Glenryck Pilchards Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 Chelsea were in financial turmoil before Abramovich took over. It was rumoured at the time if they did not qualify for the Champions League in the 2002/03 season they would have fallen into administration due to the massive hotel they built which did not bring in the revenue that was expected.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallicks Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 15 minutes ago, Glenryck Pilchards said: Chelsea were in financial turmoil before Abramovich took over. It was rumoured at the time if they did not qualify for the Champions League in the 2002/03 season they would have fallen into administration due to the massive hotel they built which did not bring in the revenue that was expected.  £90m in the hole if memory serves correctly. Back when that was still a lot of money for a football club. Kuddly Ken Bates working his magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members CleetusVanDamme Posted March 10, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted March 10, 2022 We thrive on chaos. You're all so fucked. Â Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted March 10, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted March 10, 2022 3 hours ago, Keith Houchen said: Bar Spurs, haven’t all those clubs had cash happy takeovers though? If they hadn’t, they wouldn’t be finishing above Arsenal. Wolves fair enough given how shady as fuck their Mendes-fuelled business has been, but Leicester's 2016 title winning squad cost a fraction of ours and was a collection of journeymen and well-scouted lower French league players. West Ham were taken over by the dildo brothers, not what I would call particularly cash happy (no more than any other team in the era of ridiculous PL rights money) and spent nowhere near us. And when Liverpool leapfrogged us in the days of the big 4, it was pre-FSG. Hard to really tell, but I don't think we'd have continued to be a dominant side even if Chelsea and City hadn't been taken over- we were in a really difficult transition period. Other than RB, we didn't come close to adequately replacing any of the 2004 side in the following years- the gulf in quality between the sides was massive. I don't think we finished above United from 2006 until after Fergie left and never really mounted a proper title challenge in any of those seasons. The year we came closest, 2008, United won the league and Champions League and we self destructed from February onwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBacon Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 www.chelseamegastore.com Lovely stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamura Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 8 hours ago, Keith Houchen said: As our Devon said, this is great, now do the Saudi owned clubs. Head buried right in the sand on that score.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Teedy Kay Posted March 10, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted March 10, 2022 (edited) 3 have pulled out from their sponsorship deal, so plain shirts tonight, hope it doesn't carry too much of a cost to get the new ones sent over to Norfolk. China best not invade Taiwan. Edited March 10, 2022 by Teedy Kay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator Frankie Crisp Posted March 10, 2022 Awards Moderator Share Posted March 10, 2022 Can we get Conor Gallagher on a free, then? Or use our Clubcard vouchers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBacon Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 1 hour ago, Frankie Crisp said: Can we get Conor Gallagher on a free, then? Or use our Clubcard vouchers? That's something I hadn't considered. If the club aren't allowed to make money, and you (any club with their players on loan) are paying Chelsea to have them, what happens then? Or have you paid up front, if at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted March 10, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted March 10, 2022 They like using Liquidator don’t they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 2 hours ago, PunkStep said: but Leicester's 2016 title winning squad cost a fraction of ours and was a collection of journeymen and well-scouted lower French league players. Leicester had two takeovers before that though, one of them a billionaire. Regardless of how much it cost to assemble, they wouldn’t have been in a position to challenge without their billionaire owner. Not to detract from what they achieved of course because it was phenomenal. They did have a cash injection prior to it is my point.  2 hours ago, PunkStep said: And when Liverpool leapfrogged us in the days of the big 4, it was pre-FSG. But again they had been taken over. In spite of how wonderful those owners were for the footballing world, there was added money.  As I’m sure Bacon will attest to, there’s a chapter in the excellent Soccernomics which goes into detail about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Danger Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 6 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: Leicester had two takeovers before that though, one of them a billionaire. Regardless of how much it cost to assemble, they wouldn’t have been in a position to challenge without their billionaire owner. Not to detract from what they achieved of course because it was phenomenal. They did have a cash injection prior to it is my point.  But again they had been taken over. In spite of how wonderful those owners were for the footballing world, there was added money.  As I’m sure Bacon will attest to, there’s a chapter in the excellent Soccernomics which goes into detail about that. There’s a difference between buying a club and providing funds via loans and using money from within the club and a ‘Sugar Daddy’ though. A sugar daddy is using money out of their own personal wealth to grow the club. I wouldn’t say FSG our current owners are sugar daddies, just really good investors, hedge fund wankers if you like. Your Leicester fella was a sugar daddy until they reached a point of sustainability, they wouldn’t have gotten out of the Championship without him but at the top table that wealth doesn’t make a dint.  People like Jack Walker are romanticised because he was a rich old (white) fella supporting his team financially and that’s fine but it’s typically little Britain for us all to turn around and vilify the foreigns doing it. I doubt the aforementioned hedge fund wankers and co have much cleaner hands.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBacon Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 There are no good football club owners as there are no good billionaires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted March 10, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted March 10, 2022 27 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: Leicester had two takeovers before that though, one of them a billionaire. Oh of course, and yes Liverpool had also been taken over, but neither had the direct cash injection into a top flight team in the same manner as Chelsea did from 2003-06 and City later on. During this period we were also taken over by a billionaire to try and keep up with the others as well. But an Arsenal side that went from Vieira, Henry and Pires to Denilson, Eboue and Bentdner were in no position to be part of a two club dominance in the Premier League. We were always going to be out of the title picture, for the short term at least I reckon and I believe that's what the club secretly conceded. The emergence of the Sugar Daddy owners ended the club's plan of getting back into the title picture once the new stadium was no longer holding us back financially. Although, we probably would have kept hold of Ashley Cole at least during that period. 33 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: there’s a chapter in the excellent Soccernomics which goes into detail about that I have this book and still need to get round to reading it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 30 minutes ago, Mr_Danger said: There’s a difference between buying a club and providing funds via loans and using money from within the club and a ‘Sugar Daddy’ though. I get your point, but Abramovich loaned Chelsea the money and isn’t calling it in, but even though he’s the poster boy for billionaires buying a club as a plaything, they were funded by loans.  Every club that gets taken over suddenly has these loans available to them that weren’t there previously. As shit as FFP is, it prevents owners just opening the wallet with no consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.55e5547a252a5ad1a05f197973025167.jpeg)
Recommended Posts