halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,940
But couldn't that be possibly counterbalanced by spending nothing on transfers over that period?
That could be £70m - £100m per season not including player sales, increased sponsorship, stadium & merchandising revenue, more money for a higher league finish & any prize monies accrued.
Actual cash outlay on transfers in doesn't come into the P/L in year one, so doesn't affect FFP. If Chelsea spend a billion in one year it is the amortisation of that amount, 200 million a year, plus wages, say the same again, that shows in the FFP calculation. Even if they spend nothing for the next four years, the FFP costs will stay at 200+200 for the five years.
What they have to do is increase revenue to cover it: new sponsorships, more rewarding competitions and profit on player sales.
As @projectriver says, they were likely trying your approach, happy to take a fine. That was blown out of the water by the Everton judgment and now they are panicking. United too, to a lesser extent. Shame.
Unless I misunderstood your point.
