Chelsea's annual wage bill has soared to £172.5million

• zocoss

  1 Feb 11, 02:50

  Chelsea in the red again as champions post huge £71m loss
  

   

  

  Champions: But Chelsea have still posted an enormous loss

   

   

  Chelsea have posted another enormous loss, despite a successful Double-winning season. The Blues lost £70.9m last season despite winning both the Premier League title and FA Cup.

  Announcing financial results for the 12 months to June 30, 2010, Chelsea said turnover increased by 1.2 percent to £205.8m but that a reduction in the value of its squad was the main reason for the loss.

  Chelsea chief executive Ron Gourlay highlighted the fact that the club has become cash positive, with a surplus of £3.8m, compared to an outflow of £16.9m for the previous season.

  'The reduction in operating losses and increased sales in 2009-10 shows that we are moving in the right direction, especially when viewed against the difficult macroeconomic environment,' Gourlay said. 'The club is in a strong position to meet the challenges of UEFA 'financial fair play' initiatives, which will be relevant to the financial statements to be released in early 2013.'

  UEFA will ban clubs from its European competitions, including the lucrative Champions League, from 2012 if they go into debt on football-related business.

  'That the club was cash generative in the year when we recorded a historic FAPL and FA Cup double is a great encouragement and demonstrates significant progress as regards our financial results,' chairman Bruce Buck said.

   In 2009, he converted £340m of interest-free loans into equity to make the club debt-free.

  Chelsea's chances of retaining its Premier League title have been hit by a dreadful run of results.

  And finances will be hit further if they manage to complete their signing of Liverpool superstar Fernando Torres for £50m.

• iceFatboy

  1 Feb 11, 10:34

  cheap la..

• Rock^Star

  1 Feb 11, 11:23

  man city and chelsea like to buy proven players. Utd and arsenal like to invest in youth.

• iceFatboy

  1 Feb 11, 11:48

  Originally posted by Rock^Star:

  man city and chelsea like to buy proven players. Utd and arsenal like to invest in youth.

  instant noodles, instant results mah..

• Rock^Star

  1 Feb 11, 12:39

  instant money, instant football.

• charleslee

  1 Feb 11, 13:00

  good luck to chelsea next season, let's see how are they gonna rebuilt their aging squad..sack ancelotti also need $$, buy new young players also need $$, best part, Fifa financial fair play will come in the next transfer season ....GG to them..

• KENNY DULLFOOL

  1 Feb 11, 13:01

  Originally posted by Rock^Star:

  instant money, instant football.

  
  yup rite u fucking nigga

• reyes

  1 Feb 11, 15:03

  man utd are hardly investing in youth these days.

  since when did they nature their own players these days?

  nani, anderson was bought for a total of 30million.

  berbatov was bought for around 30million.

  valencia was around 18million.

  carrick around 18million from spurs.

  maybe fletcher, o shea, brown, was the latest batch from youth academy.

   

  southampton was much better at nuturing youth. walcott, bale and up and coming alex chamb. ( replace fabregas).

   

   

• reyes

  1 Feb 11, 15:04

  chelsea break even was not on the agenda of roman. the scale of salary by terry, lampard, drogba, cole, can already bankrupt most teams.

   

• sg_forum

  1 Feb 11, 15:08

  Originally posted by reyes:

  chelsea break even was not on the agenda of roman. the scale of salary by terry, lampard, drogba, cole, can already bankrupt most teams.

   

  Roman's agenda is to win CL...after that bye bye and focus on Russian football...

• iceFatboy

  1 Feb 11, 15:17

  Originally posted by sg_forum:

  Roman's agenda is to win CL...after that bye bye and focus on Russian football...

  the small matter of the World Cup to finance.

• Rock^Star

  1 Feb 11, 15:17

  Originally posted by reyes:

  man utd are hardly investing in youth these days.

  since when did they nature their own players these days?

  nani, anderson was bought for a total of 30million.

  berbatov was bought for around 30million.

  valencia was around 18million.

  carrick around 18million from spurs.

  maybe fletcher, o shea, brown, was the latest batch from youth academy.

   

  southampton was much better at nuturing youth. walcott, bale and up and coming alex chamb. ( replace fabregas).

   

   

  hernandez, ronaldo, rooney, nani, anderson, fabio, rafael, gibson, evans, cleverly, welbeck have all been at some time youth players. There has to be a mixture of heavy buying and youth investment.

  Under fergie, there is a good chance they are developed into world class players.

• mrwonderful

  1 Feb 11, 16:20

  unless his new signings prove themselves, i dont see chelsea able to win CL this season.

  namely the defence is getting worse, inc terry making more mistakes,

  midfield losing creativity inc lampard and essien off form and lack of steel when ballack left,

  attack losing strength because drogba, anelka off form.

   

• reyes

  1 Feb 11, 16:29

  Originally posted by Rock^Star:

  hernandez, ronaldo, rooney, nani, anderson, fabio, rafael, gibson, evans, cleverly, welbeck have all been at some time youth players. There has to be a mixture of heavy buying and youth investment.

  Under fergie, there is a good chance they are developed into world class players.

  
  but these player are already costing alot of money except evans, rafael, welbeck.

  and most are already playing in top clubs before fergie snap them up at 15-20million pound each. they are even more expensive than VDV of spurs,

• CKeer

  1 Feb 11, 17:18

  Originally posted by reyes:

  man utd are hardly investing in youth these days.

  since when did they nature their own players these days?

  nani, anderson was bought for a total of 30million.

  berbatov was bought for around 30million.

  valencia was around 18million.

  carrick around 18million from spurs.

  maybe fletcher, o shea, brown, was the latest batch from youth academy.

  southampton was much better at nuturing youth. walcott, bale and up and coming alex chamb. ( replace fabregas).

  but these player are already costing alot of money except evans, rafael, welbeck.

  and most are already playing in top clubs before fergie snap them up at 15-20million pound each. they are even more expensive than VDV of spurs,

  I wont blame you for being ill-informed about the size of the transfer fees involve as you're no United fan and hardly a football fan if i scrutinize and analyze the points you've made:

  "man utd are hardly investing in youth these days." - I'm sorry, but where does this sentence come about?

  United has currently 9 players out on loan (age): Welback (20), Macheda (19), De Laet (22), Corry Evans (20), Mame Biram Diouf (23), Cleverley (21), Ajose (19), Amos (20), Dudgeon (20).

  Looking purely at these few years, United had/has:

  Rafael and Fabio were signed for a combined total of 5.2m

  Nurtured youths who went on to make a name of themselves elsewhere: Giuseppe Rossi, Zoran Tosic, Chris Eagles, Sylvian Ebanks-Blake, Fraizer Campbell, Ryan Shawcross, Phil Bardsley, Danny Simpson

  Earlier they also had: David Healy, Luke Chadwick, Ronnie Wallwork, Danny Higginbotham, Danny Pugh
  
  And then there's Wes Brown, John O'Shea, Darren Fletcher, Gibson, Jonny Evans, Welback, Smalling, Hernandez even Bebe and Obertan!

  And there're are lesser known youth players like Oliver Gill (Son of David Gill, United's CEO), Recce Brown (Brother of Wes Brown).

  And there are so many that I might have missed out too.

  Southampton? I've mentioned before, Bale took 3 years to get to where he is now. Is Walcott the "new Henry" as proclaimed earlier? Don't kid yourself. And do you know that Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain play mostly on the wings? How can he replace a central midfielder Fabregas?

  By the way, why is Van der Vaart even in the picture? Is he a youth player in your eyes?

• Y_Shun

  1 Feb 11, 18:47

  The few aging players in Chelsea are Ashely Cole, Terry, Lampard, Drogba and Anelka. (Benayoun if you want to include...)

   

  For Ashely Cole, there are already understudy for him... such as van Anholt + Ryan Betrand... although I think Chelsea might use Zhrikov as a leftback instead.

  For Terry there is Jeffery Bruma

  For Lampard there is Josh McEachran to replace him...

  For Drogba/Anelka there is Sturridge or Gael Kakuta.

  So whats with the problem of replacing these aging players?

• sg_forum

  1 Feb 11, 19:32

  Originally posted by Y_Shun:

  The few aging players in Chelsea are Ashely Cole, Terry, Lampard, Drogba and Anelka. (Benayoun if you want to include...)

   

  For Ashely Cole, there are already understudy for him... such as van Anholt + Ryan Betrand... although I think Chelsea might use Zhrikov as a leftback instead.

  For Terry there is Jeffery Bruma

  For Lampard there is Josh McEachran to replace him...

  For Drogba/Anelka there is Sturridge or Gael Kakuta.

  So whats with the problem of replacing these aging players?

  out of these Chelsea young players only McEachran who looks promising although I think Sturridge is going to be good as well but the rest I am not very sure. Just my opinion cos I don't really watch Chelsea reserve game...only watched McEachran and Sturridge when they play in the first team..

• Rock^Star

  1 Feb 11, 19:37

  Originally posted by reyes:

  
  but these player are already costing alot of money except evans, rafael, welbeck.

  and most are already playing in top clubs before fergie snap them up at 15-20million pound each. they are even more expensive than VDV of spurs,

  Refer to CKeer's answer lol. Anyway, they have spent a lot on big money transfers but most of them are in youth. That's an investment in youth right? lol. Which part you dun understand bro.

• nature-ones

  1 Feb 11, 19:38

  lmao chelsea has spent another 50m of signing Torres from liverpool

• dragg

  1 Feb 11, 19:43

  Originally posted by CKeer:

  I wont blame you for being ill-informed about the size of the transfer fees involve as you're no United fan and hardly a football fan if i scrutinize and analyze the points you've made:

  "man utd are hardly investing in youth these days." - I'm sorry, but where does this sentence come about?

  United has currently 9 players out on loan (age): Welback (20), Macheda (19), De Laet (22), Corry Evans (20), Mame Biram Diouf (23), Cleverley (21), Ajose (19), Amos (20), Dudgeon (20).

  Looking purely at these few years, United had/has:

  Rafael and Fabio were signed for a combined total of 5.2m

  Nurtured youths who went on to make a name of themselves elsewhere: Giuseppe Rossi, Zoran Tosic, Chris Eagles, Sylvian Ebanks-Blake, Fraizer Campbell, Ryan Shawcross, Phil Bardsley, Danny Simpson

  Earlier they also had: David Healy, Luke Chadwick, Ronnie Wallwork, Danny Higginbotham, Danny Pugh
  
  And then there's Wes Brown, John O'Shea, Darren Fletcher, Gibson, Jonny Evans, Welback, Smalling, Hernandez even Bebe and Obertan!

  And there're are lesser known youth players like Oliver Gill (Son of David Gill, United's CEO), Recce Brown (Brother of Wes Brown).

  And there are so many that I might have missed out too.

  Southampton? I've mentioned before, Bale took 3 years to get to where he is now. Is Walcott the "new Henry" as proclaimed earlier? Don't kid yourself. And do you know that Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain play mostly on the wings? How can he replace a central midfielder Fabregas?

  By the way, why is Van der Vaart even in the picture? Is he a youth player in your eyes?

  i think he is comparing man u/chelsea to arsenal.

  anyway the biggest team is man u.  the most successful team is man u.  money to success ratio i also believe man u is highest.

   

   

• My cock is too BIG!

  1 Feb 11, 23:25

  Funny report dunno fr where dig out one!

  Everywhere now posting that Chelsea is posting their first positive gain & only down here the report is opposite??  Hmmm.....

• zocoss

  5 Feb 11, 01:39

  CHELSEA`S WAGE BILL RISES

  

  .

  .

   

  Chelsea's annual wage bill has soared to £172.5million - almost £40million more than the next highest payers Manchester City.

  The figure for the year ending June 2010 is revealed in Chelsea's full annual accounts lodged with Companies House today and shows a significant increase on the previous year.

  In 2009, the club spent £165.6million on wages but that sum included pay-offs worth £12.6million to sacked manager Luiz Felipe Scolari and his assistants. Excluding the pay-offs, the rise in wages is £19.5million and represents a 12.7% increase.

  Manchester City's wage bill is £133.3million, Manchester United's £131.7million and Arsenal are fourth with £110million spent annually on salaries according to their most recent accounts.

  Chelsea's wages are 82% of their turnover - more healthy than City's 106% - but way off United's level of 46% and Arsenal's of 49%.

  The figures also confirm that Chelsea reported losses of £70.9million compared to £44.4million the previous year. The club indicated earlier this week that they believe they will halve their losses in the next financial year.

  The latest accounts also reveal that Chelsea will be liable for £3.8million extra in National Insurance contributions if HM Revenue and Customs succeed in their legal case that image rights payments should be taxed as income.

  If that is proved, the players themselves would be liable to pay any tax individually in relation to image rights.

   

• Y_Shun

  5 Feb 11, 01:44

  I think these wages includes the high earners such as Ballack, Deco & Joe Cole...

• Rock^Star

  5 Feb 11, 10:13

  chelsea is not yet a football brand in the class of Real, Man Utd, Bayern etc. I don't think they will ever be because their success started with money.

• zocoss

  5 Feb 11, 12:26

  Well, it's hard to say... In the long run, we never know...