Chelsea report loss of £49.4m for the financial year

[The_Flash 1,144]

Remind me again how many standing-related incidents have there been in Germany, let's say for the past 20 years?

Perhaps they've been lucky but too many people elsewhere have lost their loves. I am not getting into it. It's new year

[Sidzeret 2,257]

Keep calm and trust Roman

[blu35_army 551]

So,,it means no Big transfer at this winter???

[CHOULO19 24,332]

A few deeper readings into the matter:

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2014/1/9/5293028/chelseas-wage-bill-climbs-to-176-6m

Surprised to see our wage bill actually go up (176.6m per year now) despite us getting rid of some of the higher earners in the team. However:

Chelsea could save nearly £24m on the 2014-2015 wage bill just by letting Samuel Eto'o, Frank Lampard, and Ashley Cole walk this summer while re-signing John Terry to a one-year extension at £100k per week.

Obviously, we'd still need to replace them, but we can still end up saving a lot especially if you consider that Eto'o replacement will most likely be Lukaku.

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2014/1/8/5276182/chelsea-player-wage-database-salaries-january-transfer-window#comment_tease

This is a very important point about wage exemptions and why those screaming "Just pay 60m for this player or 80m for that" are very far from reality:

if they (Chelsea) report fewer losses for 2013-2014, then they will likely be able to use the wage exemption for the 2014-2015 monitoring period. For Chelsea, the wage exemption is worth close to £80m in FFP write-offs (!!!!), so expect Chelsea to take steps to reduce its losses this season.

With Chelsea currently unable to use the wage exemption, and given that financial fair play mandates that we look at the financial aspects of any potential transfer almost as closely as we do the tactical aspects,

Also, how in the world is Oscar on 40K/wk only?! Someone give this man a contract renegotiation ASAP!

A more detailed explanation about FFP rules Annex 11 relief and why we could not use it, not that we needed it in the end: http://www.danielgeey.com/uefa-ffp-and-chelseas-12-13-accounts/

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

Just wait untill we can get rid of Torres. £18.460.000 off our wage bill. :woo:

and Hazard is not on 185k ffs.

[Stingray 9,441]

Just wait untill we can get rid of Torres. £18.460.000 off our wage bill. :woo:

and Hazard is not on 185k ffs.

Yeaaaah !

[Barbara 15,149]

Think you're panicking unduly. The club is positioned quite nicely in real terms, and that Telegraph article is amazingly simplistic. Commercial revenues are up, tv money is about to increase dramatically and we have a lot of young assets who are growing in value.

in addition to that the new Adidas contract didn't show in this year's numbers, that alone is £300 for 10 years and they to have pay at least £30 now (supposing they pay by year, which I'm not that sure they do - as some sponsors especially for kits prefer to pay 3-5 years worth of contract at once). They also mentioned a deal with Audi, so I think we're way positioned to comply their demands.

What bugs me is how City that had a loss of £98 spend another £90 and UEFA does nothing. So some teams comply, others don't, and there are no repercussions? I'd love to see RM's numbers...

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

in addition to that the new Adidas contract didn't show in this year's numbers, that alone is £300 for 10 years and they have pay at least £30 now (supposing they pay by year, which I'm not that sure they do). They also mentioned a deal with Audi, so I think we're way positioned to comply their demands.

What bugs me is how City that had a loss of £97 spend another £90 and UEFA does nothing. So some teams comply, others don't, and there are no repercussions? I'd love to see RM's numbers...

Yeah i also wondered about City. I don't see how they'll be able to comply with the FFP rules.

I think Madrid will be able to comply with the FFP. They spend a lot of money but the amount of money they make is just crazy.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Yeah i also wondered about City. I don't see how they'll be able to comply with the FFP rules.

City owner also own their sponsor, Ettihad Airlines. He can just rewrite the sponsorship deal when they need to spend more money. That's how.

Obviously it's not that simple, but the point is, there are many loopholes in the FFP rules that can be exploited.

[The Skipper 20,609]

A few deeper readings into the matter:

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2014/1/9/5293028/chelseas-wage-bill-climbs-to-176-6m

Surprised to see our wage bill actually go up (176.6m per year now) despite us getting rid of some of the higher earners in the team. However:

Obviously, we'd still need to replace them, but we can still end up saving a lot especially if you consider that Eto'o replacement will most likely be Lukaku.

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2014/1/8/5276182/chelsea-player-wage-database-salaries-january-transfer-window#comment_tease

This is a very important point about wage exemptions and why those screaming "Just pay 60m for this player or 80m for that" are very far from reality:

Also, how in the world is Oscar on 40K/wk only?! Someone give this man a contract renegotiation ASAP!

A more detailed explanation about FFP rules Annex 11 relief and why we could not use it, not that we needed it in the end: http://www.danielgeey.com/uefa-ffp-and-chelseas-12-13-accounts/

I take the WAGNH article with a pinch of salt considering there are a lot of assumptions like Hazard being on £185k a week which is absolute rubbish, or the average CFC employee being on £35k a week, and the fact that a lot of our new sponsorships and deals haven't been included.

[Strike 7,474]

Lampard, Cole, Eto'o leaving would give Chelsea 24million in savings. Even if one of them (Lampard) stays, it's not much of a problem as they'll only stay on a reduced contract

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I take the WAGNH article with a pinch of salt considering there are a lot of assumptions like Hazard being on £185k a week which is absolute rubbish, or the average CFC employee being on £35k a week, and the fact that a lot of our new sponsorships and deals haven't been included.

Yeah, but the overall sum of all the wages is verified (176.6m). Of course there are assumptions as no one knows the exact values except for the club, but I'd say that WAGNH would be the closest because they are the only ones who follow the financial issues of the club this closely.

And how can so many people tell that Hazard is not on 185K? This not aimed at you Skip because I've seen A LOT of people being adamant about it. I mean I find it unlikely but unless you know him personally or have the exact number from the club how can you be so sure that it's not true?

[The Skipper 20,609]

And how can so many people tell that Hazard is not on 185K? This not aimed at you Skip because I've seen A LOT of people being adamant about it. I mean I find it unlikely but unless you know him personally or have the exact number from the club how can you be so sure that it's not true?

Yeah Eden told me the other day . On a serious note though... Because of the whole Hazard transfer saga. After the transfer was concluded British media tried to make it look like Eden moved to us because we offered more money in terms of wages when that wasn't the truth - during the saga it was widely reported that us and United and City all offered him similar wages, and during that time a lot reliable Belgian and French media both reported the figure to be around 110-120k (can't remember the exact number but it was around that).

Of course when Hazard chose us the wages suddenly increased to £185k. French and Belgian media still reported the same number as mentioned before but some British papers decided to go with the 'Hazard got his head turned by money' story, especially the DM, which is where WAGNH got their number from.

The above is exactly why many don't believe the figure.

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

Yeah, but the overall sum of all the wages is verified (176.6m). Of course there are assumptions as no one knows the exact values except for the club, but I'd say that WAGNH would be the closest because they are the only ones who follow the financial issues of the club this closely.

And how can so many people tell that Hazard is not on 185K? This not aimed at you Skip because I've seen A LOT of people being adamant about it. I mean I find it unlikely but unless you know him personally or have the exact number from the club how can you be so sure that it's not true?

What Skipper said. Also I remember clearly that the English media actually went a bit further and were spitting out numbers like 200k or even 250k and then wrote and entire article on how he was going to be the top earner of the PL.

Just so it could fit with the image of Hazard being a mercenary and only choosing Chelsea because of money.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Yeah Eden told me the other day . On a serious note though... Because of the whole Hazard transfer saga. After the transfer was concluded British media tried to make it look like Eden moved to us because we offered more money in terms of wages when that wasn't the truth - during the saga it was widely reported that us and United and City all offered him similar wages, and during that time a lot reliable Belgian and French media both reported the figure to be around 110-120k (can't remember the exact number but it was around that).

Of course when Hazard chose us the wages suddenly increased to £185k. French and Belgian media still reported the same number as mentioned before but some British papers decided to go with the 'Hazard got his head turned by money' story, especially the DM, which is where WAGNH got their number from.

The above is exactly why many don't believe the figure.

What Skipper said. Also I remember clearly that the English media actually went a bit further and were spitting out numbers like 200k or even 250k and then wrote and entire article on how he was going to be the top earner of the PL.

Just so it could fit with the image of Hazard being a mercenary and only choosing Chelsea because of money.

Tbh, I didn't follow the Hazard transfer too closely because it was one of those that dragged on forever and got about 300 pages before he even signed so I generally stayed out of the topic. Like I sad, I too find it unlikely, but I still don't think that you can completely rule it out because he was the most sought after player in the market at the time and we could have offered a huge contract to rule him here. Nothing wrong with that, imo.