Pin-seeker
Well-known member
Talk of Balotelli coming to Chelsea. Hope so.
January Transfer 'Window'..
- Thread starter MegaSteve
- Start date
HomerJSimpson
Hall of Famer
Could do with Fulham scrapping most of the current lot and starting the rebuild ready for life in the championship next year
D
Deleted Member 1156
Guest
Not until tomorrow please, our forwards need all the help they can get!
Oh dear, you're not needing any extra help at the moment..... 0-2
LUFC 1972
Head Pro
I really hope Leeds buy a striker in the transfer market and off load Matt Smith to a first / second division team where he might be a ok player... danger is we could lose McCormack and then our season is over....
What a ridiculous statement, do businesses not run and make losses year after year, BUT, slowly, reduce those losses over a long term plan because they may make nett profits, or break even at times or, even increase the losses as they purchase more assets during that plan, and, as long as all those assets are greater than their losses, they are not running insolvent!
Football is a business, annual figures to a large degree, especially 50m mean squat in the grand scale of things, take a look at their balance sheet, that's all that matters.
The sale of Mata & Essien this month could wipe that 50m straight out.
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
True in part but an asset really is only worth what someone will pay for it, it's a fictional number. So yes look at assets but they don't mean your a wealthy club, a wealthy club is cash rich, meaning it can access its money .... Also remember the financial melt down was based on fictional assets and perceived values, so suggesting that some one is wealthy because they have valued some asset ( or overly valued it) actually makes them a dangerous business and one that may have bigger problems
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
It's not ridiculous at all - it's to try and curb the spend spend spend beyond means culture that is in football
It's great that you have a billionaire that wipes out your debts from his personal pocket but what about all the other clubs without the others when they spend to try and keep up and gain ground - they can't sustain it.
Football is a sport - it's not a business but it's turning that way.
Teams should only be able to spend what they make - and until that happens things will get worse and clubs will spend beyond their means and go out of business.
BTatHome
Tour Winner
Problem is that if you implement such a rule in that way then you simply stop any sort of competition for many many years as few clubs have cash reserves and so they would be at a disadvantage .... and nobody wants to see the sort of Red bull domination in football that f1 has at the moment. It'd be dull and would probably lead to many clubs disappearing down the leagues.
I understand that.
My point was for those hanging on to the point of losing or running at a loss of 50m when in fact, only 8 premiership clubs made an operating profit for that same trading year! Chelsea is valued 3rd highest by Forbes with Arsenal & Man Utd above them. OK some 'soft loans' can be made by rich owners, no different to me investing in my own business, but that isn't just for the table toppers like Chelsea, Newcastle and even QPR are the biggest instigators of soft loans during that same trading period, but, the difference is Chelsea can return those figures very easily and quickly with broadcasting revenue or commercial revenue and Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd contributed to over half the total of attendance revenue of the whole premiership for that year!
In the football money league as produced by Deloitte, Chelsea are 6th in the world with only Man Utd & Arsenal just above them, this is a measurement of Matchday, Broadcasting & Commercial revenue. I think Chelsea is stronger in those indicators with 32% matchday, 41% Broadcasting and 27% Commercial against Arsenal who's same figures are 42% matchday, 38% broadcasting & 20% Commercial. Personally I think that's a dangerous set of figures for Arsenal, if the crowds slowed down, the major revenue stops coming in and gets replaced with what?
Everyone is on a witch hunt for Chelsea, but were far more stable than most other premiership clubs, with or without Roman because if he went, were that attractive a business proposition, someone else would simply step in.
If your talking about operating profit, then only 8 premiership teams would have spent anything in that trading year and 2 of those had parachute payments!
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
Oh ye of little faith
I'm just hoping we sign someone who is fit enough to last 90 minutes and isn't nearly as old as me
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
Really? Wouldn't want the amount of baggage he brings personally, I'd also wonder where it leaves Lukaku who I would like to see as part of the first team set-up next season.
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
Oh dear, you're not needing any extra help at the moment..... 0-2
At least you kept 11 players on the field despite Oscar's shameful antics. :angry: Full marks to Atkinson, card was thoroughly deserved.
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
Might just be paper talk. Good player but is he worth the hassle? Agree with you on Lukaku,can they get him back this transfer window?
JCW
Journeyman Pro
very good point , Chelsea and man c buy players just so the other clubs cant have the player they need , If club B needs a right winger and a great one is on the market then Chelsea or man c will buy this player and then stick him in the 2nd team or loan him out , this way it stops club B from being a threat to them , its a good business decision , money is not the problem coz the Russian or the arab just pulls out a few quid to for them to make it possible ...............EYF
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
Don't believe so, might be a possibility if we had a rash of injuries but I'm not entirely sure how the loans work (beyond he definitely can't play against us). I'd prefer to see Torres given a longer run with the three behind instructed to look for him earlier, so playing more to his natural game, than have Balotelli.
JCW
Journeyman Pro
Chelski has one rich owner who keeps them , Arsenal have 2 such owners but the club does not get any funds from them , if they did they blow both chelski and man c out off the water and all the other clubs will only get players that don't go to these clubs , lets face it , if you was given silly money you take it and then worry about if you going to play or not , easy money is easy money
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
Completely and conveniently overlooking the fact that is the player that signs for the club. If the player doesn't want to go then he doesn't have to sign.
Clubs don't sign players simply to stop other clubs buying them, the squad limit takes care of that. They do sign young talent who they think will make the grade in the future, then loan them out to other clubs so that they get the playing time they need to develop, rather than have them vegetating in the reserves.
I'd place Eliaquim Mangala, Edinson Cavani, Stevan Jovetic and even Wayne Rooney as stronger targets before Balotelli. Lukaku was a huge error on Jose's part, he should have let Ba go instead, but when he (Lukaku) returns, he'll be a mini Drogba, or better!
and this helps clubs who don't have the money to buy them but can support their wages, so its a win win scenario for all concerned.
