Runner-up

BaZ87 · 31 Jul 2006 at 19:59

Ok the loss on transfers will continue as far as im concerned (Duff for example) and the money from the sale of Chelsea Village would have contributed to the turnover, unless they sold Chelsea Village for less than it was making in 1 year.

Anyway this is for another time. We'll just have to agree to disagree (as usual)

Gilly · 31 Jul 2006 at 20:01

BaZ87 said:
Ok the loss on transfers will continue as far as im concerned (Duff for example)

Doesn't matter how concerned you are

There's only so many players will move for cut-price deals and there's only so many players Chelsea will bother looking at now as there aint many about that would improve them.

BaZ87 · 31 Jul 2006 at 20:06

Today, yea, but what happens in 2years time when Makelele, Sheva, Ballack all get old? Will they get £16m for Makelele? Will they get £30m for Sheva? No and they will then have to go out and presumably buy replacements and i doubt they will go and buy an unproven 18yr old, they will go ahead a pay £20m+ on a proven top class player

JohnnyG · 31 Jul 2006 at 20:09

And we'll probably only spend about £40-50m nett on players this year, couple that with the Samsung & Adidas money & this years accounts won't be anywhere near previous losses

JohnnyG · 31 Jul 2006 at 20:11

BaZ87 said:
Today, yea, but what happens in 2years time when Makelele, Sheva, Ballack all get old? Will they get £16m for Makelele? Will they get £30m for Sheva? No and they will then have to go out and presumably buy replacements and i doubt they will go and buy an unproven 18yr old, they will go ahead a pay £20m+ on a proven top class player

We've already bought unproven yongsters to take their places

Dtab · 31 Jul 2006 at 20:11

I'm dissapointed we didn't get Duff,but not for 1 second did i think chelsea would even countenance selling him to us .Also,tho he would have been further up the pecking order at Anfield than he was at Chelsea,he would still be left out a fair bit .
He'll play week in week out for the barcodes and he'll get more oif the limelite in that squad

Gilly · 31 Jul 2006 at 20:18

JohnnyG said:
And we'll probably only spend about £40-50m nett on players this year, couple that with the Samsung & Adidas money & this years accounts won't be anywhere near previous losses

Half that is coming our way...

JohnnyG said:
We've already bought unproven yongsters to take their places

...and thats why

BaZ87 · 31 Jul 2006 at 20:22

JohnnyG said:
We've already bought unproven yongsters to take their places

Ok, we'll just have to wait and see when the named players leave.

JohnnyG said:
And we'll probably only spend about £40-50m nett on players this year, couple that with the Samsung & Adidas money & this years accounts won't be anywhere near previous losses

£20m a year from Samsumg and Adidas, £40-50m net? £30 Sheva, £16 Mikel, £25m Cole (possible) plus others i don't know the price of, £20m at most from sales, i would put it closer to £60-70m. Even at £50m thats the same as they spent last year. So they will just be making the extra money on there sponsor and shirt deals (not sure how much because i don't know how much they got on there old deals), even if you didn't include them they would record a loss of £95m. But if they pay over £50m and when you take out what they made from there previous deals, i expect it to be closer to £110m.

JohnnyG · 31 Jul 2006 at 20:32

BaZ87 said:
£20m a year from Samsumg and Adidas, £40-50m net? £30 Sheva, £16 Mikel, £25m Cole (possible) plus others i don't know the price of, £20m at most from sales, i would put it closer to £60-70m. Even at £50m thats the same as they spent last year. So they will just be making the extra money on there sponsor and shirt deals (not sure how much because i don't know how much they got on there old deals), even if you didn't include them they would record a loss of £95m. But if they pay over £50m and when you take out what they made from there previous deals, i expect it to be closer to £110m.

We spent £101m last year :confused:

Only 8m for Mikel, 8m next year & there's no point in including Cole.
Emirates deal was worth 4m a year the Samsung one is worth 10m a year.
12m a year from Adidas, Umbro was @5m a year.

BaZ87 · 31 Jul 2006 at 20:37

£140m - £20m for the deals - £25m from Umbro (didn't include transfer deal losses) = £95m.
And as you've just told me your getting an extra £13m for those deals so before any extra spending on transfers its upto £102m.
Anyway don't think this is going anywhere as i presume we're not accountants (although im at uni training to be one) and can't see into the future and its getting a bit off topic.

JohnnyG · 31 Jul 2006 at 20:46

I meant we spent 101m on players last year, not the 50m you mentioned...

Edit: As a final point, we've spent less on players so far, the wage bill is lower due to a smaller squad, we haven't got any more exceptional payments & we are earning more from sponsorship deals than before so the loss will be far less than previous, simple.

Edit2: All rumoured wages:
“Most definitely we have got a wage structure and as is normal there have been gross exaggerations over what he [Ballack] is being paid"

BaZ87 · 31 Jul 2006 at 20:59

I guess the report i was reading was carried out reffering to the business year. Anyway we'll just have to wait and see what happens
got the info from here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,283-2013363,00.html

Edit\ not too sure on having a lower wage bill; may have a few players less but Lampard and Terry's wage has gone from approx £100k to £130k and then theres Ballack and Sheva on £130k. The latter 2 make up for 4 squad players each.