• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

The Footie Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
Bdill93 said:
Theyll get another round of it at the end of the season though - depending on league position.

Obviously I have no clue how the payments are made but I cant see them not having the capital to continue when a whole season was played behind closed doors with no financial support from fans.
Click to expand...
Apparently they will still receive broadcast money and prize money, but this will be frozen. I guess that makes sense. If the government are freezing his assets, it would be strange if his asset continued to receive its income and spend it as normal
 
How does licensing work in no England?

As an example, Schalke have separated themselves from their sponsor Gasprom and to get a license for 2022/2023 they have to probe they are liquid to finance the whole season or face forced relegation. They don’t have much time, and companies willing to spend millions on sponsorship usually don’t do these deals within a fortnight either.

Does Chelsea face similar licensing obligations?
 
Swango1980 said:
Apparently they will still receive broadcast money and prize money, but this will be frozen. I guess that makes sense. If the government are freezing his assets, it would be strange if his asset continued to receive its income and spend it as normal
Click to expand...

The PFA wont let players go unpaid. I recall Simon Jordan on TalkSport when the Bury stuff was all going on saying players are "assured creditors" or something to that effect, meaning no matter what, they will be paid what they are owed.

Overall though, I assume Chelsea will be sold or RA rides out the storm. If the war is over in 4 weeks this will all settle quite quickly - but who knows!
 
larmen said:
How does licensing work in no England?

As an example, Schalke have separated themselves from their sponsor Gasprom and to get a license for 2022/2023 they have to probe they are liquid to finance the whole season or face forced relegation. They don’t have much time, and companies willing to spend millions on sponsorship usually don’t do these deals within a fortnight either.

Does Chelsea face similar licensing obligations?
Click to expand...

I am guessing that you need a licence to carry out any business in contravention of sanctions. The current licence just issues lets them pay players and staff and play football and not a lot else (aside from honour existing ticket sales). Looks like Chelsea want to expand the terms of that licence to allow them to carry on as normally as possible. We will see how this pans out as the football side will, I am sure, complain about the sanctions hitting a club so hard whereas others will be keen to ensure that it does not appear as if football clubs are given any preferential treatment as any business with Russian involvement would have been hit hard.
 
Bdill93 said:
The PFA wont let players go unpaid. I recall Simon Jordan on TalkSport when the Bury stuff was all going on saying players are "assured creditors" or something to that effect, meaning no matter what, they will be paid what they are owed.

Overall though, I assume Chelsea will be sold or RA rides out the storm. If the war is over in 4 weeks this will all settle quite quickly - but who knows!
Click to expand...
I'm sure they'd get paid. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the government allowed wages to be paid directly from any future broadcast money / prize money (although not sure how it works, but assuming that would be allowed for the benefit of the club). However, players won't be rushing to extend their deals or fight to get pay rises. Out of contract players will leave anyway. Players that contracts run our in 2022:

  • Danny Drinkwater (anyone remember him?) - Age 32
  • Cesar Azpilicueta - Age 32
  • Antonio Rudiger - Age 29
  • Baba Raham - Age 27
  • Emerson Palmieri - Age 27
  • Andreas Christensen - Age 25
  • Charly Musonda - Age 25
  • Jake Clarke-Salter - Age 22
Not sure how quickly a takeover can be done, or whether it would be extremely complicated. I wonder if transfers will be banned until that is done? And, when it is done, are Chelsea going to be big players in the transfer market like they used to be. Apologies to Chelsea fans, but in my opinion Chelsea are not a big club in the same way the likes of Utd, Liverpool, Madrid or Barcelona are. So, without a cash rich owner, is it a club that will still be able to attract the best players? Or, will it be no more special than Spurs, Arsenal or West Ham in terms of London clubs?

Interesting times. Before I even look at betting list for potential future owners, I am going to predict Mike Ashley is on the list.
 
Swango1980 said:
I'm sure they'd get paid. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the government allowed wages to be paid directly from any future broadcast money / prize money (although not sure how it works, but assuming that would be allowed for the benefit of the club). However, players won't be rushing to extend their deals or fight to get pay rises. Out of contract players will leave anyway. Players that contracts run our in 2022:

  • Danny Drinkwater (anyone remember him?) - Age 32
  • Cesar Azpilicueta - Age 32
  • Antonio Rudiger - Age 29
  • Baba Raham - Age 27
  • Emerson Palmieri - Age 27
  • Andreas Christensen - Age 25
  • Charly Musonda - Age 25
  • Jake Clarke-Salter - Age 22
Not sure how quickly a takeover can be done, or whether it would be extremely complicated. I wonder if transfers will be banned until that is done? And, when it is done, are Chelsea going to be big players in the transfer market like they used to be. Apologies to Chelsea fans, but in my opinion Chelsea are not a big club in the same way the likes of Utd, Liverpool, Madrid or Barcelona are. So, without a cash rich owner, is it a club that will still be able to attract the best players? Or, will it be no more special than Spurs, Arsenal or West Ham in terms of London clubs?

Interesting times. Before I even look at betting list for potential future owners, I am going to predict Mike Ashley is on the list.
Click to expand...

Interesting take - mind if I ask why and where do you rank City?

I assume Roman will still get to choose who its sold to. He loved the club and will want to see it succeed, cant see him selling to anyone who lets Chelsea rot. Could get Glazer style owners though who I believe take money from the club rather than the other way around.
 
Chelsea Football Club has been advised that its owner Roman Abramovich has been sanctioned by the UK Government.
By virtue of his 100 per cent ownership of Chelsea FC plc and affiliated entities, Chelsea FC would normally be subject to the same sanctions regime as Mr Abramovich. However, the UK Government has issued a general licence that permits Chelsea FC to continue certain activities.

We will fulfil our men’s and women’s team fixtures today against Norwich and West Ham, respectively, and intend to engage in discussions with the UK Government regarding the scope of the licence. This will include seeking permission for the licence to be amended in order to allow the Club to operate as normal as possible. We will also be seeking guidance from the UK Government on the impact of these measures on the Chelsea Foundation and its important work in our communities.

The Club will update further when it is appropriate to do so.


Translates as the lawyers have been instructed and you'll be hearing from them :)
 
Bdill93 said:
Interesting take - mind if I ask why and where do you rank City?

I assume Roman will still get to choose who its sold to. He loved the club and will want to see it succeed, cant see him selling to anyone who lets Chelsea rot. Could get Glazer style owners though who I believe take money from the club rather than the other way around.
Click to expand...
City are amazing at the moment, probably the best team in the world. However, if they lost their owners and the money that goes with it, would they be able to have the same buying power? If not, would their club have the same status as a Liverpool or Man Utd? Maybe for a year or 2, but I doubt it longer term. Just a guess though. The additional factor with Chelsea at the moment is not just Abramovich leaving, but the fact he can't even profit from it, and many of sanctions that will be directly impacting upon Chelsea while this is sorted out. Will the new owner be able to get it on the cheap? Will Abramovich refuse to sell, but then that would mean sanctions would still impact the club while that is the case?
 
Sky News quoted Chelsea made a £150 million pound loss, according to the latest figures. The club have been clearly bankrolled by Abramovich. Just goes to show the problems of an “Abramovich business model”
These look like VERY dire times for Chelsea
 
Jensen said:
Sky News quoted Chelsea made a £150 million pound loss, according to the latest figures. The club have been clearly bankrolled by Abramovich. Just goes to show the problems of an “Abramovich business model”
These look like VERY dire times for Chelsea
Click to expand...

A lot of that loss is due to the Covid - Spurs also made a loss and also took out some government loans as well , worth remembering the debt Spurs have is the biggest in the Prem
 
Liverpoolphil said:
A lot of that loss is due to the Covid - Spurs also made a loss and also took out some government loans as well , worth remembering the debt Spurs have is the biggest in the Prem
Click to expand...

It may well be, but look at the tangible asset that has been created.

Tangible - something that can been seen and kicked.
(As per my economics class at school)
 
Swango1980 said:
City are amazing at the moment, probably the best team in the world. However, if they lost their owners and the money that goes with it, would they be able to have the same buying power? If not, would their club have the same status as a Liverpool or Man Utd? Maybe for a year or 2, but I doubt it longer term. Just a guess though. The additional factor with Chelsea at the moment is not just Abramovich leaving, but the fact he can't even profit from it, and many of sanctions that will be directly impacting upon Chelsea while this is sorted out. Will the new owner be able to get it on the cheap? Will Abramovich refuse to sell, but then that would mean sanctions would still impact the club while that is the case?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, respect your opinion. Its quite exciting to see how this develops from an outside point of view - wouldnt enjoy being a fan right now.

I think Chelsea have more chance than City at being able to sustain under different owners (current situation aside) - but probably due to the fact they are now multiple CL winners. I imagine as a billionaire, that makes the club more desireable than one which doesnt? That and just sheer snobbery of the fact they're the biggest club in London.
 
Ah, if only Spurs fans had something to celebrate on the pitch rather than off it!!

Looking forward to the 'Abramovich has been sanctioned' DVD and open top bus parade!!! ;):ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hobbit
Another footie thread
2
Replies
36
Views
697
WorldHandicapSystem
W
road2ruin
Fantasy Footie 25/26
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
3K
4LEX
4
SwingsitlikeHogan
Rental Rights Act
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
jim8flog
jim8flog
jim8flog
Golf or football
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
SaintHacker
The EFL Thread
33 34 35
Replies
688
Views
45K
4LEX
4
Top