To put things in perspective...

[Martin_T]

A couple of articles in the press today about Abramovich and Chelsea:

 

Didier Drogba and Joe Cole have seen their contract negotiations at Chelsea put on hold as Abramovich tightens the purse strings at Stamford Bridge. (News of the World)

 

Abramovich has seen his most important stock market investment, steel producer Evraz, rescued by a ?1.8bn (?1.2bn) loan from the Russian government, as concerns grow about how hard the Chelsea owner has been hit by the credit crunch. (Observer)

 

Now Chelsea have been the epitomy of the football boom over the past 15 years, flush with cash and not afraid to spend it. Even they, it would appear, are having to severely tighten their belts.

 

How about the following as an indication of transfer deflation:

Harry Redknapp wants to bring ?20m Liverpool flop Robbie Keane back to Tottenham Hotspur, and expects to pay just ?5m to get him. (Various)

 

Yes Robbie Keane has not been as successful as hoped at Liverpool, but as the article suggests, his value may have gone down by 75% in less than 6 months.

 

British football and English football in particular in my opinion, is about to enter into an almighty bust, the equal of the boom it has experienced in the past 15 years. I suspect over the next few years we will see major wage and transfer fee deflation and potentially some big clubs going bust. The clubs that act now, to reduce net debt and running costs to sustainable levels will be the ones who are best placed to survive this.

[Martin_T]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/7769919.stm

 

 

Gaydamak to sell Portsmouth. Further evidence of how hard the credit crunch has hit Russian owners.

[Therapist]

It'd be no bad thing if the football industry is forced to take a reality check in terms of player salaries and other costs.

[Guest jambomickey]

It'd be no bad thing if the football industry is forced to take a reality check in terms of player salaries and other costs.

 

spot on! we need to live within our means.

[djf]

I suppose the question is, have Hearts left it too little, too late and the answer is, we'll have to wait and see.

 

When we were really in the turd last season there was a significant number who said they wanted rid of the "wage-thiefs" and they would back 11 hopeless cases as long as they played for the jersey. We might be able to test that theory very shortly.

[hmfc_steve]

It'd be no bad thing if the football industry is forced to take a reality check in terms of player salaries and other costs.

 

In years gone by, when most clubs had good crowds, players wages were not massively more than the supporters going to see them.... nowadays, with players earning 15 or 20 times the average supporters wages, a bit of the affinity has obviously dissolved.... and quite frankly, earning many thousands of pounds for kicking a ball up and down a grass pitch is quite obscene

[Spellczech]

In years gone by, when most clubs had good crowds, players wages were not massively more than the supporters going to see them.... nowadays, with players earning 15 or 20 times the average supporters wages, a bit of the affinity has obviously dissolved.... and quite frankly, earning many thousands of pounds for kicking a ball up and down a grass pitch is quite obscene

Especially when the vast majority are not even that good at it! I mean 28 grand per week for a player like Bobo Balde! Francis Jeffers apparently on 7K per week even though he hasn?t been even a decent player for over 5 years!

[Cade]

I blame this man.

 

His sucessful campaign to end the wage cap on professional players paved the way into the mess football is in now.

[bighusref]

I blame this man.

 

His sucessful campaign to end the wage cap on professional players paved the way into the mess football is in now.

 

This post MAY be jocular, but I would agree.

 

He should have been campaigning to raise the maximum wage, not to abolish it.

[Drylaw Hearts]

He should have been campaigning to raise the maximum wage, not to abolish it.

 

Agreed.

[The Comedian]

British football and English football in particular in my opinion, is about to enter into an almighty bust, the equal of the boom it has experienced in the past 15 years. I suspect over the next few years we will see major wage and transfer fee deflation and potentially some big clubs going bust. The clubs that act now, to reduce net debt and running costs to sustainable levels will be the ones who are best placed to survive this.

 

This would be a good thing IMO. There Is too big a spending gap between teams causing a lack of competitivness In the SPL and EPL. This might level the playing field.

[shaun.lawson]

This post MAY be jocular, but I would agree.

 

He should have been campaigning to raise the maximum wage, not to abolish it.

 

Disagree. Wages at the time were a joke and a disgrace; and any such campaign just wouldn't have resulted in anything like what was warranted. What do I blame? The decision of English and (later I think) Scottish authorities to end the 50-50 split of gate receipts: that was genuine redistribution of wealth in action, and we've been on a slippery slope ever since.

[shaun.lawson]

It'd be no bad thing if the football industry is forced to take a reality check in terms of player salaries and other costs.

 

Given this was written by a Chelsea fan, I've seen everything now...

[shaun.lawson]

In years gone by, when most clubs had good crowds, players wages were not massively more than the supporters going to see them.... nowadays, with players earning 15 or 20 times the average supporters wages, a bit of the affinity has obviously dissolved.... and quite frankly, earning many thousands of pounds for kicking a ball up and down a grass pitch is quite obscene

 

But it wouldn't be possible without supporters up and down the UK who are stupid enough to pay the ridiculous amounts charged at the gate. They'd never stand for it on the continent, where admission fees are miles lower. Much of the power has always resided with the fans - but if we carry on behaving like suckers, we get the football clubs we deserve.

[JamboSean]

But it wouldn't be possible without supporters up and down the UK who are stupid enough to pay the ridiculous amounts charged at the gate. They'd never stand for it on the continent, where admission fees are miles lower. Much of the power has always resided with the fans - but if we carry on behaving like suckers, we get the football clubs we deserve.

 

It's blind loyalty though. Some people will pay anything to watch their team.

[Saint Jambo]

Quote:

How about the following as an indication of transfer deflation:

Harry Redknapp wants to bring ?20m Liverpool flop Robbie Keane back to Tottenham Hotspur, and expects to pay just ?5m to get him. (Various)

 

Yes Robbie Keane has not been as successful as hoped at Liverpool, but as the article suggests, his value may have gone down by 75% in less than 6 months.

 

Don't disagree with the thrust of your post but I happened to pick up a copy of NoTW in a cafe today (no other sports sections available honest). The actual story said that Liverpool have only paid ?10m, so Spurs would waive the ?10m due and pay ?5m. This effectively values him at ?15m, which given how poor he has been seems vastly over-inflated to me. Plus this is what Redknapp is saying he'd expect to have to pay rather than what 'Pool would actually accept.

[bighusref]

Disagree. Wages at the time were a joke and a disgrace; and any such campaign just wouldn't have resulted in anything like what was warranted. What do I blame? The decision of English and (later I think) Scottish authorities to end the 50-50 split of gate receipts: that was genuine redistribution of wealth in action, and we've been on a slippery slope ever since.

 

If the above were to be the case, we wouldn't see clubs paying huge % numbers over their turnover for players.

 

The wage may not have been great then, however players were deemed to be well paid employees as long ago as the second world war. They may not have been living the life of Heff, however to suggest they were paupers is inaccurate.

 

Higher wages yes, no limit? Well, we have seen what has happened there. Today, I read that Benzema was a target for Man Utd at a reputed ?90 Million, I would suspect that his wage would be a minimum of ?100,000 a week. Could you remind me what the reputed average wage of an employee in the U.K. is?

[shaun.lawson]

A couple of articles in the press today about Abramovich and Chelsea:

 

 

 

Now Chelsea have been the epitomy of the football boom over the past 15 years, flush with cash and not afraid to spend it. Even they, it would appear, are having to severely tighten their belts.

 

 

 

Yes Robbie Keane has not been as successful as hoped at Liverpool, but as the article suggests, his value may have gone down by 75% in less than 6 months.

 

British football and English football in particular in my opinion, is about to enter into an almighty bust, the equal of the boom it has experienced in the past 15 years. I suspect over the next few years we will see major wage and transfer fee deflation and potentially some big clubs going bust. The clubs that act now, to reduce net debt and running costs to sustainable levels will be the ones who are best placed to survive this.

 

The credit crunch will impact on everyone, no question about it. Those clubs who've punched way above their natural weight thanks to sugardaddies will probably be worst hit: Portsmouth, maybe Wigan, Blackburn now their money's run out. Others who've spent crazy amounts but haven't really seen the full benefit (West Ham, Hearts) are on the stickiest of wickets too.

 

Then there are those huge clubs which are ludicrously over-leveraged - Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea - who'll be hit, but surely be OK because someone else will buy them given the potential they offer (a certainty in the first two cases, I'd have thought). And still others - traditional top flight clubs who've hit on hard times because of not having a benefactor but still have a top flight fanbase - Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingham Forest, and maybe Norwich, Leicester, Southampton and others - will probably enjoy much happier times.

 

I do think, though, that you're chronically mistaking proactive long term wage cutting and planning for a sensible future with reactive short term slashing based on panic and incompetence. The majority of SPL clubs, including Celtic, who are about to go into the black, have been living within their means for years now. The worst culprits, given our size, fanbase and the value of our assets, have been us: and the shock therapy which I believe is lurking over the next few months will be pretty shocking, but it's open to question how therapeutic it proves.

[shaun.lawson]

If the above were to be the case, we wouldn't see clubs paying huge % numbers over their turnover for players.

 

The wage may not have been great then, however players were deemed to be well paid employees as long ago as the second world war. They may not have been living the life of Heff, however to suggest they were paupers is inaccurate.

 

Higher wages yes, no limit? Well, we have seen what has happened there. Today, I read that Benzema was a target for Man Utd at a reputed ?90 Million, I would suspect that his wage would be a minimum of ?100,000 a week. Could you remind me what the reputed average wage of an employee in the U.K. is?

 

I don't disagree. My point, though, is if you look at what happened to league tables in the years afterwards, ending the 50-50 split started all this. It enabled the biggest clubs to maximise their commercial potential in a whole new way both north and south of the border, and led ultimately to pretty chronic wage inflation. The solution? A salary cap, which'd have to be based on % of turnover for the biggest clubs to agree to it: but would they in any case, given the ground they'd lose on their European competitors? I doubt it, sadly.

[Skivingatwork]

Perhaps we could employ something along the lines of the Yanks, where each team has a wage cap for the year. You can go above that, but if you do you must pay a fine to the rest of the clubs in the league for doing so.

 

Examples are the New York Yankees and the LA Lakers.

[bighusref]

I don't disagree. My point, though, is if you look at what happened to league tables in the years afterwards, ending the 50-50 split started all this. It enabled the biggest clubs to maximise their commercial potential in a whole new way both north and south of the border, and led ultimately to pretty chronic wage inflation. The solution? A salary cap, which'd have to be based on % of turnover for the biggest clubs to agree to it: but would they in any case, given the ground they'd lose on their European competitors? I doubt it, sadly.

 

So, when I said that he should have been campaigning for a raised wage cap as opposed to removing the wage cap I was correct?

[shaun.lawson]

So, when I said that he should have been campaigning for a raised wage cap as opposed to removing the wage cap I was correct?

 

No - because it'd have been an unfairly harsh cap at that time. Football is littered with examples of great players and managers being treated quite despicably by their clubs, who took them for granted, effectively held them captive for years on end, and threw them out with the trash afterwards. It happened to Bill Shankly (who died of a broken heart given his treatment), Jock Stein, Jimmy Murphy (the man who led a grieving Man Utd all the way to the 1958 FA Cup Final)... let alone our own cases like poor Jim Cruickshank. I'm not sure if even Tommy Walker was given a proper send-off, though I'm not very knowledgeable about that.

 

Many of England's 1966 World Cup winners have had to sell their memorabilia in order to get by: frankly, that tells me all I need to know. Jimmy Hill - who was also responsible for the implementation of three points for a win - was brave and ahead of his time in what he campaigned for. That greedheads have chased the gravy train more latterly is hardly his fault.

[bighusref]

No - because it'd have been an unfairly harsh cap at that time. Football is littered with examples of great players and managers being treated quite despicably by their clubs, who took them for granted, effectively held them captive for years on end, and threw them out with the trash afterwards. It happened to Bill Shankly (who died of a broken heart given his treatment), Jock Stein, Jimmy Murphy (the man who led a grieving Man Utd all the way to the 1958 FA Cup Final)... let alone our own cases like poor Jim Cruickshank. I'm not sure if even Tommy Walker was given a proper send-off, though I'm not very knowledgeable about that.

 

Many of England's 1966 World Cup winners have had to sell their memorabilia in order to get by: frankly, that tells me all I need to know. Jimmy Hill - who was also responsible for the implementation of three points for a win - was brave and ahead of his time in what he campaigned for. That greedheads have chased the gravy train more latterly is hardly his fault.

 

Sorry, I stopped at the quoted part. I wonder if you could explain why a proposed wage cap raise (with no limit proposed) could be unfair.

 

Say for example that football players were paid a pound a week at wartime, say that we felt that was bad and offered to quadruple that, putting in place a pro rata annual increase linked to inflation. That would have sounded more than reasonable to me. However, you felt any cap was unreasonable, say his pound a week had a 10000000000000000 pound a week wage cap? that would not be unfair would it?

[shaun.lawson]

Sorry, I stopped at the quoted part. I wonder if you could explain why a proposed wage cap raise (with no limit proposed) could be unfair.

 

Say for example that football players were paid a pound a week at wartime, say that we felt that was bad and offered to quadruple that, putting in place a pro rata annual increase linked to inflation. That would have sounded more than reasonable to me. However, you felt any cap was unreasonable, say his pound a week had a 10000000000000000 pound a week wage cap? that would not be unfair would it?

 

The wages which followed the change were fair, BH. There was no problem with crazy wages until the 90s, meaning something clearly changed at that point: namely SKY TV and Bosman. But given it was fine for the three decades in between, there's no reason to criticise Lord Chinny of Hill.

[bighusref]

The wages which followed the change were fair, BH. There was no problem with crazy wages until the 90s, meaning something clearly changed at that point: namely SKY TV and Bosman. But given it was fine for the three decades in between, there's no reason to criticise Lord Chinny of Hill.

 

That is the point though.

 

Say for example that the wages prior the the change were a pound a week, then Hill fought for the cap being abolished, then they got their wages upped to three pounds a week.

 

If that were the case, would it not have been prudent to say that a footballer could earn no more than three pounds a week with a proposed annual assessment based on inflation?

[shaun.lawson]

That is the point though.

 

Say for example that the wages prior the the change were a pound a week, then Hill fought for the cap being abolished, then they got their wages upped to three pounds a week.

 

If that were the case, would it not have been prudent to say that a footballer could earn no more than three pounds a week with a proposed annual assessment based on inflation?

 

It depends on what clubs' means were at the time. The post-Italia 90 and Taylor Report boom was wholly unforeseeable back when Hill was campaigning; indeed, it was unforeseeable as late as the late 1980s! Nothing in what Hill wanted made what's happened over the last few years inevitable at all: it was up to football to ensure it looked after itself and kept its house in order, and could've done so quite easily. Typically, greed and supergreed prevailed - so it failed utterly.

[bighusref]

It depends on what clubs' means were at the time. The post-Italia 90 and Taylor Report boom was wholly unforeseeable back when Hill was campaigning; indeed, it was unforeseeable as late as the late 1980s! Nothing in what Hill wanted made what's happened over the last few years inevitable at all: it was up to football to ensure it looked after itself and kept its house in order, and could've done so quite easily. Typically, greed and supergreed prevailed - so it failed utterly.

 

Jeezo man!

 

So, a wage cap would not have been a big deal? The big deal was that the previous wage cap was too low?

 

Come on man, admit it for the love of christ!!!!

[troonjambo]

It'd be no bad thing if the football industry is forced to take a reality check in terms of player salaries and other costs.

 

it would indeed

[chester copperpot]

It'd be no bad thing if the football industry is forced to take a reality check in terms of player salaries and other costs.

 

 

 

Thats a fantastic post. Well said.

[shaun.lawson]

Jeezo man!

 

So, a wage cap would not have been a big deal? The big deal was that the previous wage cap was too low?

 

Come on man, admit it for the love of christ!!!!

 

No - because you're dealing in theory, not reality. Come on man: what happens when public sector workers, say, campaign for wage rises nowadays? Or for that matter, those on the minimum wage? They're granted a small amount, which barely scratches the surface, especially in the latter case. If Hill had been less ambitious in his campaign, then knowing the way football operated at the time, I think he'd have been far less successful - and players would still have been paid much too little.

[bighusref]

No - because you're dealing in theory, not reality. Come on man: what happens when public sector workers, say, campaign for wage rises nowadays? Or for that matter, those on the minimum wage? They're granted a small amount, which barely scratches the surface, especially in the latter case. If Hill had been less ambitious in his campaign, then knowing the way football operated at the time, I think he'd have been far less successful - and players would still have been paid much too little.

 

Of course it is theory. Thing about history is that if it never happened it has to be theory, non?

 

You are still talking about other situations. I have said a few times, say footballers negotiated a good pay rise that meant they would earn well over the future years and that it was linked to inflation. Had such an agreement been put in place then todays issues would be non existent.

 

As for the suspected response along the lines of "why would the EFA agree to such a deal?" I am not saying they would, however when on the brink of losing a cap altogether I reckon they would have dealt high on any prospective cap.

[Martin_T]

The credit crunch will impact on everyone, no question about it. Those clubs who've punched way above their natural weight thanks to sugardaddies will probably be worst hit: Portsmouth, maybe Wigan, Blackburn now their money's run out. Others who've spent crazy amounts but haven't really seen the full benefit (West Ham, Hearts) are on the stickiest of wickets too.

 

Then there are those huge clubs which are ludicrously over-leveraged - Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea - who'll be hit, but surely be OK because someone else will buy them given the potential they offer (a certainty in the first two cases, I'd have thought). And still others - traditional top flight clubs who've hit on hard times because of not having a benefactor but still have a top flight fanbase - Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingham Forest, and maybe Norwich, Leicester, Southampton and others - will probably enjoy much happier times.

 

I do think, though, that you're chronically mistaking proactive long term wage cutting and planning for a sensible future with reactive short term slashing based on panic and incompetence. The majority of SPL clubs, including Celtic, who are about to go into the black, have been living within their means for years now. The worst culprits, given our size, fanbase and the value of our assets, have been us: and the shock therapy which I believe is lurking over the next few months will be pretty shocking, but it's open to question how therapeutic it proves.

 

I suspect, that we will see at least 1 Premiership club in administration in the next year, prime suspects being West Ham. If the current economic climate leads to transfer fee deflation, that will impact upon clubs abilities to raise capital through player sales. Less income from player sales, leads to lower costs being a necessity, hence wage deflation kicks in.

 

The Premiership is largely financed by a combination of media revenue and borrowed money (all of Chelsea's expenditure is in the form of loans from Abramovich), I suspect media revenues will drop and it will be more expensive to obtain finance. The EPL truly is a financial timebomb and I don't think any club will immune regardless of fanbase, especially when foreign owners make business decisions without a hint of sentiment.

 

In Hearts case, it is true that we have been the one SPL club that has consistently refused to face reality. That said, if our debt level is circa ?15 to ?20 million currently, this is small beer in the grand scheme of things and I think a sustainable business model could be achieved that would see a competitive team on the park in combination with this debt being serviced.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

No - because you're dealing in theory, not reality. Come on man: what happens when public sector workers, say, campaign for wage rises nowadays? Or for that matter, those on the minimum wage? They're granted a small amount, which barely scratches the surface, especially in the latter case. If Hill had been less ambitious in his campaign, then knowing the way football operated at the time, I think he'd have been far less successful - and players would still have been paid much too little.

 

Here's another way of looking at it.

 

In 1958, post Munich, Jimmy Murphy was contacted by 3 of the Hungarian national team who had "escaped" from Communist rule to Italy and offered their services to Man Utd to help rebuild the team. However, all Murphy could offer them was the maximum wage of ?20 per week. Puskas, by contrast, was earning ?800 per week at Real Madrid! They didn't sign, funnily enough.

 

The only way a maximum wage could work these days is if it was FIFA imposed. There is no danger that will happen.

[Martin_T]

Here's another way of looking at it.

 

In 1958, post Munich, Jimmy Murphy was contacted by 3 of the Hungarian national team who had "escaped" from Communist rule to Italy and offered their services to Man Utd to help rebuild the team. However, all Murphy could offer them was the maximum wage of ?20 per week. Puskas, by contrast, was earning ?800 per week at Real Madrid! They didn't sign, funnily enough.

 

The only way a maximum wage could work these days is if it was FIFA imposed. There is no danger that will happen.

 

On an individual basis it would be illegal. What could happen though is that rules are enforced as regards what percentage of turnover clubs are allowed to spend on their wage bill.

[JamboSean]

On an individual basis it would be illegal. What could happen though is that rules are enforced as regards what percentage of turnover clubs are allowed to spend on their wage bill.

 

That would be the best thing that can happen. 60% of your turnover or something along those lines.

 

Thing is, could that actually work? Do all clubs allow you to see their yearly accounts?

[shaun.lawson]

I suspect, that we will see at least 1 Premiership club in administration in the next year, prime suspects being West Ham. If the current economic climate leads to transfer fee deflation, that will impact upon clubs abilities to raise capital through player sales. Less income from player sales, leads to lower costs being a necessity, hence wage deflation kicks in.

 

The Premiership is largely financed by a combination of media revenue and borrowed money (all of Chelsea's expenditure is in the form of loans from Abramovich), I suspect media revenues will drop and it will be more expensive to obtain finance. The EPL truly is a financial timebomb and I don't think any club will immune regardless of fanbase, especially when foreign owners make business decisions without a hint of sentiment.

 

In Hearts case, it is true that we have been the one SPL club that has consistently refused to face reality. That said, if our debt level is circa ?15 to ?20 million currently, this is small beer in the grand scheme of things and I think a sustainable business model could be achieved that would see a competitive team on the park in combination with this debt be serviced.

 

I certainly hope so, Martin, and believe that is attainable - albeit under (presently unknown) new ownership. None of us know what our exact debt figure is - heck, even the July '08 sum will be out of date by the time it's published - but the reason I quoted us as opposed to, say, Rangers, or even Man Utd or Chelsea, is because all those clubs have assets and revenue which dwarf ours. Rangers have been run embarrassingly at times since the turn of the century - but their existence has never been in question. Ours was at one point; fingers, toes and everything crossed that it isn't again.

[shaun.lawson]

Here's another way of looking at it.

 

In 1958, post Munich, Jimmy Murphy was contacted by 3 of the Hungarian national team who had "escaped" from Communist rule to Italy and offered their services to Man Utd to help rebuild the team. However, all Murphy could offer them was the maximum wage of ?20 per week. Puskas, by contrast, was earning ?800 per week at Real Madrid! They didn't sign, funnily enough.

 

The only way a maximum wage could work these days is if it was FIFA imposed. There is no danger that will happen.

 

Absolutely! Note also the players banned for life after playing in Colombia in the late 1940s - and the archaic, hypocritical shamateurism in place everywhere.

[shaun.lawson]

That would be the best thing that can happen. 60% of your turnover or something along those lines.

 

Thing is, could that actually work? Do all clubs allow you to see their yearly accounts?

 

I'm loving this conversion on the road to Damascus our Chelsea fans on here seem to be experiencing. You do realise your club have been the worst culprits in European football by a country mile? And that a wage cap would all but end your chances of regaining the EPL or ever winning the CL?

[shaun.lawson]

Of course it is theory. Thing about history is that if it never happened it has to be theory, non?

You are still talking about other situations. I have said a few times, say footballers negotiated a good pay rise that meant they would earn well over the future years and that it was linked to inflation. Had such an agreement been put in place then todays issues would be non existent.

 

As for the suspected response along the lines of "why would the EFA agree to such a deal?" I am not saying they would, however when on the brink of losing a cap altogether I reckon they would have dealt high on any prospective cap.

 

Would they? What about when the biggest clubs protested about restraint of trade as their best players disappeared to better-paid European ones? See Geoff's example re: Puskas, for instance.

[JamboSean]

I'm loving this conversion on the road to Damascus our Chelsea fans on here seem to be experiencing. You do realise your club have been the worst culprits in European football by a country mile? And that a wage cap would all but end your chances of regaining the EPL or ever winning the CL?

 

That's where your wrong. Chelsea are one of the top 10 clubs in the world now, like it or not. We're a massive pull when it comes to European clubs. This is purely down to the money we'd have invested in us, but it's worked all the same.

 

We'd have as good a chance as any other club in England.

[Martin_T]

I'm loving this conversion on the road to Damascus our Chelsea fans on here seem to be experiencing. You do realise your club have been the worst culprits in European football by a country mile? And that a wage cap would all but end your chances of regaining the EPL or ever winning the CL?

 

Not necessarily Shaun, I think I'm right in saying that Chelsea had a turnover in the top 5 clubs in the world last year, 60% of that would still be more than most clubs.

 

Chelsea's problem is that the money they have been spending in the last few seasons is all on tick...and I suspect that Abramovich is easily ruthless enough to do whatever he needs to do to recover it as his personal wealth continues to be damaged by the fall of the global and in particular Russian market.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

On an individual basis it would be illegal. What could happen though is that rules are enforced as regards what percentage of turnover clubs are allowed to spend on their wage bill.

 

Quite so.

 

But it would have to happen across all leagues for it to be truly effective.

 

There are also other ways round it if benefactors wish to bankroll. For example, a sponsorship deal from the owner could be 20 times the amount that the club could normally attract.

[shaun.lawson]

That's where your wrong. Chelsea are one of the top 10 clubs in the world now, like it or not. We're a massive pull when it comes to European clubs. This is purely down to the money we'd have invested in us, but it's worked all the same.

 

We'd have as good a chance as any other club in England.

 

Not given Man Utd, Arsenal, Real Madrid and Barcelona's turnovers, you wouldn't. Arsenal's prospects have been transformed by moving to the Emirates: Chelsea would probably have to relocate too if you're to stay at the top table and do it in a sustainable way. But the trouble is, you haven't built up a large enough fanbase to make a much larger capacity a good idea; and it will take one or two generations in order to do so.

[JamboSean]

Not given Man Utd, Arsenal, Real Madrid and Barcelona's turnovers, you wouldn't. Arsenal's prospects have been transformed by moving to the Emirates: Chelsea would probably have to relocate too if you're to stay at the top table and do it in a sustainable way. But the trouble is, you haven't built up a large enough fanbase to make a much larger capacity a good idea; and it will take one or two generations in order to do so.

 

As Martin T as said above, we were in the top 5 clubs for turnover last year. We're a global brand now, every one who knows anything about football knows Chelsea. Kids all over the world run around in Chelsea tops as they do with the clubs you have mentioned.

 

A stadium relocation wouldn't be a bad thing as long as the fans were there to fill it. The ticket policy would need a re-think as some of Chelsea's tickets are far too expensive. Plus, can you imagine the turnover for the year Chelsea sold the land Stamford Bridge is on? Credit crunch or no credit crunch, the profit would be unreal.

 

If Chelsea continue to challenge for honours and sign players people want to see the fan base will grow and grow. As I said before, Chelsea are one of the biggest club in the world now.

[shaun.lawson]

As Martin T as said above, we were in the top 5 clubs for turnover last year. We're a global brand now, every one who knows anything about football knows Chelsea. Kids all over the world run around in Chelsea tops as they do with the clubs you have mentioned.

 

A stadium relocation wouldn't be a bad thing as long as the fans were there to fill it. The ticket policy would need a re-think as some of Chelsea's tickets are far too expensive. Plus, can you imagine the turnover for the year Chelsea sold the land Stamford Bridge is on? Credit crunch or no credit crunch, the profit would be unreal.

 

If Chelsea continue to challenge for honours and sign players people want to see the fan base will grow and grow. As I said before, Chelsea are one of the biggest club in the world now.

 

But you only have such a turnover because of the wages you pay: I don't think you'll be able to continue doing so under the kind of system being suggested, so the club would gradually shrink. Chelsea have come on leaps and bounds over the past five years - but no way, no way on earth are you comparable with Real, Barca or United when it comes to global marketing and commercial activities. I have a tough time believing you ever will be, either.

 

It's the biggest single reason Abramovich got sick of Mourinho - for you ever to be as big as he wants, you have to play football along the lines of the three behemoths I've mentioned - but I still think Chelsea as the biggest club in the world is simply an impossibility. And if you asked me right now where I think you'll be in five years time, I'd say, 4th or 5th, winning a Cup or two: where you were between 1997 and 2003, basically.

[vegas-voss]

Most on here seem more concerned about these big EPL clubs but if they struggle as bad as some suspect then this is no good for Hearts right now because surely our valuation on players will have to drop bringinging in less money in transfer fees and reducing the debt less.In the long term over the top spending can only be good but in the short Hearts need the EPL clubs dosh.

[JamboSean]

But you only have such a turnover because of the wages you pay: I don't think you'll be able to continue doing so under the kind of system being suggested, so the club would gradually shrink. Chelsea have come on leaps and bounds over the past five years - but no way, no way on earth are you comparable with Real, Barca or United when it comes to global marketing and commercial activities. I have a tough time believing you ever will be, either.

 

It's the biggest single reason Abramovich got sick of Mourinho - for you ever to be as big as he wants, you have to play football along the lines of the three behemoths I've mentioned - but I still think Chelsea as the biggest club in the world is simply an impossibility. And if you asked me right now where I think you'll be in five years time, I'd say, 4th or 5th, winning a Cup or two: where you were between 1997 and 2003, basically.

 

How does that work exactly? We have a massive turnover due to the wages we are paying out? Am I missing something here? Not yet we don't no, but if we carry on the way we are, we will be. If an English side is constantly getting close to European glory and winning Championships their pedigree will grow. More people will know and want to be involved in the Chelsea franchise. For evidence look at the next sponsorship Chelsea receive, I'm willing to bet it's more than Liverpool or Arsenal, and pretty close to what the biggest clubs in the world receive.

 

Chelsea will never be the biggest club in the world as we don't have the history, but we will be in the top 10, very close to the top 5. That's not even in doubt. I can't see where you're getting that from either. Abramovic has never said he's cutting his funds for Chelsea and has never said he's losing his enthusiasm for the club. We may be cutting costs at the moment but that's purely being sensible in the current climate.

 

For the record, Mourinho was sacked because he didn't play the attractive football that the owner wanted to see, and he wasn't willing to give players he didn't sign the chances they deserved. With Sheva he was proved right, with Ballack he was proved wrong.

[shaun.lawson]

How does that work exactly? We have a massive turnover due to the wages we are paying out? Am I missing something here? Not yet we don't no, but if we carry on the way we are, we will be. If an English side is constantly getting close to European glory and winning Championships their pedigree will grow. More people will know and want to be involved in the Chelsea franchise. For evidence look at the next sponsorship Chelsea receive, I'm willing to bet it's more than Liverpool or Arsenal, and pretty close to what the biggest clubs in the world receive.

 

Chelsea will never be the biggest club in the world as we don't have the history, but we will be in the top 10, very close to the top 5. That's not even in doubt. I can't see where you're getting that from either. Abramovic has never said he's cutting his funds for Chelsea and has never said he's losing his enthusiasm for the club. We may be cutting costs at the moment but that's purely being sensible in the current climate.

 

For the record, Mourinho was sacked because he didn't play the attractive football that the owner wanted to see, and he wasn't willing to give players he didn't sign the chances they deserved. With Sheva he was proved right, with Ballack he was proved wrong.

 

What I mean is, the wages you're paying out are wayyyy beyond your natural means (by which, I mean gate receipts, and SKY and CL money). I think the club at the top most liable to decline in the event of a wage cap would be Chelsea. Without the history of other clubs, you wouldn't be able to sign and keep hold of the players you do now; as it is, your money talks (with Scolari as well as a number of players).

 

I'm watching Abramovich closely at the moment. I'm sure he's just as committed as he always was - the problem is his paper wealth has been slashed. The impact that has on you remains to be seen: but when Scolari whined about the ref last week, what I read into it was general frustration re: what he was promised when taking the job and what he's likely to actually get. Again, Chelsea have to go an extra mile to land managers like him, and don't have the brand name and appeal to keep them if times are tougher.

 

Incidentally, I probably put Chelsea 12th worldwide in terms of club size: massively higher than you once were, but I still view your position as somewhat false, and predicated entirely on the generosity of the owner. We'll see - but Peter Kenyon's said before that RA's aim is to make you the biggest club in the world, and to be it or anything near it, you can't be anything like self-sustaining. Which is Abramovich's other, completely contradictory goal.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Most on here seem more concerned about these big EPL clubs but if they struggle as bad as some suspect then this is no good for Hearts right now because surely our valuation on players will have to drop bringinging in less money in transfer fees and reducing the debt less.In the long term over the top spending can only be good but in the short Hearts need the EPL clubs dosh.

 

Which is why this transfer window MIGHT be the last opportunity to sell big. A lot depends on what Man City do as they could start a merry go-round with teams like Portsmouth ending up with a wad of cash that they will spend some of.

[JamboSean]

What I mean is, the wages you're paying out are wayyyy beyond your natural means (by which, I mean gate receipts, and SKY and CL money). I think the club at the top most liable to decline in the event of a wage cap would be Chelsea. Without the history of other clubs, you wouldn't be able to sign and keep hold of the players you do now; as it is, your money talks (with Scolari as well as a number of players).

 

I'm watching Abramovich closely at the moment. I'm sure he's just as committed as he always was - the problem is his paper wealth has been slashed. The impact that has on you remains to be seen: but when Scolari whined about the ref last week, what I read into it was general frustration re: what he was promised when taking the job and what he's likely to actually get. Again, Chelsea have to go an extra mile to land managers like him, and don't have the brand name and appeal to keep them if times are tougher.

 

Incidentally, I probably put Chelsea 12th worldwide in terms of club size: massively higher than you once were, but I still view your position as somewhat false, and predicated entirely on the generosity of the owner. We'll see - but Peter Kenyon's said before that RA's aim is to make you the biggest club in the world, and to be it or anything near it, you can't be anything like self-sustaining. Which is Abramovich's other, completely contradictory goal.

 

I agree with the wages, we are paying out more than we bring in but I don't have a problem as long as Roman is putting the money in. I seen that too, I think he was very bitter about not getting Robinho. He's been told to sell before he can buy in January too, so he's going to have to use his skills in the transfer market. For what it's worth, I'm not too keen on Scolari, I think there are a lot better club managers out there.

 

We'll never become the biggest club in the world, it's a dream. But saying that, Chelsea over the last 5 years has been a dream come true. If we end up back challenging for a European spot and the odd cup, we'll be back to where we were anyway, nothing lost.

 

We've taken over another thread talking about Chelsea, Shaun. We should have our own sub-forum.