Roman Abramovich Thread

[Strike 7,317]

  On 25/04/2013 at 14:02, The Skipper said:

One word - amortisation. Look it up.

I didn't get your point though.

[The Skipper 20,593]

  On 25/04/2013 at 14:11, Strike said:

I didn't get your point though.

Basically - a player's transfer fee, on our balance sheets, is spread out across the term of his contract. For example when Fernando Torres was signed for £50m on a 5 year contract we didn't reflect £50m on our profit and loss accounts - we simply spread the costs over his contract, ala 50/5 = £10m. So, instead of a reflecting the payment instantly, in our accounts we are basically spending £10m a year (transfer fee wise) on Torres until his contract finishes.

£36m is plenty to play with basically.

[Stingray 9,441]

  On 25/04/2013 at 14:16, The Skipper said:

Basically - a player's transfer fee, on our balance sheets, is spread out across the term of his contract. For example when Fernando Torres was signed for £50m on a 5 year contract we didn't reflect £50m on our profit and loss accounts - we simply spread the costs over his contract, ala 50/5 = £10m. So, instead of a reflecting the payment instantly, in our accounts we are basically spending £10m a year (transfer fee wise) on Torres until his contract finishes.

£36m is plenty to play with basically.

I see you are taking the smart pills already , skipper mate :-)

[Strike 7,317]

  On 25/04/2013 at 14:16, The Skipper said:

Basically - a player's transfer fee, on our balance sheets, is spread out across the term of his contract. For example when Fernando Torres was signed for £50m on a 5 year contract we didn't reflect £50m on our profit and loss accounts - we simply spread the costs over his contract, ala 50/5 = £10m. So, instead of a reflecting the payment instantly, in our accounts we are basically spending £10m a year (transfer fee wise) on Torres until his contract finishes.

£36m is plenty to play with basically.

Ah Yes. That explains plenty of inconsistencies in our financial report this year.

btw, the manager coming in will also warrant a sizeable wage. Imagine we sign 3 players, Schurrle, DLP and ST. Can we afford a costly player on all 3 positions? i,e higher than 25mil on all 3 positions? I don't think so

edit: Mods move this as well

[The Skipper 20,593]

  On 25/04/2013 at 14:27, Strike said:

Ah Yes. That explains plenty of inconsistencies in our financial report this year.

btw, the manager coming in will also warrant a sizeable wage. Imagine we sign 3 players, Schurrle, DLP and ST. Can we afford a costly player on all 3 positions? i,e higher than 25mil on all 3 positions? I don't think so

I'm not really a financial expert but I'll try and explain; many people really misunderstand the concept of FFP. One must remember that the likes of Malouda, Benayoun, Hilario, Paulo, and possibly Lampard as it stands are being moved on so there will be additional space in the wage budget. Wages aren't really that big of a concern - if they could potentially shift out Fernando for around £15m-£20m then even better as this would free up a lot in wages as well as practically paying off the rest of his amortisation fee - but I'm not banking on that.

We are officially allowed to go €45m in the minus with FFP because Roman can cover us, that's the maximum he's allowed to cover us for. That works out to around £38m. Let's for arguments sake say we sign Schurrle (£20m), Moutinho (£25m) and Lewandowski (£25m) on 5 year contracts - this rounds up to £70m in transfer fees. 70/5 = £14m in transfer fees for the year - whilst also having freed up initial space in our wage budget with the release of former players, we could realistically afford it. We'd still have a leeway of £24m.

[nachikethas 1,149]

Its simple we buy the FFP

[Milan 17,895]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SAD9Gf9YzII

[Out With Abramovich 8]

I fukin hate Abramovitch and all he stands for

russian oil money

ruining the game

[DJames 729]

  On 06/06/2013 at 23:52, Out With Abramovich said:

I fukin hate Abramovitch and all he stands for

russian oil money

ruining the game

Sounds like we repeatedly beat whatever team you support. Bye troll you are not welcomed.

[Out With Abramovich 8]

  On 06/06/2013 at 23:58, DJames said:

Sounds like we repeatedly beat whatever team you support. Bye troll you are not welcomed.

i support chelsea you tool

[Hutcho 8,443]

Rupert Mk 2 is in the building.

[DJames 729]

  On 07/06/2013 at 00:02, Out With Abramovich said:

i support chelsea you tool

Funny way to show it! Cute......

[Barbara 15,149]

Roman in my hero

[Backstreet09 499]

It's funny how we keep chirping about players wages and transfer fees, when actually we've got a generous billioniare owner for whom money doesn't matter. #frickingsimple

[Kezza 1,965]

Just saw Fast and the Furious 6.

They must of borrowed Abramovichs' plane for the movie.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

  On 07/06/2013 at 01:08, Backstreet09 said:

It's funny how we keep chirping about players wages and transfer fees, when actually we've got a generous billioniare owner for whom money doesn't matter. #frickingsimple

I don't think many people realise he pays approximately £4,075,000 a week in player wages.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 16/06/2013 at 09:58, Alex said:

I don't think many people realise he pays approximately £4,075,000 a week in player wages.

And I don't think people realize either that should he decide to leave one day, how much the club will owe him money. That's why some people actually care about how much we spend because the more profit we as a club make the less we owe Roman money. Yes we can spend 150m for two players in the market right now through Roman's money, and we can probably even still by pass FFP rules while doing it, but if he ever decides to pick up and leave, we will be in shitload of trouble.

[The Skipper 20,593]

  On 16/06/2013 at 09:58, Alex said:

I don't think many people realise he pays approximately £4,075,000 a week in player wages.

That isn't right... We pay approximately £3,300,000 a week for all wages according to latest accounts probably under £3m to £2.5m is paid to players, but that's just being speculative though. Your point still stands though, it isn't small money BUT the club still pay majority of it, Roman just covers the losses at this very moment.

  On 16/06/2013 at 10:05, CHOULO19 said:

And I don't think people realize either that should he decide to leave one day, how much the club will owe him money. That's why some people actually care about how much we spend because the more profit we as a club make the less we owe Roman money. Yes we can spend 150m for two players in the market right now through Roman's money, and we can probably even still by pass FFP rules while doing it, but if he ever decides to pick up and leave, we will be in shitload of trouble.

Roman would be a fool to just pick up and leave without selling one of the biggest clubs, revenue-wise, in the world. That's like throwing away close to £1bn, which would be idiotic. If he ever left he'd look at selling Chelsea because believe it or not, we're actually worth quite a lot as a club.