|
|
On January 22 2014 01:33 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 01:10 Pandemona wrote:
We did it and have a balance sheet and revenue to show it is successful. The clubs doing it now are no where near successful enough in terms of revenue to be compared to us.
I believe we are due a new list from Deloitte soon so we can see what the revenue was like for the 12-13 season ^_^ They didnt have time chelsea did. what would happen if ffp would start from 2006 on?
Exactly. It seems that, at least in theory, any club with rich owners could spend their owners' money for a few seasons, then after they have won some trophies, start making a profit after 5-10 years. Give PSG/City enough time to spend their way to sustained success, and their balance sheets will look better.
It's unfair because not every team has access to a billionaire or government/royal family to give them the free money in the first place.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Yes its loan which i said? The difference is WE HAVE TO PAY IT BACK. PSG and Man City getting money from their owners companies in terms of "sponsorships" = its free money. They can also "up this" money whenver they want if they need more players. Especially the Qatar deal with PSG which is a staggering £125millon a year deal rolling contract.
Roman put the money into the club as a loan, in which we pay back every year but the joy is it is "interest free" which is how most of the owners pump money into their clubs in England (excluding Man City).
On January 22 2014 03:35 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 01:33 sharkie wrote:On January 22 2014 01:10 Pandemona wrote:
We did it and have a balance sheet and revenue to show it is successful. The clubs doing it now are no where near successful enough in terms of revenue to be compared to us.
I believe we are due a new list from Deloitte soon so we can see what the revenue was like for the 12-13 season ^_^ They didnt have time chelsea did. what would happen if ffp would start from 2006 on? Exactly. It seems that, at least in theory, any club with rich owners could spend their owners' money for a few seasons, then after they have won some trophies, start making a profit after 5-10 years. Give PSG/City enough time to spend their way to sustained success, and their balance sheets will look better. It's unfair because not every team has access to a billionaire or government/royal family to give them the free money in the first place.
Thats the only way Chelsea can be told they have fucked up or be called unfair. As we have gotten basically an interest free loan of £300million lol. Which i don't think any bank would do xD
However i do believe most owners like i reefer to give interest free loans. I know Everton owner did it and theres another one i can't remember who might of been a championship club.
|
Netherlands13554 Posts
On January 22 2014 00:59 Pandemona wrote:Don't get bitter Twisted 
But.. but.. I haven't even said anything yet 
But then again, I think everyone knows my point of view by now when it comes to Chelsea xD
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On January 22 2014 03:44 Twisted wrote:But.. but.. I haven't even said anything yet But then again, I think everyone knows my point of view by now when it comes to Chelsea xD
LOL sorry i missed and & symbol lol
|
On January 22 2014 03:35 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 01:33 sharkie wrote:On January 22 2014 01:10 Pandemona wrote:
We did it and have a balance sheet and revenue to show it is successful. The clubs doing it now are no where near successful enough in terms of revenue to be compared to us.
I believe we are due a new list from Deloitte soon so we can see what the revenue was like for the 12-13 season ^_^ They didnt have time chelsea did. what would happen if ffp would start from 2006 on? Exactly. It seems that, at least in theory, any club with rich owners could spend their owners' money for a few seasons, then after they have won some trophies, start making a profit after 5-10 years. Give PSG/City enough time to spend their way to sustained success, and their balance sheets will look better. It's unfair because not every team has access to a billionaire or government/royal family to give them the free money in the first place.
It's unfair, but is exactly the way everyone that enjoys having the best league in the world wants it. You could introduce a salary cap that's achievable by every team in the league like MLS. But then you'd have the current MLS. And no one wants that.
|
It is partially related to this discussion, but this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lim wants to buy Valencia F.C.
It could be funny to see a rich investor in La Liga xD (Or It could be a two-year thing like Malaga)
|
On January 22 2014 03:42 Pandemona wrote:Yes its loan which i said? The difference is WE HAVE TO PAY IT BACK. PSG and Man City getting money from their owners companies in terms of "sponsorships" = its free money. They can also "up this" money whenver they want if they need more players. Especially the Qatar deal with PSG which is a staggering £125millon a year deal rolling contract. Roman put the money into the club as a loan, in which we pay back every year but the joy is it is "interest free" which is how most of the owners pump money into their clubs in England (excluding Man City). Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 03:35 Signet wrote:On January 22 2014 01:33 sharkie wrote:On January 22 2014 01:10 Pandemona wrote:
We did it and have a balance sheet and revenue to show it is successful. The clubs doing it now are no where near successful enough in terms of revenue to be compared to us.
I believe we are due a new list from Deloitte soon so we can see what the revenue was like for the 12-13 season ^_^ They didnt have time chelsea did. what would happen if ffp would start from 2006 on? Exactly. It seems that, at least in theory, any club with rich owners could spend their owners' money for a few seasons, then after they have won some trophies, start making a profit after 5-10 years. Give PSG/City enough time to spend their way to sustained success, and their balance sheets will look better. It's unfair because not every team has access to a billionaire or government/royal family to give them the free money in the first place. Thats the only way Chelsea can be told they have fucked up or be called unfair. As we have gotten basically an interest free loan of £300million lol. Which i don't think any bank would do xD However i do believe most owners like i reefer to give interest free loans. I know Everton owner did it and theres another one i can't remember who might of been a championship club.
Yes it's what you said and I'm saying the way its set up now is swindling the rule book. The liabilities still exist except they're not on the Chelsea FC balance sheet anymore. The Chelsea FC balance sheet only looks healthy but it's not. Don't get me wrong though I don't think City, Monaco and PSG are any better.
And where do you get your £300million figure from, the article states £726m and I doubt they already paid back £400 million in the last 3 years.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On January 22 2014 04:06 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 03:42 Pandemona wrote:Yes its loan which i said? The difference is WE HAVE TO PAY IT BACK. PSG and Man City getting money from their owners companies in terms of "sponsorships" = its free money. They can also "up this" money whenver they want if they need more players. Especially the Qatar deal with PSG which is a staggering £125millon a year deal rolling contract. Roman put the money into the club as a loan, in which we pay back every year but the joy is it is "interest free" which is how most of the owners pump money into their clubs in England (excluding Man City). On January 22 2014 03:35 Signet wrote:On January 22 2014 01:33 sharkie wrote:On January 22 2014 01:10 Pandemona wrote:
We did it and have a balance sheet and revenue to show it is successful. The clubs doing it now are no where near successful enough in terms of revenue to be compared to us.
I believe we are due a new list from Deloitte soon so we can see what the revenue was like for the 12-13 season ^_^ They didnt have time chelsea did. what would happen if ffp would start from 2006 on? Exactly. It seems that, at least in theory, any club with rich owners could spend their owners' money for a few seasons, then after they have won some trophies, start making a profit after 5-10 years. Give PSG/City enough time to spend their way to sustained success, and their balance sheets will look better. It's unfair because not every team has access to a billionaire or government/royal family to give them the free money in the first place. Thats the only way Chelsea can be told they have fucked up or be called unfair. As we have gotten basically an interest free loan of £300million lol. Which i don't think any bank would do xD However i do believe most owners like i reefer to give interest free loans. I know Everton owner did it and theres another one i can't remember who might of been a championship club. Yes it's what you said and I'm saying the way its set up now is swindling the rule book. The liabilities still exist except they're not on the Chelsea FC balance sheet anymore. The Chelsea FC balance sheet only looks healthy but it's not. Don't get me wrong though I don't think City, Monaco and PSG are any better. And where do you get your £300million figure from, the article states £726m and I doubt they already paid back £400 million in the last 3 years.
Because thats the total he invested into the team over the years. From day one. Since day one profits of revenue, prize money from all the different competitions.
The loans stood at £709 million in December 2009, when they were all converted to equity by Abramovich, leaving the club itself debt free, although the debt remains with Fordstam. Since 2008 the club has had no external debt.
Is the figures. We owe Fordstam money which we repay. I don't know exactly what is left, but it is still a debt so im guessing it gets taken off the balance sheet? Loan repayments surely do?!
I do understand that it's just my word vs yours at the moment though which i can understand why it isn't so clear. But thats because there is no way of knowing the loan repayments but i know for a fact we do repay them.
|
On January 22 2014 04:11 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 04:06 RvB wrote:On January 22 2014 03:42 Pandemona wrote:Yes its loan which i said? The difference is WE HAVE TO PAY IT BACK. PSG and Man City getting money from their owners companies in terms of "sponsorships" = its free money. They can also "up this" money whenver they want if they need more players. Especially the Qatar deal with PSG which is a staggering £125millon a year deal rolling contract. Roman put the money into the club as a loan, in which we pay back every year but the joy is it is "interest free" which is how most of the owners pump money into their clubs in England (excluding Man City). On January 22 2014 03:35 Signet wrote:On January 22 2014 01:33 sharkie wrote:On January 22 2014 01:10 Pandemona wrote:
We did it and have a balance sheet and revenue to show it is successful. The clubs doing it now are no where near successful enough in terms of revenue to be compared to us.
I believe we are due a new list from Deloitte soon so we can see what the revenue was like for the 12-13 season ^_^ They didnt have time chelsea did. what would happen if ffp would start from 2006 on? Exactly. It seems that, at least in theory, any club with rich owners could spend their owners' money for a few seasons, then after they have won some trophies, start making a profit after 5-10 years. Give PSG/City enough time to spend their way to sustained success, and their balance sheets will look better. It's unfair because not every team has access to a billionaire or government/royal family to give them the free money in the first place. Thats the only way Chelsea can be told they have fucked up or be called unfair. As we have gotten basically an interest free loan of £300million lol. Which i don't think any bank would do xD However i do believe most owners like i reefer to give interest free loans. I know Everton owner did it and theres another one i can't remember who might of been a championship club. Yes it's what you said and I'm saying the way its set up now is swindling the rule book. The liabilities still exist except they're not on the Chelsea FC balance sheet anymore. The Chelsea FC balance sheet only looks healthy but it's not. Don't get me wrong though I don't think City, Monaco and PSG are any better. And where do you get your £300million figure from, the article states £726m and I doubt they already paid back £400 million in the last 3 years. Because thats the total he invested into the team over the years. From day one. Since day one profits of revenue, prize money from all the different competitions. Show nested quote +The loans stood at £709 million in December 2009, when they were all converted to equity by Abramovich, leaving the club itself debt free, although the debt remains with Fordstam. Since 2008 the club has had no external debt. Is the figures. We owe Fordstam money which we repay. I don't know exactly what is left, but it is still a debt so im guessing it gets taken off the balance sheet? Loan repayments surely do?!
The debt isn't on the Chelsea FC balance sheet anymore so that shouldn't change. The debt is now on Fordstams balance sheet who gets the money from Chelsea who repays it which indeed lowers the debt on the Fordstam balance sheet. But going from 700 million to 300 million in 3 years seems near impossible to me.
To be honest the most worrying for me is that if Abramovich wants he can ask for repayment with a term of 18 months which will bankrupt Chelsea =/. It's one of my favourite clubs as well so I don't want it to go away, I give a lot less fucks about what happens to Manchester City and PSG.
edit: I am not doubting they're repaying the debt it's just a massive financial threat for Chelsea even if its at 300 million.
|
On January 22 2014 04:21 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 04:11 Pandemona wrote:On January 22 2014 04:06 RvB wrote:On January 22 2014 03:42 Pandemona wrote:Yes its loan which i said? The difference is WE HAVE TO PAY IT BACK. PSG and Man City getting money from their owners companies in terms of "sponsorships" = its free money. They can also "up this" money whenver they want if they need more players. Especially the Qatar deal with PSG which is a staggering £125millon a year deal rolling contract. Roman put the money into the club as a loan, in which we pay back every year but the joy is it is "interest free" which is how most of the owners pump money into their clubs in England (excluding Man City). On January 22 2014 03:35 Signet wrote:On January 22 2014 01:33 sharkie wrote:On January 22 2014 01:10 Pandemona wrote:
We did it and have a balance sheet and revenue to show it is successful. The clubs doing it now are no where near successful enough in terms of revenue to be compared to us.
I believe we are due a new list from Deloitte soon so we can see what the revenue was like for the 12-13 season ^_^ They didnt have time chelsea did. what would happen if ffp would start from 2006 on? Exactly. It seems that, at least in theory, any club with rich owners could spend their owners' money for a few seasons, then after they have won some trophies, start making a profit after 5-10 years. Give PSG/City enough time to spend their way to sustained success, and their balance sheets will look better. It's unfair because not every team has access to a billionaire or government/royal family to give them the free money in the first place. Thats the only way Chelsea can be told they have fucked up or be called unfair. As we have gotten basically an interest free loan of £300million lol. Which i don't think any bank would do xD However i do believe most owners like i reefer to give interest free loans. I know Everton owner did it and theres another one i can't remember who might of been a championship club. Yes it's what you said and I'm saying the way its set up now is swindling the rule book. The liabilities still exist except they're not on the Chelsea FC balance sheet anymore. The Chelsea FC balance sheet only looks healthy but it's not. Don't get me wrong though I don't think City, Monaco and PSG are any better. And where do you get your £300million figure from, the article states £726m and I doubt they already paid back £400 million in the last 3 years. Because thats the total he invested into the team over the years. From day one. Since day one profits of revenue, prize money from all the different competitions. The loans stood at £709 million in December 2009, when they were all converted to equity by Abramovich, leaving the club itself debt free, although the debt remains with Fordstam. Since 2008 the club has had no external debt. Is the figures. We owe Fordstam money which we repay. I don't know exactly what is left, but it is still a debt so im guessing it gets taken off the balance sheet? Loan repayments surely do?! The debt isn't on the Chelsea FC balance sheet anymore so that shouldn't change. The debt is now on Fordstams balance sheet who gets the money from Chelsea who repays it which indeed lowers the debt on the Fordstam balance sheet. But going from 700 million to 300 million in 3 years seems near impossible to me. To be honest the most worrying for me is that if Abramovich wants he can ask for repayment with a term of 18 months which will bankrupt Chelsea =/. It's one of my favourite clubs as well so I don't want it to go away, I give a lot less fucks about what happens to Manchester City and PSG. edit: I am not doubting they're repaying the debt it's just a massive financial threat for Chelsea even if its at 300 million.
Yeah, imagine if chelsea hadnt won that CL title.
Who knows what abramovich would pull
|
On January 22 2014 04:00 Craze wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 03:35 Signet wrote:On January 22 2014 01:33 sharkie wrote:On January 22 2014 01:10 Pandemona wrote:
We did it and have a balance sheet and revenue to show it is successful. The clubs doing it now are no where near successful enough in terms of revenue to be compared to us.
I believe we are due a new list from Deloitte soon so we can see what the revenue was like for the 12-13 season ^_^ They didnt have time chelsea did. what would happen if ffp would start from 2006 on? Exactly. It seems that, at least in theory, any club with rich owners could spend their owners' money for a few seasons, then after they have won some trophies, start making a profit after 5-10 years. Give PSG/City enough time to spend their way to sustained success, and their balance sheets will look better. It's unfair because not every team has access to a billionaire or government/royal family to give them the free money in the first place. It's unfair, but is exactly the way everyone that enjoys having the best league in the world wants it. You could introduce a salary cap that's achievable by every team in the league like MLS. But then you'd have the current MLS. And no one wants that.
Just cap the amount of players that can be under contract at a professional club and that would dissolve many people's main worries.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Lol Roman will never pull the plug ^_^ enjoys it too much and is in control so has no reason too. If isn't working you know what he does!
Also its not 700million 3 years ago, it was 700million IN TOTAL of what he has leant the club. First 2 years from 2005-2006 he spent like £500million, in those 2 years as well we would of been repaying it back! He isn't stupid or he wouldn't be a billionaire don't forget.
|
|
|
Got roma on tonights game vs Juve ;P, should be doable no? At home and some revenge spirit for that defeat a few weeks ago~
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Roma to beat Juve. God Rotti your bets son! To me has 0-0 all over it.
And lol RvB wtf that pic
|
On January 22 2014 05:02 RotterdaM wrote:
Got roma on tonights game vs Juve ;P, should be doable no? At home and some revenge spirit for that defeat a few weeks ago~
waste of money, rottie!
juve is unbeatable in Italy
|
Juve going to win 2 or 3 goal differences.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Oh wait its Coppa Italia;
Teams;
Morgan De Sanctis
da Silva Leandro Castan
Maicon
Mehdi Benatia
Vasilis Torosidis
Kevin Strootman
Daniele De Rossi
Alessandro Florenzi
Radja Nainggolan
Francesco Totti
Gervinho
vs
Marco Storari
Giorgio Chiellini
Federico Peluso
Andrea Barzagli
Leonardo Bonucci
Claudio Marchisio
Sebastian Giovinco
Andrea Pirlo
Arturo Vidal
Mauricio Isla
Fabio Quagliarella
Looks like Juventus resting more than Roma
|
who need strikers? lol
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZbZJirq.jpg)
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Love way Huth is 4th as well another Chelsea player xD
So man city currently 9-0 up on aggregate in their semi final 0.O
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
