If he's a dud, he's a dud but there are different levels of dud. Werner for me was a dud (considering how much we paid for him) but a good kind of dud (as in he showed he could still contribute despite struggling in front of goal), despite being on nearly £300K a week. Took a hit on the transfer fee, sold him for half of what we paid but we got out of being on the hook for £300K a week for another 3 years, which is what he had left on his deal.
Chelsea Thread - 2022/23 | Pochettino confirmed as new manager
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
- Status
If he's a dud, he's a dud but there are different levels of dud. Werner for me was a dud (considering how much we paid for him) but a good kind of dud (as in he showed he could still contribute despite struggling in front of goal), despite being on nearly £300K a week. Took a hit on the transfer fee, sold him for half of what we paid but we got out of being on the hook for £300K a week for another 3 years, which is what he had left on his deal.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,916
I don't know. Why does anyone have any problem with investment from the Middle East, or sponsorship from the Middle East, or the fact Etihad took a chance on City increasing its visibility, or on Mancini having a contract in the UAE, or some emails taken out of context, or scores of other things we have been in hot water for?
You know its a transaction on conditions not normally associated with the PL. Why? To benefit the player? To give a footballing benefit to the club? No, it's just an artificially inflated contract to reduce the annual amortisation charge in the FFP accounts which, as you know, are a part of the player costs that are restricted as a % of revenues. We should try that one time.
Incidentally, the annual amortisation cost will be lower but the loss on sale (and there very likely will be a sale in the 8 years, as you well know) will be higher by the accumulated difference. Hence kicking the FFP problem down the road.
But you must forgive me. I am feeling particularly cynical at the moment as I try to decide if it's worth getting up at 3 am Friday morning to watch us getting shafted again.
Last edited:
I'm no expert, but I was speculating on what was meant by kicking the can down the road. I think he meant you were storing up problems for the future. Look at United now. It's rumoured that they have no money to spend without breaking FFP, and they need to sell a lot before they can buy.
We all have the occasional dud. If your squad is loaded with long term contracts, it might be harder to get rid of them than in the past, and you'll be stuck with a weakened squad.
paska
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 685
- Team supported
- the best in the land and all the world
This has never happened before though. The club has never overpaid more than it is now. Abramovic never spunked money like this. This is a completely unprecedented period.
Yes, he was a high spender and one of the highest, but nowhere near Boehly levels. Boehly spends more on one backup player than Abramovic would spend in three consecutive windows on a squad rebuild.
And Abramovic tended to spend it where it was needed, and surrounded himself with knowledgable people to identify targets on his behalf.
I’m not suggesting that Chelsea turn Potter into the next ‘Arry Redknapp, chasing Benjanis onto aeroplanes and hanging out of his Land Rover window waxing lyrical about a triffic 50k wonderkid from the conference south.
All I’m saying is that they should put some thought into transfers, and that doing so would benefit the club. The scattergun neauve-riche kid in a sweetshop approach isn’t a sustainable or cohesive way to build a squad, and it’s not what brought the club it’s successes in Europe and the premiership
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
More than that
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 31,778
Chelsea now close to Caceido from Brighton for £80m!
If a 8 year contract play his wages will be no more than 30k seeing he is on only 3k a week at Brighton Will work out at 10m a year!
Think there plan is to buy a full new team then loan out the rest who they don’t want that will counter balance some of the big spend
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 31,778
Doesnt help them much though loaning out players mate? Their wage bill must be outrageous currently as well! Clubs know they need to sell now so wont be high fees and cant also make the Chavs pay most of the high wages for any players they manage to loan out.
You can’t get a good wack! You get a loan fee plus wages are usually paid by that team to depending how much! Say Sterling went on loan to Barcelona they’d pay a lone fee I’d say 12m and maybe half his wages so all in all they’ll get around 6m on there books! If they somehow loan or sell 6/8 players it will make a difference.. can’t wait for there accounts that not come out yet! There losses will be enormous probably around 200/250m after losses of 145m last year, but like been said all last owners accounts been wiped out it’s a fresh start accounting wise!
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 31,778
A disgrace that was allowed to happen mate! The £1.6bn of debt should NOT have been allowed to just be written off when through their accounting periods it was mentioned that the debt was there?
Agree but it’s happened no good keep going back to that! A new owner a massive spend and all new accountings!
Am looking forward to Swiss ramble take on it when he posts it on Twitter next day or two..
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,916
Well the Swiss ramble article is out not pasting it because deserves the clicks
Will Chelsea's Transfer Spend Break Financial Fair Play Rules?
Dancing Shoesswissramble.substack.com
So, they are fucked without CL football next year ...... they better get better.
An extract from the article regarding premiere ffp seem they’ll be fine
Surely, the huge transfer spend last summer and this January will take Chelsea over the limit? Well, I’ve estimated a £166m loss for 2022/23, which would mean £207m losses over the monitoring period.
However, even with this substantial deficit, Chelsea would still be fine under the Premier League’s P&S rules, thanks to the various allowances, though their margin of safety would fall to £21m!
Another extract regarding Uefa ffp more cagy and like I have posted before breaking uefa ffp why worry if your not City it’s usually only a fine!
UEFA – Financial Sustainability
However, Chelsea will have a bigger challenge to comply with UEFA’s FFP rules, which are stricter than the Premier League, as the allowable losses (“acceptable deviation”) over 3 years are only €30m (including €25m equity contribution), compared to £105m in the Premier League.
Even if Chelsea end up as a little above the allowable loss, they will not be overly concerned. Looking at the most recent UEFA penalties announced in September 2022, the payments were not too onerous for a club with Chelsea’s financial backing.
Even when the fine was as much as €65m (for Paris Saint-Germain), only a small amount of the settlement was paid immediately (€10m) with the remaining €55m conditional. This would depend on future compliance with targets and Chelsea’s board would be confident of better figures in the future.
Boehly’s consortium might consider such a penalty to effectively be a cost of doing business and worth paying if it allows them to build a squad capable of challenging at the highest levels.
I recommend reading the article it makes you understood ffp with accounting of clubs..
Surely, the huge transfer spend last summer and this January will take Chelsea over the limit? Well, I’ve estimated a £166m loss for 2022/23, which would mean £207m losses over the monitoring period.
However, even with this substantial deficit, Chelsea would still be fine under the Premier League’s P&S rules, thanks to the various allowances, though their margin of safety would fall to £21m!
Another extract regarding Uefa ffp more cagy and like I have posted before breaking uefa ffp why worry if your not City it’s usually only a fine!
UEFA – Financial Sustainability
However, Chelsea will have a bigger challenge to comply with UEFA’s FFP rules, which are stricter than the Premier League, as the allowable losses (“acceptable deviation”) over 3 years are only €30m (including €25m equity contribution), compared to £105m in the Premier League.
Even if Chelsea end up as a little above the allowable loss, they will not be overly concerned. Looking at the most recent UEFA penalties announced in September 2022, the payments were not too onerous for a club with Chelsea’s financial backing.
Even when the fine was as much as €65m (for Paris Saint-Germain), only a small amount of the settlement was paid immediately (€10m) with the remaining €55m conditional. This would depend on future compliance with targets and Chelsea’s board would be confident of better figures in the future.
Boehly’s consortium might consider such a penalty to effectively be a cost of doing business and worth paying if it allows them to build a squad capable of challenging at the highest levels.
I recommend reading the article it makes you understood ffp with accounting of clubs..
And this bit is for all those questioning the write off of the 1.5b loan
Debt
Roman Abramovich put £1.5 bln into Chelsea, resulting in the highest debt in the Premier League, though it has been reported that the former owner wrote-off this balance as part of the club sale.
The resulting credit in the books will be excluded from the break-even calculations, so the club will not benefit from this, at least in terms of Financial Fair Play
Debt
Roman Abramovich put £1.5 bln into Chelsea, resulting in the highest debt in the Premier League, though it has been reported that the former owner wrote-off this balance as part of the club sale.
The resulting credit in the books will be excluded from the break-even calculations, so the club will not benefit from this, at least in terms of Financial Fair Play
How would it not be pure profit? Unless you are counting the wages paid to them and money invested into the academy against the transfer fee? From an accounting perspective, a player signed for £0 (developed in the academy) and sold £30m is £30m profit
- Status