The bountiful game?

I don't presume to know a lot about either football (which many would say is self-evident from team of choice), or the economics of big business, but how can teams like Chelsea still be in existence when in this situation?

Is it not the case that any conventional company with such high (and historical, year on year) losses would have had the liquidators called in by now? If Chelsea has not made a profit in such a long time, and yet Roman Abramovich has poured in £500 million since taking over ownership, does this mean that he hasn't seen any benefit in return? That he hasn't invested enough to plug the hole? That what he is actually doing is simple damage limitation? To what end?

Does Chelsea (and I know it is not the only football club in such a financial position) simply continue to exist solely because of its status, on the argument that whilst it may not attract much attention for "A N Other Co Ltd" to be wound up, Chelsea Ltd is simply too well-known to go to the wall?

If it's making a loss, does that mean that shareholders are not reaping any dividends? How and why is the share price not plummeting?

People increasingly see football clubs not as "clubs" any more, but as big businesses, and yet conventional market forces seem not to affect them in the same way as they do other companies. For some reason, football clubs seem not to attract the negativity that would ordinarily attach to a company reporting such poor financial results. Indeed, somewhat perversely, a story like this finds the Chief Executive of the club in question interpreting such losses as an indication that "the business is moving in the right direction."

How???