, in terms of sheer spending. Scary to the competition side of things, for everyone.

People seem to forget how dominant and out of scale Chelsea were in the mid 00s, it was staggering. Maybe we've just all become numb to it now.

I did say aside from City I can understand your point, and I think it’s fair to point out the inherent unfairness in the scenario. And I respect that there is a difference in a club being propped up by a billionaire owner and one relying on the money it creates.

It was this line that I was kind of replying to though

everyone wants a football club that can spend more than it makes, buy fancy players and win trophies. It's the dream. I'm merely saying for thoes not quite so fortunate, it should be annoying to have to exist outside that dream

I feel that as a Manchester United supporter this statement rings a little false. Chelsea have significantly spent less than United over the last decade. United are a behemoth. They’re certainly not one of the clubs that aren’t as fortunate.

 

[awop]

M
My thoughts exactly it's shocking. Just goes to show how well we've sold for 10 years.

It's insane the amount of money you manage to get out of players you don't really want/need anymore. Even without Hazard, the likes of Morata, Diego Costa, David Luiz (twice!), Matic, Aké got you a nice little bag.
Don't know how much you got from your loanees farm too... Best selling club alongside Liverpool.

 

[terraloo]

Point 1: Chelsea FC are debt free, cool yes of course it is. Coincidentally, here's a list of football clubs in the world that have spent more on transfers since Roman took over:
But yeah, a club that loses more than it makes and has done for 20 years is debt free, course it is.

Point 2: Great, so we should expect Chelsea FC to start making big profits soon, and repaying Fordham Ltd in the near term. Definitely going to happen.

It just boggles my mind that people seem to forget the impact Abramovich had on English football, and even make out that the club is profitable or a good business model.

You talk as if Chelsea don’t have any significant income streams save from RAs pocket.

Of course his cash has made a significant difference but and here’s a big but if you look at Chelsea as an asset of RA the money he has spent to date including purchasing the club, injecting cash to facilitate player purchase etc and look at the worth of the asset at this point in time then his “ investment “ has grown significantly in value. If that were a business in any other sector the investor would in all probability be delighted that the value of his investment has grown from something like £1.2 billion to circa £1.8 billion

Is the way Chelsea run an example of a good business model ?

Well let’s put it this way he has massively grown the brand and increased income dramatically. The irony is if you look at most football clubs their business plan is bonkers for instance Leicester who many point to as a incredibly well run club show in their latest accounts that they paid 105% of total income on wages Chelseas is around 70%

Has RA been good or bad for football? Well let’s face it since his arrival he was able to break the dominance of Man Utd and to a lesser degree Arsenal the PL as a product has been far more attractive from a TV audiences point of view that is beyond doubt and underlined by the massive growth in TV revenue and commercial, retail and sponsorship deals post RAs arrival.

Just a little throw away statistic.

Man Utd have broken the English transfer record 6 times Chelsea 1.

Of the 6 MN U transfers 5 were pre RA the nearest to that number are Arsenal and Sunderland who broke the record on four occasions each

 

[terraloo]

It's insane the amount of money you manage to get out of players you don't really want/need anymore. Even without Hazard, the likes of Morata, Diego Costa, David Luiz (twice!), Matic, Aké got you a nice little bag.
Don't know how much you got from your loanees farm too... Best selling club alongside Liverpool.

It’s quite staggering really .

The Swiss Rambler reports that in the last 5 years both Chelsea have made in excess of £475 million profit from players sales next comes Liverpool with £306 million Man Utd are on £87 million

 

[Kentonio]

Point 1: Chelsea FC are debt free, cool yes of course it is. Coincidentally, here's a list of football clubs in the world that have spent more on transfers since Roman took over:
But yeah, a club that loses more than it makes and has done for 20 years is debt free, course it is.

Point 2: Great, so we should expect Chelsea FC to start making big profits soon, and repaying Fordham Ltd in the near term. Definitely going to happen.

It just boggles my mind that people seem to forget the impact Abramovich had on English football, and even make out that the club is profitable or a good business model.

With the 'debt' it's worth bearing in mind that it's literally just Roman owing himself money. It's set up in this way so if he ever decides to sell the club he can reclaim his investment from the new owners. There has never been any suggestion that Chelsea FC would pay that debt, because they aren't the entity that actually owe it.

 

[Beachryan]

You talk as if Chelsea don’t have any significant income streams save from RAs pocket.

Of course his cash has made a significant difference but and here’s a big but if you look at Chelsea as an asset of RA the money he has spent to date including purchasing the club, injecting cash to facilitate player purchase etc and look at the worth of the asset at this point in time then his “ investment “ has grown significantly in value. If that were a business in any other sector the investor would in all probability be delighted that the value of his investment has grown from something like £1.2 billion to circa £1.8 billion

Is the way Chelsea run an example of a good business model ?

Well let’s put it this way he has massively grown the brand and increased income dramatically. The irony is if you look at most football clubs their business plan is bonkers for instance Leicester who many point to as a incredibly well run club show in their latest accounts that they paid 105% of total income on wages Chelseas is around 70%

Has RA been good or bad for football? Well let’s face it since his arrival he was able to break the dominance of Man Utd and to a lesser degree Arsenal the PL as a product has been far more attractive from a TV audiences point of view that is beyond doubt and underlined by the massive growth in TV revenue and commercial, retail and sponsorship deals post RAs arrival.

Just a little throw away statistic.

Man Utd have broken the English transfer record 6 times Chelsea 1.

Of the 6 MN U transfers 5 were pre RA the nearest to that number are Arsenal and Sunderland who broke the record on four occasions each

Chelsea have spent more money on players than any other club in the world over the last 2 decades. Ones wealth is not determined by a single nice thing you have, it's the sum of things. Your argument is seriously fatuous.

Chelsea FC - the football club bit - loses money in most years. That's kind of all you need to know.

Roman has spent over 2 billion pounds to increase an asset value about 600m by your calc.

Chelsea are excellent at selling, excellent at collecting trophies and occasionally really fun to watch (Gudjohnsen days, awesome). But Chelsea are only a world power because one man has made them that, and in the times when he's been a bit away from things, they do relatively poorly.

The only reason I postedin the first place was to point out a self-sustaining Chelsea isn't a huge threat to other teams, but a jazzed up Abramovich changes the equation.

 

[Tony247]

It's insane the amount of money you manage to get out of players you don't really want/need anymore. Even without Hazard, the likes of Morata, Diego Costa, David Luiz (twice!), Matic, Aké got you a nice little bag.
Don't know how much you got from your loanees farm too... Best selling club alongside Liverpool.

The idea is to sell when there is still market value, and then use funds to replace/upgrade with fresh talent. United are worse in selling and that's why net spent is so huge. I can't understand how united model of transfer business is sustainable, not just in monetary terms but club's success on the pitch as well.

 

[Pow]

The idea is to sell when there is still market value, and then use funds to replace/upgrade with fresh talent. United are worse in selling and that's why net spent is so huge. I can't understand how united model of transfer business is sustainable, not just in monetary terms but club's success on the pitch as well.

Loan fees over years help too.

 

[Tony247]

For me I think Roman never think Chelsea as yearly money minting business. Chelsea is like a painting he has invested in. He flaunts it proudly, loves it, takes care of it and if time comes he can sell it for profit.

Roman has totally different relationship with Chelsea than that of Glazers with United.

 

[stefan92]

For me I think Roman never think Chelsea as yearly money minting business. Chelsea is like a painting he has invested in. He flaunts it proudly, loves it, takes care of it and if time comes he can sell it for profit.

Roman has totally different relationship with Chelsea than that of Glazers with United.

For the Glazers, owning United is a business and has to make money for them.

For Roman, owning Chelsea is more like a hobby, not a business. That's why he cares more about winning then about making money and why he is much closer to a usual fan in his ambitions for the club than a lot of other owners. I am not sure if he is the best owner there is (just looking at what he is doing for/with the club, ignoring where the money comes from) but surely he is the most succesful as no other investor got that amount of titles over the years (not even the City owners, at least until now).

 

[Noodle]

For the Glazers, owning United is a business and has to make money for them.

For Roman, owning Chelsea is more like a hobby, not a business. That's why he cares more about winning then about making money and why he is much closer to a usual fan in his ambitions for the club than a lot of other owners. I am not sure if he is the best owner there is (just looking at what he is doing for/with the club, ignoring where the money comes from) but surely he is the most succesful as no other investor got that amount of titles over the years (not even the City owners, at least until now).

I honestly think Roman will keep the club indefinitely, at least if he maintains his wealth. He may even pass it down to his children.

I think his crowning glory would be to build a new stadium to provide a legacy going forward but the costs/restrictions with the site just prohibit it

 

[terraloo]

Chelsea have spent more money on players than any other club in the world over the last 2 decades. Ones wealth is not determined by a single nice thing you have, it's the sum of things. Your argument is seriously fatuous.

Chelsea FC - the football club bit - loses money in most years. That's kind of all you need to know.

Roman has spent over 2 billion pounds to increase an asset value about 600m by your calc.

Chelsea are excellent at selling, excellent at collecting trophies and occasionally really fun to watch (Gudjohnsen days, awesome). But Chelsea are only a world power because one man has made them that, and in the times when he's been a bit away from things, they do relatively poorly.

The only reason I postedin the first place was to point out a self-sustaining Chelsea isn't a huge threat to other teams, but a jazzed up Abramovich changes the equation.

Heres spend details since 2003. In other words since RA bought Chelsea

For the two pre RA years Chelsea net spend tor 2001 & 2002 was nett£7.8 million .Man Utd’s was £56 million Utd.In effect over that past two decades Chelsea have spent less than the two Manchester clubs. I cant be arsed to look up the likes of Real, PSG or come to that Barcelonas transfer spend over the last two decades but I suspect one, two or even potentially all three of those clubs have outspent Chelsea

As for my arguments being fatuous my guess is that that your view is based on the fact that there is usually more than one point of view.
Chelsea football club have for many of the year’s RA has owned the club reported accounting losses it would be churlish to argue otherwise but there is no doubt that if RA were to sell , which there is no sign of that happening, then he would show a profit

Premier League Club Netspend since 2003

Transfer League 2003 to Date

#	Nett Spend 03/04 - To Date	Purchased Gross	Sold	Nett	Per Season
1	Manchester City	£1614.4 M	£541.1 M	£1073.2 M	£63.1 M
2	Chelsea	£1580.9 M	£876.5 M	£704.4 M	£41.4 M
3	Manchester United	£1204.6 M	£516.4 M	£688.2 M	£40.5 M
4	Liverpool	£1079.1 M	£750.2 M	£328.9 M	£19.3 M
5	Arsenal	£833.8 M	£502.1 M	£331.7 M	£19.5 M
6	Aston Villa	£521.5 M	£191.7 M	£329.8 M	£19.4 M
10	Everton	£729.1 M	£425.4 M	£303.6 M	£17.9 M
7	West Ham	£493.4 M	£270.4 M	£223.0 M	£13.1 M
8	Tottenham	£823.9 M	£644.5 M	£179.4 M	£10.6 M
9	Brighton & Hove Albion	£222.8 M	£31.2 M	£191.6 M	£11.3 M
11	Leicester	£422.8 M	£279.7 M	£143.1 M	£08.4 M
12	AFC Bournemouth	£211.2 M	£75.5 M	£135.7 M	£08.0 M
15	Crystal Palace	£231.7 M	£149.7 M	£82.0 M	£04.8 M
14	Wolverhampton Wanderers	£277.6 M	£84.9 M	£192.7 M	£11.3 M
15	Newcastle United	£499.5 M	£379.6 M	£119.9 M	£07.1 M
17	Watford	£217.3 M	£150.0 M	£67.3 M	£04.0 M
16	Burnley	£155.0 M	£124.9 M	£30.1 M	£01.8 M
18	Sheffield United	£83.3 M	£47.2 M	£36.1 M	£02.1 M
19	Southampton	£404.0 M	£397.7 M	£06.3 M	£00.4 M
20	Norwich City	£131.3 M	£149.2 M	-£17.9 M	-£01.1 M

 

[Kentonio]

I think his crowning glory would be to build a new stadium to provide a legacy going forward but the costs/restrictions with the site just prohibit it

I don't think its costs or restrictions as such, he was very close to doing it. It seemed to be the falling out with the UK government that put (hopefully a temporary) stop to it.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I don't think its costs or restrictions as such, he was very close to doing it. It seemed to be the falling out with the UK government that put (hopefully a temporary) stop to it.

Part of me still wishes we'd have pulled off buying Battersea. What an iconic stadium that could have been.

 

[terraloo]

Part of me still wishes we'd have pulled off buying Battersea. What an iconic stadium that could have been.

I still can rember some of the images particularly the one that wa# behind the goal . It wouuld have been something elsea

 

[WeePat]

Part of me still wishes we'd have pulled off buying Battersea. What an iconic stadium that could have been.

Nah, as iconic as that would have looked, my first preference has always been to try and renovate the Bridge. The idea of moving away from the place we've called home from day one over 100 years ago is impossible to embrace.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Nah, as iconic as that would have looked, my first preference has always been to try and renovate the Bridge. The idea of moving away from the place we've called home from day one over 100 years ago is impossible to embrace.

Yeah...I definitely think that makes sense. That said, perhaps my perspective is a bit warped because my brother in law is a London-based architect and he's told me a thing or two about what a logistical nightmare that's likely to be!

 

[Kentonio]

Yeah...I definitely think that makes sense. That said, perhaps my perspective is a bit warped because my brother in law is a London-based architect and he's told me a thing or two about what a logistical nightmare that's likely to be!

The last architect images of the proposed Stamford Bridge rebuild were beautiful though.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

The last architect images of the proposed Stamford Bridge rebuild were beautiful though.

Yeah fully agreed. Would have been lovely as well - here's hoping those plans aren't shelved forever.

More wistfulness over Battersea than anything to be honest - and certainly there'd be mixed emotions at the prospect of leaving Stamford Bridge for me at least. I've always been something of a **** for unique stadia though - for me personally Braga's stadium is up there with the best I've ever been to. Thought Battersea could be something along those lines as well but certainly it would have been logistically and emotionally difficult!