Chelsea Thread

[Kongster]

Abramovich fully owns the club. He doesn't loan anything.

Wrong Abramovich's backing of Chelsea has come in the form of loans from himself, albeit interest free ones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/20/premierleague.chelsea

[arcnas]

I doubt that dont the glaziers actually physically own an american football team, cant rememeber who it is, but they have money thats for sure, just made sense to borrow it at the time with interest rates at such a low rate when they took on Utd .

[abigsmurf]

from a tax point of view it's better to loan than to buy outright (repayments are tax deductable) hence the odd situation of Abramovich taking out an unsecured loan to himself for a company he owns.

The glazers do fully own American Football teams but they didn't use these to finance the Man U deal. The loan used to buy the shares he needed to takeover the club were bought using a loan that was secured on the club's assets. This loan belongs to Man U as a company, not the Glazers themselves, they hold no personal risk for the loan and very little liability towards it.

Basically they bought Man U using nothing but their credit rating. Pure money tycoons who are very good at moving numbers around and watching the numbers become a lot larger when they get back to them

[bowser123]

I'll be honest, I have no idea what on earth you're trying to say.

The Glazers are parasitic bastards who have zero interest in the club besides making a buck? Only they will see the reward yet the risk is in the clubs name. That miles more money is taken out of the club than it ever was under a PLC. Yes, you're right if saying that- but we've known this for years hence the boycott, the protests, the forming of another club, death threats and fact the goons can't walk around the City without grief.

About Chelsea. Again, I don't understand. It's like you're giddy that Utd are in the ****, yet so are Chelsea, only worse. Was the last sentence of no relevance?

If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money.

I have no idea what the clubs worth, but let's just say it's less than Liverpool but more than Newcastle. So somebody buys Chelsea for say £200M... they then have to pay a further £600M to pay the old guy off. Who on earth is going to spend that on Chelsea?

Like I say, I really don't understand the point.

[abigsmurf]

The land the stadium is on is probably worth most of that by itself. Wouldn't be hard to finance a rescue package.

[Matt]

Thought you said we didn't need him?

:P

?32mill was more than he was worth

Absolutely I don't think you needed him, but it's got to be gutting that someone has outbid you!

Seriously mate, the only thing Chelsea had going from them was the money. It made me laugh hearing mercenaries saying they wanted to go to Chelsea because something "special" was happening there. It was all about the money. Now ManCity can beat you at that, you have to be concerned.

People go to United for the history and SAF. They go to Arsenal because it's got a great young squad and an awesome manager. Liverpool have history. Chelsea have the money and high wages

The ManCity events may herald another shift in footballing power, and it may be Chelsea who lose out. They won't be the first to drop out of the top four. It certainly won't be United, they've managed to eclipse Chelsea without some good buys and strong management, and exciting football. Wenger will still be an awesome manager so it may well be Liverpool losing out on a CL place in a couple of years. Chelsea now need to grow as a team and a business, the money they've counted on for success recently may not be enough anymore. They've got a good base to build on now, with Terry and Lampard, a couple of proper players who aren't in it just for the money.

I agree that the United buyout was a joke, looking at how they done it, I should have given it a shot myself - why not, I have no money to invest either, so just get the club to buy itself for me! Yet for all your complaining about money, just remember, Chelsea were no more than an occassional cup winner before you came in to money. SAF may spend money on talent, but he built the club up to what it is, he made the club the money in the first place. It's very different to waking up and finding you've picked up a Sugar Daddy overnight.

[abigsmurf]

Man U haven't exactly eclipsed Chelsea. In fact, it would've been harder for the two teams to have been so close. Now finishing 18 points clear then 12 points clear on the other hand...

As I've said before Man U have outspent Chelsea for two seasons now, they can't exactly accuse other teams of throwing money around nor complain about foreign buyers giving clubs a cash injection.

[Matt]

United have certainly eclipsed Chelsea. After two league wins, it looked like Chelsea could buy everything. Then United spent wisely, strengthening a squad rather than buying a whole new one, and won. It may have been close, but that doesn't matter.

Chelsea went from nothing to League winners because of a huge injection of cash. So of course, United have had to spend. During the two seasons you did win, United were building a new, young squad. United buy a player or two, but it's to add to the squad. It's key players coming in, with an eye to the future. Chelsea want it all now, and are willing to pay for it - you yourself were screaming how desperately you needed a new player following one draw! It's the consumer mentality taken to a whole new level. It's not the clubs money. United have been fortunate as they are a financially club who can compete, on some level, with the market inflation caused by Chelsea.

The biggest surprise has been you've not bought more players this year, but then maybe someone finally trigged you had enough to begin with.

Ultimately, when it comes down to it, how many Chelsea players do you honestly think are there for the money? You've some guys who may well bleed Blue, but there are more who moved there for the money. With United, you can't say that - that's where players want to go, to be part of the tradition. Except Ronaldo of course

[ezee ryder]

Man U haven't exactly eclipsed Chelsea. In fact, it would've been harder for the two teams to have been so close. Now finishing 18 points clear then 12 points clear on the other hand...

As I've said before Man U have outspent Chelsea for two seasons now, they can't exactly accuse other teams of throwing money around nor complain about foreign buyers giving clubs a cash injection.

Yup you did finish 18 points and 12 points clear after Abramovich cam in and injected a huge amount of cash into the club. We were going through our transition period around that time yet still managed to finish in the top three. We did spend big after that though (as we had to) and won the league two times in a row and beat you lot in the Champions League final.

You're right we can't have a go about teams throwing money around, if they have earnt it and built from the ground up. Can say a little something about Chelsea though, they were a 4th place team before Abramovich came along and would have remained that. The fact is the money attracted your manager (Mourinho) and the players, it wasn't particularly the tradition or reputation of the club. Essien and Robben were going to be Man Utd players but the money drew them away, with a little help from Peter Kenyon.

[abigsmurf]

ah yes, the old "transition" excuse. Chelsea were in a 'transition' period last season with a new manager, ACON and huge injury problems and still put up a better fight than you did with an established manager and team when you were supposedly in transition. You lost 2 players, one of which was getting old and should've had a replacement lined up. That's hardly a meltdown situation.

Chelsea don't have a tradition of signing international talent? The team which created a number of records in that field long before Abramovich arrived? Abramovich chose Chelsea because of their history both in terms of prestiege and because of the legacy of players like Zola and Vialli

[neoboy259]

Abramovich chose Chelsea because of their history both in terms of prestiege and because of the legacy of players like Zola and Vialli

Abramovich chose Chelsea cos he was flying above the ground in his chopper, saw it, and asked his pilot "what's that? take me there. I want it." And this was after a meeting with the Spurs board to discuss a takeover

Or so I've heard. But I like your "tradition" one better!

[bowser123]

As I've said before Man U have outspent Chelsea for two seasons now, they can't exactly accuse other teams of throwing money around nor complain about foreign buyers giving clubs a cash injection.

Will you stop saying that?
It's total bull**** and you know it. Net spend is miles more important than amount spent, and your cherry picking of dates is hugely convenient. Why not go over a proper period of time? Utd made a profit the year they bought Carrick for example and won the league, can I claim Utd won it spending nowt? If Utd have bought success, what of Liverpool? They've spent the same, albeit on 3 second choice players rather than the 1 really good player Utd have done over the same period.

Wasn't Mourinho effectively banned from buying new players and forced to go for the likes of Tal Ben Haim and Sidwell? Obviously not Chelsea class, not even as squad player, nothing remotely like a Mourinho signing. Even still, when you add in the likes of Malouda, Anelka, Alex and Ivanovic (will that ****er ever get a game?) you know Chelsea spent as much as Utd did that season.

If you want to talk this season, cool, Utd have spent a cool £5M more. We spent ~£20M, you ~£15M.


The difference between the two clubs is Utd turn a massive profit yet still manage to spend big. The money spent is money earned.

Chelsea on the other hand are a massive black hole of debt that'll never turn a profit no matter what Kenyon says. They're totally dependent on one man and his whims. Kenyon's claim of being even for 2010 are utterly stupid and you know it, just like his biggest club claim.


Edit- to add, the talk of Utd eclipsing Chelsea? Bollocks really for me that. Both clubs could have won the treble, it really was touch and go. I don't think the league was as close as it eventually looked, but the Champions League was one slip away from a different history. The league this year will be between Utd and Chelsea and it's close, so eclipsing, nah.

Their home record is something I can only dream of and they did remarkably well considering they swapped a world great of a manager for a non entity- that's some real spirit and fight in that dressing room. I really think there's a distinction between Chelsea the team and the club and what each stands for, pretty much like my club in that sentiment in my eyes.

[saif]

Utd have spent 20m? I thought theyy had just spent over 60m pounds on two strikers making them the first and second most expensive players in british transfer history (now one step down after City got their Brazilian). Only just a little bigger than Rio Ferdinand.

[bowser123]

This season they've spent near enough £31M on one striker, Berbatov. Despite reports, Tevez hasn't been signed. He's still on loan.

Take away the near ten million in sales, and you have a net total of £20M spent. Give or take.

FYI Shevchenko was the biggest purchase in Premiership History before Ronaldinho on Monday, and a quarter of a million more than third place Berbatov.

If we want to be silly and talk of money spent, Spurs lashed out what, £65M, or so this summer? Lets ignore the fact they funded that by selling the best part of £75M worth of player, as net total is totally and utterly redundant.

Edit- the Chelsea amount is wrong, mind. I forgot they sold Ben Haim and Boularouz.

[ezee ryder]

ah yes, the old "transition" excuse. Chelsea were in a 'transition' period last season with a new manager, ACON and huge injury problems and still put up a better fight than you did with an established manager and team when you were supposedly in transition. You lost 2 players, one of which was getting old and should've had a replacement lined up. That's hardly a meltdown situation.

Chelsea don't have a tradition of signing international talent? The team which created a number of records in that field long before Abramovich arrived? Abramovich chose Chelsea because of their history both in terms of prestiege and because of the legacy of players like Zola and Vialli

The part in bold made me laugh

Chelsea were in transition last season, the only thing that chaged really was your manager. The players and coaching staff were pretty much the same.

I suppose they are in transition this season too then are they?!