|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:but they've got to replace them as at least four of them are pretty important first team players. If they buy in stars that's the savings pretty much cancelled out, if they actually put faith in some of their better youths and they become the replacements they'll still want wages befitting their squad status relative to other key players after a year or two tops. That's assuming they aren't on stupid wages anyway - Daniel Sturridge, for example, was asking for £75,000 a week from City when he left so he's presumably on at least half that to Not Play For Chelsea Ever The Sturridge wage I've seen most quoted is 60k. And yeah I think eventually the younger players will need a bump in wage but if they've done enough to earn 20-50k more then that's a good thing and means Chelsea should keep him. I'd much rather McEachran plays and does well enough to earn a new contract that is 30k more for the next five years rather than sign someone for 20m and then pay the same wage as McEachran would get with the new contract. Ivanovic just got a new contract (65k I saw) but he's earned it with his performances and I'm okay with him staying at the club for the next five years. This Summer is going to be very interesting and should indicate whether last Summer was the beginning of the change or a one off wage dump. quote:e: Luiz on £40k sounds really really low for a Brazilian international coming from another club where he could have earnt at least very nearly that without moving It does seem low but it's what I've seen. I think other clubs weren't fighting for his signature though, it seems only Chelsea was really in for him last Summer and in January so that probably drove the wage demand a bit lower. Luiz only made his Brazil debut in August of last year when Chelsea already tried to purchase him, so he might have been a bit under the radar in terms of negotiation power. delicious beef posted:The problem is that you can't just cut wages inside Chelsea because all your good players will move to City or Madrid where they can get paid more. That's why Madrid is probably more likely than Chelsea at this point, if Chelsea matches the 40m asking price I'll be surprised. Really wish the club would hire someone already so they can start with the transfers and give more info on what's going on. w00bi fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Jun 21, 2011 |
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
The best thing that could happen to Chelsea would be to get kicked out of europe for a season. All their ageing staff would jump ship and they would be able to set some manageable goals for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 07:50
|
|
|
delicious beef posted:The problem is that you can't just cut wages inside Chelsea because all your good players will move to City or Madrid where they can get paid more. All of the major clubs are coming to a point where they have too much debt, and as long as they all start reducing their spending, there's mo competition driving up prices. This goes for salaries too. Who is going to take Yaya Toure at 300k/week or whatever ridiculous amount he's getting. No one, because everyone else is cutting wages too. The only major clubs I haven't heard cutting budgets are Madrid, who is mostly set in terms of starting 11, and Man City who should be in serious trouble financially.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
The problem with FFP is how vague and ill defined some of the elements are. We already know there's a clause that excuses commitments prior to 2010 - but to what extend that goes no one knows. If a player signed a £10m a year deal before that time does that mean his wages don't count towards the limit? What about the amortisation of transfer fees? Do all those from before that cut off get excused to? It's impossible to look at any numbers clubs have released so far and say 'yep, they're hosed' because we have no idea what UEFA are actually going to pickup on or excuse away. There's ridiculous parts in it about 'progress' that means if the club is deemed to be making strides towards lowering costs, but still fall foul of the imposed UEFA spending limits, 'it will be taken into consideration'. Hell, we don't even have a solid list of punishments and the criteria for hitting them. Just some vague threat of no European license for football 'but only in the extreme cases'. On top of that there's the stuff that includes revenue generated from non-footballing matters in the vicinity of club stadium/training ground - which I why City are trying to build that huge complex outside the CoM - because they can apparently offset the revenues (not profits, revenues) of all that against footballing loses. The whole thing is a clusterfuck and it's going to get even worse once clubs are seen to be falling foul of it but UEFA are letting them through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 11:33
|
|
|
MoPZiG posted:The best thing that could happen to Chelsea would be to get kicked out of europe for a season. All their ageing staff would jump ship and they would be able to set some manageable goals for themselves. Roman would literally implode though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 13:58
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:I think we are seeing a move towards the Arsenal model where you buy players young, bring them up in your system, and pay them just enough that it's not worth moving to a new club. That would certainly explain why Chelsea is trying to sign Arsenal's head scout to be in charge of Chelsea's scouting network.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 14:37
|
|
|
If David Luiz is on 40k he must have a worse agent (or the same?) as van der Vaart And lol 60k for Sturridge to literally not play
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
I have heard like 25k for Sturridge also. I heard he wanted 40k from City, so I really doubt he would be on much more than that at Chelsea. At the time of his transfer City had Tevez, Jo, RSC, Adebayor, and Bellamy, and all 5 were under 30 at the time. Chelsea had only Anelka, Drogba, Kalou and Malouda (Zhirkov signed after Sturridge did). So Sturridge moving for football reasons is a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
I think I remember Sturridge saying he came to Chelsea to win stuff. And he already has two medals so he probably thinks he made the right choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
w00bi posted:I think I remember Sturridge saying he came to Chelsea to win stuff. And he already has two medals so he probably thinks he made the right choice. what did Bolton win?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:I have heard like 25k for Sturridge also. I heard he wanted 40k from City, so I really doubt he would be on much more than that at Chelsea. He turned down £45k from Man City as a final offer. Press talk was that he wanted £65-75k but that could be exaggeration by either the press or Man City to save face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
w00bi posted:I think I remember Sturridge saying he came to Chelsea to win stuff. And he already has two medals so he probably thinks he made the right choice. did he play enough games for a Premier League winner's medal?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
K U N T Z posted:what did Bolton win? Sturridge was at Chelsea the whole season they won stuff At least have your jokes make sense man
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
K U N T Z posted:what did Bolton win? Are you asking why he went to Bolton or are you confused where his two medals are from? He went because he realized during the Winter that Ancelotti wasn't interested in playing him and it was better for his development to go somewhere where he can actually start. Iggy Pop Barker posted:did he play enough games for a Premier League winner's medal? Yep, more games than Owen this season.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:did he play enough games for a Premier League winner's medal? Not sure if that's still the rule. I think the team are just given x amount of medals to hand out, or maybe it's players who've played a certain amount and a few extras. If I remember right, that's how Larson got one for United.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:did he play enough games for a Premier League winner's medal?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Raightning posted:13 games in 09/10, also 13 in 10/11. i am a bit surprised at that honestly. also, 13 minutes in each season
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:also, 13 minutes in each season Hence the frustration. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:also, 13 minutes in each season so £13k a minute, surprised more teams weren't jumping on that
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
Just read that Porto got a 120 million euro profit from transfers the last five seasons. loving hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Not sure if that's still the rule. I think the team are just given x amount of medals to hand out, or maybe it's players who've played a certain amount and a few extras. If I remember right, that's how Larson got one for United. As I recall it, clubs are given one for everyone on 10 games or more (sub appearances of 1 minute included) and they can then apply for special dispensation for further medals for players they believe have aided in the campaign but not played 10 games, which is what United did for Larsson.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 09:39
|
|
|
euroboy posted:Just read that Porto got a 120 million euro profit from transfers the last five seasons. loving hell. I wonder what Falcao and Hulk think of the Villa Boas situation? Could be about to get even bigger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 10:23
|
|
|
Peter Ridsdale to buy Argyle for £1: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/04/peter-ridsdale-plymouth-argyle-owner RIP IPB
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Scikar posted:Peter Ridsdale to buy Argyle for £1: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/04/peter-ridsdale-plymouth-argyle-owner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyFyAqLtHq8
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 09:37
|
|
|
Scikar posted:Peter Ridsdale to buy Argyle for £1: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/04/peter-ridsdale-plymouth-argyle-owner Proper comment: Peter Risdale sole shareholder, property assets sold off to a developer, deferring footballing debts to another day. Plymouth are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 09:44
|
|
|
bigfatspacko_uk posted:Proper comment: Peter Risdale sole shareholder, property assets sold off to a developer, deferring footballing debts to another day. yeah, and Ridsdale only has 'sole control' because the property developers are helmed by the guy who owns Truro and this arrangement might just about stay on the right side of legality. barely. in summary: wrrrrrrrrrr
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 10:44
|
|
|
Saw this linked on twitter and found it interesting enough to post here. It's mostly a profile on the work of Ivan Gazidis and Tom Fox at Arsenal thus far but it also talks about in depth about how bad their sponsorship deals are by comparison and how both of them are working on getting more sponsors (citing the international tour being a huge help for that). I'm not sure how much of it is bullshit but I found it to be a good read. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/08/15/Franchises/Arsenal-main.aspx
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
The first new sponsor is in, and it's this obscure company called Carlsberg...quote:Caroline Hipperson, Director of Brands & Insight at Carlsberg UK, added: “Carlsberg are delighted to be partnering with Arsenal, a Club like our own company, with a rich heritage and history. Connecting with Arsenal’s large and loyal fan base across the world is a key part of this new partnership, as well as serving our products to fans at one of the world’s leading grounds, the Emirates Stadium. This new partnership will significantly strengthen our existing sponsorship portfolio, and is part of a wider strategic intent to be seen as THE beer brand of football”. Only secondary sponsor, so they won't appear on any shirts. Forbes says it's worth $5m a year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
That's just wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
c0burn posted:That's just wrong. It is. I will always think of Liverpool whenever I see Carlsberg tbh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
I miss having Carlsberg on Liverpool shirts :\ Love the cash that the Standard Chartered deal brought in, but their logo is a bit poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
euroboy posted:The first new sponsor is in, and it's this obscure company called Carlsberg... As part of the new sponsorship deal, Carlsberg are going to buy Cahill, Jagielka, Parker, Lahm and Messi, as well as paying their wages in full for the duration of their five year contracts... Carlsberg don't do transfer window press conferences, but if they did, they'd probably be the best transfer window press conferences in the world!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
euroboy posted:It is. I will always think of Liverpool whenever I see Carlsberg tbh. To this day I refuse to drink Carlsberg.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
TheRat posted:To this day I refuse to drink Carlsberg. Not many beers left to drink over here without supporting Carlsberg though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
carlsberg is pisswater
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
euroboy posted:The first new sponsor is in, and it's this obscure company called Carlsberg... Not surprising given how utterly poo poo Arsenals sponsorship deals are. Will feel wrong seeing Carlsberg on anything but a Liverpool top though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Carlsberg is pretty decent as mass-produced lager goes, but all fizzy lager is effectively pisswater. Get yourself a decent bottle of ale from a local british brewery you beer-plastics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
euroboy posted:The first new sponsor is in, and it's this obscure company called Carlsberg... quote:We look forward to working closely with Carlsberg in the years ahead on joint initiatives... Sounds like there's gonna be a piss-up in the brewery! Is Arsene in charge? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/manchester-united-agrees-on-66-million-training-kit-sponsorship-with-dhl.htmlquote:Manchester United, the record 19- time English soccer champion, announced a four-year agreement for delivery company DHL to sponsor its training apparel, a deal that two people familiar with the matter said is worth about 40 million pounds ($66 million). Nice deal. I'm surprised that the main kit sponsorship doesn't prevent this from happening, but it's a smart way to make money. They're never going to implode, huh? I'm sure the Glazers will pull off that IPO and everyone will learn the worst kind of lessons from the whole experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
TyChan posted:They're never going to implode, huh? I'm sure the Glazers will pull off that IPO and everyone will learn the worst kind of lessons from the whole experience. While they're probably greedy, dirty fucks, the Glazers really seem to know what they are doing business-wise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 19:35
|
|