10 Aug 2015 12:50:20
A question for anyone really. How is it City can spend over £100m (if they sign de bruyne), when they where fined last season £50m for breaking FFP. Also financially is the money there for Chelsea to purchase pogba or greizman.
10 Aug 2015 16:19:15
The money is there for Chelsea to sign Pogba or Griezmann but they aren't going to pay what they see as an unreasonable amount. Didn't Griezzman just sign a new deal? If so I'd imagine his buy out clause is now astronomical.
I might be wrong on this but wasn't the problem with City, and PSG for that matter, that the owners were trying to use some sort of illegal sponsorship method to settle their books - rather than just spending too much. They've since proved that they can settle the books without such a method and as such their limitations have been lifted. They're spending a lot of money though, it'll be interesting to see what their end of year finances look like as they haven't made much back though sales.
10 Aug 2015 16:47:41
IMO, I think they just don't care.
They are a group of billionaires ( Quatar Group + Dubai Group) - they invest a lot in football for fun and they want to win.
Even if the balance book looks not nice and UEFA will fine them, they still be cool with it. Pay a little fine is oke with them.
Furthermore, UEFA also eased the FFP for those clubs could use more money.
So they buy the players they need - and buy the one that the other clubs want too. Strengthen yourself - weaken your enemies. More depth - more choices in the team never is a comfortable problem for the coach.
If you have any concern, pay more the mother club more than me and than u have my permission to speak.
10 Aug 2015 18:40:21
Wasn't EUFA threatened with legal action and so eased the stipulations? It was always going to happen.
10 Aug 2015 20:25:57
I don't think that's how it works Daton. UEFA have banned clubs from European competion, and you must comply to FFP, or in the early stages at least show a willingness to begin to balance the books.
Unless it has changed the accounting for FFP is set out in 3 year/season lots. Clubs can have loses of £45m in that time, that can be offset by owner investment. So without having the any of the figures, if in the year ending 2014, Citeh had losses of £100m, in 2015 £80m, and in 2016 £50m, although it doesn't comply, it shows an improvement and a ban from competition would be unlikely.
I also believe that how clubs account for buying players is stretched over the life of their deal. Eg. if De Bruyne signs for Citeh for £50m for 5 years, on the books it is accounted as £10m each year for 5 years.
I don't believe stadium extensions, youth development ect is accounted for as a loss in FFP.
I may be off on a few details, but unless Ed002 or 001 can set us straight, I think its safe to assume its going to be more accurate than 'they are billionaires and don't care'
10 Aug 2015 22:13:18
Melbourne you are right.
There are additional reasons why they can spend more. PSG was within FFP. Man.City wasn't. Both clubs are making much more money on merchendise than we do( especially PSG). And one more very important reason is their owners are not Russians. Which brings us to double standards issue from UEFA.
Barcelona was banned, there's every reason for Man.City to be banned.
Next sentence has nothing to do with Melbourne's post-money wasn't a reaso
10 Aug 2015 22:15:08
Money was not a reason why we failed to sign Koke, Pogba or Griezman.
11 Aug 2015 02:39:15
I'm fairly sure Barcelona's ban stems from signing players illegally and isn't so much about money spent mate.
Also, money was most certainly the reason the three of those players weren't signed. Every player has a price, and if any of those 3 were available for £25m, you can be pretty sure, we would've signed them.
And that fact we have a Russian owner has little to do with us not spending like PSG or Citeh. Roman has been working towards the club being self sufficient for some time, and the days of spending £150m in a window and well amd truly gone. We will also not be held to ransom anymore, which, I for one, am extremely pleased with
11 Aug 2015 05:51:41
I meant 1 or maximum 2 of those 3. None of those 3 players wanted to join us.
When I compared RA with other owners it was about social treatment and not about financial power.
11 Aug 2015 07:34:46
Like I said I'm not 100% on the ins and outs of FFP, but you seem to be getting a few things wrong mate. You've made the mistake of thinking merchandise has a serious effect on profit. Other than Real and Barca, who have worked out deals that give them a cut of all sales, no team makes a great deal from merchandise. We sell the rights to the manufacturers ie Nike, Adidas who pay a premium for the right to produce and sell our gear.
Unless a shirt or any other merchandise is bought through the official club shop, the club sees no return. Ed002 has outlined this multiple times, and if I'm not wrong the profits are distributed between the manufacturer, the distributor and the wholesaler.
We don't make the gear, and like I said, unless its through the official Chelsea club shop, we don't get a cut of the sales.
I'm also perplexed where you get the information that backs up your claim we sell a lot less merchandise than PSG and Citeh, as on a global scale, we have far more supporters than both of those teams.
{Ed001's Note - the only part of the world those two clubs outsell Chelsea is in the Middle East, due to their owners, but Chelsea are not far behind even there.}
11 Aug 2015 10:10:45
Melbourne CFC . completely agree with you. our spending days are over . we need not buy players who are overpriced
I like the route the management has taken in investing in younger players and building from the ground upwards. Not all will be a success but the one who make it will be called our very own and will go on to be legends like lampard terry cech drogba
we should only pay if the talent and the player fit the price and philosophy of CHELSEA
11 Aug 2015 15:11:02
Thankd Ed001, thought antibot may have been bending the truth.
{Ed001's Note - PSG are not that huge around the world to be honest. They are only a new club and still not built up a huge fanbase through their history, despite Di Maria's comments on joining.}
11 Aug 2015 16:12:16
Yeh I wouldn't of thought they would be. As far as I can tell, outside of the big clubs in Europe, who consistantly do well in the CL, and have done for a decade plus, what I've experienced is that the EPL is the only league that is followed worldwide by large groups.
I'd imagine it has a lot to do with TV rights being sold everywhere. I know in Oz we even get better coverage than the UK. Every game shown live. that's EPL and CL, then almost all the EPL sides FA Cup games are shown also. And most Capital One Cup games. I think La Liga gets decent coverage aswell, but both the Bundesliga and Ligue 1 get zero airtime. I'd imagine the EPL out does La Liga for supporters here as its more competitive and a lot of people have a connection to England so even the Villa's and Sunderlands have decent support.
I don't know the stats, perhaps you do, but I'd assume the PL outsells any other league, globally, in terms of merchandise.
Sorry for rambling. Its from posting again, and your bad habits rubbing off on me ;)
{Ed001's Note - I don't have the stats to hand, but it is the biggest seller overall, even though Real Madrid are the biggest single club in terms of merchandise.}
11 Aug 2015 16:19:45
Last year PSG had 250m€ income excluding tickets, sponsorship and tv rights. If that's not merchandise I don't know what it is. We had 150m€, Citeh 175m€ and MU 180m€.
Information was published all over British press in May this year.
{Ed001's Note - your figures are wrong, they received 474m Euros in total, two thirds of which came from sponsorship info. 200m Euros alone came from the Qatar Tourism Authority. So no idea what you are talking about.}
11 Aug 2015 17:20:11
If the press is your source for anything, antibot, you will find yourself wrong a whole lot more often than right!
Also seeing as Chelsea is run with £, and the fact the country who press is putting out this info is also a slave to the £, a giveaway that they may be spewing out rubbish is that they are calculating things in €.
But I for one, will listen to Ed001 and 002 over the press any chance I get. Both sources have consistent form, but only one is consistently right.