Actually the whole site is worth a read because all the articles are very thorough and easy to understand.
There are a couple of other key points in that Chelsea article for those who do not have time to read the whole thing.
1) Despite a 70m loss in the last financial year and high spending in January, Chelsea are very well placed to meet the FFP rules of breakeven. In fact they have more room to spend. This is very much based on an assumption that they continue to qualify for the CL each year.
2) Financial and FFP breakeven are not the same. Chelsea and other clubs can omit the cost of youth development (say 10m) and the cost of their grounds (depreciation of 9m). From 2011/2012 they also have a 'devation' loss of 15m a year for 3 years, meaning they can easily lose 35m a year financially and conform to the rules.
What concerns me particularly with Chelsea is what they might be able to do with matchday revenues. They already make 67m with a smaller ground than Anfield where we make 43m. They are in the richest part of London so can have some very fancy premium seat facilities (Arsenal makes 30m of match day sales from 9,000 seats.) So I believe that theoretically Abromavich could build what we would be an incredibly expensive 70,000 seat stadium. Generate say 30m additional matchday revenues and because the depreciation of the new stadium would not be included, it might be 'uneconomic' but it would be 'profitable' under FFP.
Two other articles are worthy of looking at.
Latest breakdown of revenues from Deloittes 09/10. Note that Liverpool's numbers include CL and Spurs does not compared to 10/11. The net effect of CL is about 30m. I think the commercial revenues being derived by some of the Spanish and German teams look interesting. I wonder for instance if we had a much larger stadium filled by much lower ticket prices (say a bit like Bayern Munich) whether the fact that we didnt gain much in matchday revenues might be compensated by commercial revenues. http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-footballs-gravy-train-slowing-down.html?utm_source=BP_recent
Finally take a look at Sunderland. They were 6th a little while back. They are a typical mid table club with wages close to a half that of Liverpool but they are bleeding cash every year just the same.http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/03/sunderlands-problem-is-not-their-fans.html?utm_source=BP_recent
I know a lot of supporters feel that all this financial stuff is incredibly boring but it is very important. 89% of the average position in the league is over time determined by your wage bill (there is only a 70% correlation in any single season.) Just rank the top three clubs by wage bill in 09/10 and you have exactly ranked the top three clubs in the league. In Serie A the correlation is 93%.
Just getting back to Chelsea. Given we know the accounting, it seems pretty odd to be buying Torres at 17m cost per annum for 5 years especially after 5 years he will be worth very little as a transfer (especially on his personal terms.) If you take Suarez for instance he costs 4.5m a year transfer and 4.5m (total guess) a year wages which is 9m. However the difference between the two transfers becomes noticeable after say 3 years.
Either 1) he then extends his contract for another 3 years (as his acquisition cost has now been written down to 9m) this will result in the amortisation of the final 9m being taken over 5 years so falling to 1.8m or 2) LFC may perhaps sell him for 30m reaping a profit over his BV of 21m in the year of sale (or perhaps spread over two years if payments are staggered.)