Chelski - a question

[tokyojoe]

Isn't there a rule (FA / Premiership) that a clubs wage bill cannot be more than a percentage of turnover (I think about 80%).

 

Well, Chelsea's turnover is somewhat lower than ours but ther wage bill must be bloody astronomical.

 

I'm not sure about captal adequacy either, bur very little of Abromovich's money will be in an account named 'Chelsea FC' or 'Chelsea Village' or whatever the hell they call themselves, but in XYZ company in the Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands or any suitable tax haven , just to be called upon when Kenyon wants it (especially to have a pop at us). In other words, I doubt if Chelsea have that much cash in their own name.

 

Just a thought, but a think a few rules might be being broken here.

[DT]

G14 have suggested this be introduced to try and protect their status as big clubs. No other club would be able to do a Blackburn in the 90's and suddenly become big spenders (on wages).

 

It hasn't been introduced yet as far as I am aware.

 

Hermes had the statistics I believe showing that clubs such as Glasgow Rangers and a few of the Italian clubs would have problems living up to this rule. Liverpool would, I believe, not be in danger of that because we have such a huge turnover compared to many other clubs.

[Hermes]

It was a gentlemans agreement amongst the G14. There is a proposal by UEFA to ban clubs from European competition if they are in debt. The Italian league are considering the same. However being in debt to a benefactor would not be the same.