• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

What would hppen to Chelski?

vin de guerre

Well-Known Member
Apparently Mr R. abramovitch is now under investigation with a number of other friends of Yeltsin regarding the disappearance of a small amount of money ie 48 billion dollars. If heis charged and eventually convicted of any wrong doings where will that leave Chelski?

Anybody got a couple of paddles spare? Cos Chelski may need them soon up sh!t creek.
 

slapz

Well-Known Member
vin de guerre said:
Apparently Mr R. abramovitch is now under investigation with a number of other friends of Yeltsin regarding the disappearance of a small amount of money ie 48 billion dollars. If heis charged and eventually convicted of any wrong doings where will that leave Chelski?

Anybody got a couple of paddles spare? Cos Chelski may need them soon up sh!t creek.

They'd get Ken Bates back ;)
 

Sammer

Established Member
Well, Abramovich is not a long-term prospect....most of those Oligarchs, may they be friends with Putin or not, have a short shelf life.
 

jester

Established Member
with their wage bill - it'd mean they'd be screwed.
depends how much abramo has given to chelseas funds already - i'm assuming that cant be touched
 

slapz

Well-Known Member
jester said:
with their wage bill - it'd mean they'd be screwed.
depends how much abramo has given to chelseas funds already - i'm assuming that cant be touched

You're right about the funds bit as they'll have enough to pay the players for a while in which time, they'd get rid of the high earners from their team and go back to the players they had when Captain Birdseye was the chairman

As for Abramo, he cant leave them in the sh*t because he'd want to sell the club to the next chairman instead of just walking away for nothing... that docu bbc3 did on his a year ago showed that he had a good business head on him so he'd want something at the end
 

weelip

Active Member
Great for us...we will be able to get Terry on the cheap. He can solve our defensive depth
 

Jose_Reyes_2005

Established Member
Trusted ⭐
I never have believed abrahamovich was serious about taking over chelsea - the guy smiles even when the team is losing - i personally think he's just having a little bit of fun and will lose interest in about 5 years.

I'm so glad he didnt take over arsenal. :|
 

Henry IV

Well-Known Member
I would love it if the whole Abramovitch-Chelsea thing went belly up. Really really love it. :lol: Then Chelsea would be forced to sell all their players on the cheap and they would go plunging back down to mid-table mediocrity from whence they should never have strayed.
 

ozgooner

Active Member
you would think after a few seasons of losing million after million he might just decide to bail out of chelski. even if they win alot of titles (lets hope that doesn't happen) u would think they still wouldnt make any sort of profit each year with the money they splash out. plus im not too sure how there worldwide supporter base is i know in brisbane i never see and chelski shirts around its always manscum, gunners, pool and beleive it or not leeds still. so they would have to improve that market to get that money coming back in.
 

Gunner4life09

Well-Known Member
well then, they might have to sell all their players for cheap and they'll probably end up having a weaker squad then they had before abromavich.
 

juz7_pi12es

Well-Known Member
kezmanborlandsmall.jpg
 

visitor99

Active Member
If Abramovich left tomorrow, Chelsea would be in a far better state than they were say two years ago - well before his arrival.

Compare how they are now to the start of the 02/03 season. Then the club had significant debts that needed to be serviced, and a squad of highly paid players near or over 30 years old - Le Saux, Zola, Desailly, Hasselbaink, Bogarde, Petit and Stanic to name a few, and they were not in the Champions League. The combination of the players age and their wages would have meant they had a very low sale value if they were to be sold. And because they were old the club was in the position where it was going to have to replace them in the near future.

Compare that to now. Firstly, the club is debt free - probably. It was certainly debt free when Abramovich took over as he did clear the debts, and the assumption is that all the player transfers have been made from Abramovich's pocket. Although this is probably the case there is no way to be certain. Chelsea is not a PLC so does not have to publish financial statements.

Secondly, the wage bill now is not much different to what it was two years ago. This statement is difficult for me to back up with facts as the site with the authorative figures on players wages (www.footballtransfers.info) is currently offline indefinately. From memory however, it is fair to say that the top players were paid much more two years ago than they are now. Hasselbaink (75k/week), Zola (70k/week) and Desailly (60k/week) were the highest paid players two years ago. Now it is Lampard (50k/week, although he has recently signed an improved contract of unknown value - possibly as high as 60k/week) and Mutu (50k/week). Most are on around 40k/week, which is still less than Petit (45k/week) and others were getting two years ago. Neither of the keepers Cech or Cuducini are paid as much now as Bosnich was two years ago. Of course there was the disasterous experience of the very high wages paid to Veron and Crespo, but Chelsea have now largely extracated themselves from those deals. (media reports that Chelsea are paying their wages while they are on loan are incorrect. Chelsea will be receiving significant appearance fees for those two should the they feature regularly for their new clubs)

Thirdly, although it is not a certainty there is now a very high likelihood of regular Champions League football. This will add 20 million or so every year to help run the club, when it has never been a regular source of income in the past.

Fourthly, Chelsea now don't need to sign any new players for five years or more. Of the current crop of players only Makelele will retire in the next five years. Possibly Cuducini as well, but both already have their eventual replacements already playing at the club. There is a handful of players who are 26 now - Gallas, Lampard, Geremi and Drogba (maybe he is 27) but just about everyone is 25 or much younger. So there is no need to cough up big money to add to the squad.

The only thing I can see that would cause a "Leeds" type meltdown would be if a significant proportion of the player transfers had been financed by Chelsea FC borrowing, rather than by Abramovich personally as everyone assumes. Although this is a possibility it is a very remote one. The far more likely scenario is that Chelsea would continue no problem at all without Abramovich - debt free, an additional 20 million per year from the Champions League, a manageable wage bill and no need for significant new player purchases for years.
 

JazzG

Established Member
How do you know the club is debt free right now? For all you know he might of just got a HUGE loan on his companies and buying his players from that, so if he leaves they will have to deal with that loan and their players wages are so high that even the total turnover of the club doesn't match it, they might of lost a few high earners but they have got a few more as well like Robben and probably Drogba on over 50k a week.
 

Loylz

Established Member
Trusted ⭐
visitor99 said:
If Abramovich left tomorrow, Chelsea would be in a far better state than they were say two years ago - well before his arrival.

Compare how they are now to the start of the 02/03 season. Then the club had significant debts that needed to be serviced, and a squad of highly paid players near or over 30 years old - Le Saux, Zola, Desailly, Hasselbaink, Bogarde, Petit and Stanic to name a few, and they were not in the Champions League. The combination of the players age and their wages would have meant they had a very low sale value if they were to be sold. And because they were old the club was in the position where it was going to have to replace them in the near future.

Compare that to now. Firstly, the club is debt free - probably. It was certainly debt free when Abramovich took over as he did clear the debts, and the assumption is that all the player transfers have been made from Abramovich's pocket. Although this is probably the case there is no way to be certain. Chelsea is not a PLC so does not have to publish financial statements.

Secondly, the wage bill now is not much different to what it was two years ago. This statement is difficult for me to back up with facts as the site with the authorative figures on players wages (www.footballtransfers.info) is currently offline indefinately. From memory however, it is fair to say that the top players were paid much more two years ago than they are now. Hasselbaink (75k/week), Zola (70k/week) and Desailly (60k/week) were the highest paid players two years ago. Now it is Lampard (50k/week, although he has recently signed an improved contract of unknown value - possibly as high as 60k/week) and Mutu (50k/week). Most are on around 40k/week, which is still less than Petit (45k/week) and others were getting two years ago. Neither of the keepers Cech or Cuducini are paid as much now as Bosnich was two years ago. Of course there was the disasterous experience of the very high wages paid to Veron and Crespo, but Chelsea have now largely extracated themselves from those deals. (media reports that Chelsea are paying their wages while they are on loan are incorrect. Chelsea will be receiving significant appearance fees for those two should the they feature regularly for their new clubs)

Thirdly, although it is not a certainty there is now a very high likelihood of regular Champions League football. This will add 20 million or so every year to help run the club, when it has never been a regular source of income in the past.

Fourthly, Chelsea now don't need to sign any new players for five years or more. Of the current crop of players only Makelele will retire in the next five years. Possibly Cuducini as well, but both already have their eventual replacements already playing at the club. There is a handful of players who are 26 now - Gallas, Lampard, Geremi and Drogba (maybe he is 27) but just about everyone is 25 or much younger. So there is no need to cough up big money to add to the squad.

The only thing I can see that would cause a "Leeds" type meltdown would be if a significant proportion of the player transfers had been financed by Chelsea FC borrowing, rather than by Abramovich personally as everyone assumes. Although this is a possibility it is a very remote one. The far more likely scenario is that Chelsea would continue no problem at all without Abramovich - debt free, an additional 20 million per year from the Champions League, a manageable wage bill and no need for significant new player purchases for years.
I agree with you, but don't you have a significantly bigger squad than you used to back then. And all the new players earn a lot, whereas only the top players before did. I can't really see Chelsa paying Bogarde or the likes any more than 30K a week.
 

visitor99

Active Member
*Loyan* said:
I agree with you, but don't you have a significantly bigger squad than you used to back then. And all the new players earn a lot, whereas only the top players before did. I can't really see Chelsa paying Bogarde or the likes any more than 30K a week.

Bogarde was on 40k/week!!! Shocking but true. Petit 45k/week and I think someone else was 50k/week. If www.footballtransfers.info was back online I'd be able to do a much better comparison and get figures for the likes of Zenden, Stanic, Le Saux but all I've got to go on at the moment is my recollection from last time I browsed that site months ago.

As you say, the squad now is probably bigger and most would be well paid. I would be very interested to see a proper comparison for the wage bill now to a couple of years ago, but my impression is that they are similar - wages are probably higher now but not massively so. There would be more guys on around the 40k/week now than before, but then you could almost pay Duff and Robben out of what they were paying Hasselbaink.

I'll reply to Jazzg later when I get a chance.
 
Top Bottom