[ARTICLE] Chelsea, a soulless brand that loves to be loathed

Jivin Turkey

kinaldo wrote:

Well if it bothers u so much I'll be sure to post some Chelsea bashing threads every fortnight, I do hate them after all. Also there is a distinct lack of interest in Spanish football on this forum. I'm sure you'll find some real Madrid bashing threads elsewhere.

Do that so. You're the exact type of poster this forum needs more of.......

I'm also glad that you have basically admitted that the same treatment from the members of this forum isn't given to teams who are/were in a similar position to that of Chelsea now.

iregk

Jivin Turkey wrote:

I'm also glad that you have basically admitted that the same treatment from the members of this forum isn't given to teams who are/were in a similar position to that of Chelsea now.

The reason being Jivin that they aren't a threat. As long as Madrid, Barca, Milan, Juve or whoever does anything like this in their own league its fine. Nobody cares. Its when it becomes a direct threat to Liverpool, Arsenal or Man U from picking up the silverwear then its cry foul...

iregk

TheMonster wrote:

Interesting - and I am sure you have a link to back it up.

And I am sure you will also point out Chelseas figure.:rolleyes:

Well I couldn't be arsed really thrawling through the web for info on United but I'm sure we all know the financial situation with the club now that the Glaziers are in charge. Sure did the United fans not have a few threads of a rant on the topic on this very website not so long ago.

Also while we dont have a figure (unless you do?) we pretty much know Chelsea's financial situation don't we?

TheMonster

iregk wrote:

Well I couldn't be arsed really thrawling through the web for info on United but I'm sure we all know the financial situation with the club now that the Glaziers are in charge. Sure did the United fans not have a few threads of a rant on the topic on this very website not so long ago.

Also while we dont have a figure (unless you do?) we pretty much know Chelsea's financial situation don't we?

If you are going to make allegations of being 600M in the red you need to back it up:rolleyes:

I actually don't know what the exact figure is but they are operating at a considerable loss.

iregk

TheMonster wrote:

If you are going to make allegations of being 600M in the red you need to back it up:rolleyes:

I actually don't know what the exact figure is but they are operating at a considerable loss.

I have to laugh. I make a statement we all know to be true (despite the figure may be 50m off either side and you roll the eyes then say that they are at a considerable loss. Classic.

Just for you, I got this off a united fan site:
"It is estimated that Glazer took out £540 million in loans to finance the takeover with annual interest payments of around £80 million. Crucially the loans are secured against United's assets so if he is unable to make the payments (which seems the likely outcome) the Glazer family will not have to fork out a single cent.....and Manchester United could go the way of Leeds United."

So I appologise my £600m figure was way way off the mark. Its only £540m.

Jivin Turkey

TheMonster wrote:

If you are going to make allegations of being 600M in the red you need to back it up:rolleyes:

Whether the figures is £600M or £500M or £X00M, I think everyone knows that United have a considerable millstone of debt around their necks. They do however make healthy profits every year which means this debt is more than servicable.

I don't think links are required for this as it's common knowledge, but a simple google will provide plenty for you.

TheMonster wrote:

I actually don't know what the exact figure is but they are operating at a considerable loss.

But have significant cash reserves, as evidenced every transfer window.

TheMonster

Did utds debot come from spending riduclos amounts of money on palyers and their wages. Utd are run as business, Chelsea are run as a hobby.

Big difference is Chelsea are operating at a loss and have no intention to stop this. Utds debt is different and actually has no relevance in this thread.

Jivin Turkey

TheMonster wrote:

Big difference is Chelsea are operating at a loss and have no intention to stop this.

That is non-sense.

Time and time again Chelsea have indicated their desire to be self-sufficient.

What is irrelevant is whether in you opinoin they can or cannot.

astrofool

Arsenal then are also in considerable debt, as will Liverpool be if they build a new stadium, but as mentioned above, their debt is covered by their earnings (just like most companies), Chelsea's is not.

kinaldo

Jivin Turkey wrote:

You're the exact type of poster this forum needs more of.......

Lol!

Jivin Turkey wrote:

I'm also glad that you have basically admitted that the same treatment from the members of this forum isn't given to teams who are/were in a similar position to that of Chelsea now.

You sound very pleased with yourself... well done, Jivin.

MrJoeSoap

TheMonster wrote:

If you are going to make allegations of being 600M in the red you need to back it up:rolleyes:

I actually don't know what the exact figure is but they are operating at a considerable loss.

http://www.joinmust.org/thefacts/theirdebt.php