20 Jun 2020 12:53:53
Question for ed02 if you have the time please.

I was wondering how Chelsea are in a much better position financially than we are and what's the difference in how they go about their business? I honestly thought we would've been a lot better off financially than we are after some of the player sales we've had in previous years and the fact our form has been good in Europe and in the premier league theses last few years.
What do we have to do to get more financially stable?

Genuine question.

{Ed002's Note - Liverpool have spent all of the money from player sales, they have a rolling debt which they relay on end of season money to pay - this involves previous purchases, correcting the Coutinho fee to what it actually turned out to be, the expansion of the stadium and the building of the new training facility etc.. Chelsea have £100M profit unused from last summer, made a further profit from sales in January and have already agreed sales of nearly £75M worth of players from this summer even before they look to sell the likes of Drinkwater, Bakayoko, Batshuayi, Moses, Barkley, Emerson, Kenedy and others. It has cost them money to change coaching staff each of the last two seasons and spent a considerable sum on buying the leasehold and freehold on another stadium but also have an academy which is being very productive now.}

1.) 20 Jun 2020
20 Jun 2020 14:28:56
ed002 the new stadium expansion has been put on hold now for now do you think with the virus this will be a long delay or just till this is more under control. And on this point ed what are Chelsea doing about there ground are they still looking to build a new one or developing the bridge.

{Ed002's Note - The club are still paying for the previous one and have mortdaged all of the physical assets to cover costs moving toward the next expansion which has, as you say, been put on hold for now. The delay will be at least one year, so at some point the club will need to look at that again, but given they have no control over the pandemic and financial situation going forward, so nobody knows right now. The training facility is getting closer to completion and work will continue. Chelsea have let the planning permission expire on the ground which means they would need to reapply, albeit with the same plans. They made the decision prior to the pandemic driven very much by The FA refusing permission to use Wembley (like they had done with Spurs and Arsenal). That decision was made as they were looking to sell Wembley Stadium at the time. The RFU rejected the use of Twickenham - which was not a surprise. Back burner for now with a likely review nexty year.}

2.) 20 Jun 2020
20 Jun 2020 15:13:58
That’s very interesting to hear about twickenham stadium (as I am a rugby fan as well as a football fan)
Particularly as the RFU are always saying they are in debt every year and lose lots of money despite taking 10 mil per match day at twickenham, so you would think they would be up for making some money from lending the ground to Chelsea - I suspect they are not keen due to possible clashes with 6 nations and autumn international fixtures?

{Ed002's Note - The 6 Nations is not the issue, it is just that they don't want it used for football.}

3.) 20 Jun 2020
20 Jun 2020 15:31:31
Cheers Ed the fa are not still looking at selling Wembley are they so hopefully for Chelsea they can do what spurs and arsenal did. Hopefully the virus will go sooner rather that later and get back to normal life and then Liverpool can sort out the anfield road end out as it really needs some improvements and not just on size.

{Ed002's Note - It caused a lot of concerns as it was gifted to them. Right now The FA Council would allow it, but not be supportive of it.}

4.) 20 Jun 2020
20 Jun 2020 17:11:58
I don’t understand the obsession with Chelsea having money to spend and we don’t, at the end of the day Chelsea might have £100 million to spend but they’ve also got to rebuild a squad and spend big to do so and hope every player they buy turns out well. We don’t, we have an amazing squad to begin with and don’t need to spend big, why spend for the sake of it, squads need tweaking as time goes on but we don’t have a rebuilding job and we don’t have any glaring holes we need to fill.

5.) 20 Jun 2020
20 Jun 2020 21:50:34
@1985Mikey1985, beats me as well. I think people are just mad cos Timo Werner went to Chelsea after we backed off the deal to sign him. Had he gone to Bayern or Inter, pretty sure no one would have cared nearly as much as they do now to the point of sometimes, obsession.

6.) 21 Jun 2020
21 Jun 2020 06:40:23
I don't get it either. Chelsea are a team who are 34 points inferior to us currently and from GK, into defence and up front they have been very poor. Yes Werner is a good addition but ziyech could easily flop given how he's seemed to be avoided by other clubs over last couple of years having concerns. Chelsea have a GK and defence needing miraculous upgrading to turn their woes around in 1 transfer window. With an inexperienced manager trying to build his squad I really don't see the threat that many of ye think Chelsea suddenly have, . They have so much to address yet that it's near impossible to imagine all weaknesses being fixed overnight. Forget about the money and figures being thrown at us as can give a false idea of squad improvement. Spurs arsenal United Everton all last summer spent big and arguably all regressed. Liverpool, Chelsea, Leicester, city spent less and all have been stronger than the others. Just spending big means little unless there is a method and plan to the transfers and it's far to early to presume that lampard and Chelsea are going to get it perfect in one summer to such an extent of closing a 30 point gulf in standard.