Chelsea and there Dirty money

Dub13

I thought I read somewere a while ago that clubs could not spend over a certan percent (50% I think) of there annual income on players wages.Now I am sure they Chelsea spend alot more than 50%

eirebhoy

I really doubt thats the case. Maybe teams in debt or admininstration cannot spend more than 50% of their income on wages.

jesus_thats_gre

There is no law that can dictate what percetage of revenue a compnay can spend on wages. However, some of the bigger clubs have inplemented this as a way to curb abnormal wage increases and as a way to meassure the financial performance of the club.

ShriekingSheet

Na I heard that mentioned on sky sports a few times during the season but cant quite remember the details. I think it was proposed but not implemented and I think it was only to apply in the nationwide divisions.

I could be horribly wrong

p.pete

Don't think there is anything like that in place but if there is you could look at it this way:

Chelsea were approx 100m in death - this has now been wiped, in effect part of their income for the year. Therefore they can spend half of 100m on wages in addition to half of whatever other income they receive.

DerekD Goldfish

I think their is a new uefa rule coming in so clubs can only spend 60% of thier income on wages if its ture most el clubs would be in trouble

KdjaCL

Isnt that Club thing like the G14 and not Uefa, Chelsea not in G14.

The Uefa thing is mainly for smaller clubs to avoid debt.

kdjac

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by DerekD Goldfish
I think their is a new uefa rule coming in so clubs can only spend 60% of thier income on wages if its ture most el clubs would be in trouble

Name one club, besides Chelsea, who spend more than 60%? I know Uniteds is 50% and theres would be one of the highest.

The Brigadier

It is a footballl league ruling coming in over the next few seasons on a gradual basis. It is being introduced into Division 3 this season.

redspider

There is no Uefa-wide rule on this yet. Salaries at many of the top clubs have been way over 50%. Leeds, Real Madrid, Arsenal, Barcelona, Lazio. My suggestion for footbal on this is that it should be a money amount rather than 50% so that all clubs can play on the same level playing field, so to speak. That will allow smaller clubs to catch up on bigger clubs and make football more interesting.

By the way, Chelsea's spending money is not derived from income! It has been invested by Abramovich who is using Chelsea as a way to launder his ill-gotten horde of cash as he is the 2nd wealthiest Russian Oligarch (this has been well documented elsewhere and its where a few wheeler dealers in oil with mafia links acquired state-owned companies with the help of Yeltskin in faked public share auctions!).

Here are the salary figures for 2002:

2001/2002 (Voetbal Int)
No. Club Country Income Salaries Percentage
1 Real Madrid CF Esp 252.0 140.0 55.6%
2 SS Lazio Ita 112.0 123.7 110.4%
3 FC Internazionale Ita 125.7 118.0 93.9%
4 AC Milan Ita 161.7 107.0 66.2%
5 Juventus FC Ita 195.0 103.0 52.8%
6 FC Barcelona Esp 148.0 102.0 68.9%
7 Manchester United Eng 207.3 98.3 47.4%
8 AS Roma Ita 143.8 90.0 62.6%
9 Arsenal Eng 127.4 84.5 66.3%
10 Chelsea Eng 161.0 76.5 47.5%
11 Leeds United Eng 114.1 74.0 64.9%
12 Liverpool Eng 138.6 69.1 49.9%
13 BV 09 Borussia Dortmund Ger 102.4 66.3 64.7%
14 Rangers Sco 62.7 50.8 81.0%
15 Newcastle United Eng 99.3 44.4 44.7%
16 Tottenham Hotpsur Eng 91.0 44.0 48.4%
17 TSV Bayer 04 Leverkussen Ger 80.0 40.0 50.0%
18 Celtic Sco 79.6 38.7 48.6%
19 FC Bayern München Ger 176.0 38.0 21.6%
20 Aston Villa Eng 65.4 30.9 47.2%

thejollyrodger

I don't mean to be pedantic but should that not be "Chelsea and their dirty money" ?

Their instead of there.

Mossy Monk

indeed, a bachelor of english science is on its way to you

Big Nelly

Originally posted by KdjaC
Isnt that Club thing like the G14 and not Uefa, Chelsea not in G14.

The Uefa thing is mainly for smaller clubs to avoid debt.

kdjac

The thing about this was that the G14 clubs got a bit miffed when Chelsea startin buyin up loads of players and givin them huge amounts of money in wages so they wud join them instead of another club!! because of this the clubs in the G14 group are saying that you cannot join G14 if you are spending over 50-60% of your clubs annual income on wages! just a way of sayin Chelsea mite have loads of cash but they wont be involved in any major decisions in Euro footie!!

Not sure if this has been passed yet but thats wat it is about

L5

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
I dont mean to be pedantic but should that not be "Chelsea and their dirty money"

their instead of there

I don't mean to be pedantic either, but should you not have spelled "dont" as "don't" or "do not"?. There should be a comma after pedantic. You also forgot your full stop.

Dub13

No wounder football is in bits with clubs like Lazio spending more on wages than they get in income,this would not happen in any other line of business...I could not seen Buger King spending more on wages then there income.


Aslo I think there may be 18 or so clubs in G14,not sure but I will check it out.

Dub13

Yes I was right 18 here they are.




Real Madrid CF
AC Milan
AFC Ajax
Liverpool FC


Juventus FC
FC Bayern Munchen
FC Internazionale Milano


FC Barcelona
Manchester United FC
Borussia Dortmund
PSV


Futebol Clube
do Porto

Olympique
de Marseille

Paris
Saint-Germain


Arsenal FC
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
Olympique Lyonnais
Valencia CF


The main objectives...

...as they are specified in the G-14 foundation agreement are:

To promote the cooperation, amicable relations and unity of the member clubs.

To promote and improve professional football in all its aspects and safeguard the general interests of the member clubs.

To promote cooperation and good relations between G-14 and FIFA, UEFA and any other sporting institutions and/or professional football clubs, paying special attention to negotiating the format, administration and operation of the club competitions in which the member clubs are involved.

thejollyrodger

ut should you not have spelled "dont" as "don't" or "do not"?. There should be a comma after pedantic. You also forgot your full stop.

Thanks very much, I'll edit my post now.

On the topic of Chelsea, questions must be asked about their new owner seeing that he is a billionaire in a country with outstanding poverty.

Its going to be intresting to see if Chelsea can win the league this year, I dont think they can.

PHB

So when I read this thread I thought somebody was finally getting angry at the fact that Ambromivich is a ruthless killer who made his money by screwing and killing people, but that wasn't what its about

eyerer

Originally posted by PHB
So when I read this thread I thought somebody was finally getting angry at the fact that Ambromivich is a ruthless killer who made his money by screwing and killing people, but that wasn't what its about

where's the proof of that?

PHB

Read up on his business tactics, he took Sibneft from being an inefficient unprofitable company to a monster.

He became a member of parliment so he could become immune from prosecution.
He then went on to become governer of Chukotka in order to secure unexplored oil contracts in Chukotka.

He is corrupt just like every other new millionare from russia, and will eventually be caught.
Luckily enough for him by then he will be an english citezin by then

Dub13

I here if he ever steps foot in russia again he will be arrested,that says it all realy.

p.pete

Originally posted by Dub13
I here if he ever steps foot in russia again he will be arrested,that say it all realy.

Why don't they freeze his Russian holdings and companies then? Where did you hear this?

Dub13

It was in one of the papers last year,they were saying he would not be able to go if Chelsea drew a Russian team in the CL.I think a lot of his cash is invested outside Russia

DerekD Goldfish

Why don't they freeze his Russian holdings and companies then? Where did you hear this?

He sold them off befrore he left apartantly he owes €2bn in tax in russia.

Pepe LeFrits

Originally posted by PHB
Read up on his business tactics, he took Sibneft from being an inefficient unprofitable company to a monster.

He became a member of parliment so he could become immune from prosecution.
He then went on to become governer of Chukotka in order to secure unexplored oil contracts in Chukotka.

He is corrupt just like every other new millionare from russia, and will eventually be caught.
Luckily enough for him by then he will be an english citezin by then

Yeah, sounds like solid proof of being a killer alright :rolleyes:

redspider

I had posted this on another thread a few months ago:


The reason why Abramovich's source of money is "dirty" is well known. Essentially, state assets were "sold" very cheaply to a band of twenty-odd Russians that are now known as the Oligarch's. They have links to the KGB/Mafia and provided "services" to Yeltsin during the coup and after. Their background and source of original wealth is very very dodgy (ie: their first few millions) but essentially is based on selling Russian Oil on the black market, bought at Russian State prices and sold at market spot prices (Brent, etc). You will notice that no English politicians are seen anywhere near him, as directed by the English security forces.

Here are some links that you should all read:

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=39275
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1212245,00.html
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0307/newssu.htm
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-56-1409.jsp

Some detailed searching on google will probably turn up a lot more. If you discuss him with any Russian native you will soon realise how unpopular he is and why - ie: they will likely say that he is a thief

Dont be surprised if Abramovich gets arrested or is involved in an unfortunate plane/helicopter "accident" some day. It may take a new Russian Premier to do it though ...... as Putin is not squeaky clean himself!

(edit: added the proper link paths)