Chelsea Thread | 2024/25

[waspish]

It doesn't get to an independent panel until allegations have been referred to the disciplinary process, which would have to be announced. My guess is they will agree a settlement before that happens with a points deduction and some sort of squad limitations (yes, I know). Presumably before the City case to set some sort of precedent.

Ah right

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

I don't think he did either - I posed the question to AI and that's what it came up with, a load of tosh.


View attachment 129136

Maybe it got confused with Paul Hince who did play for City in the 67-68 season, scoring in consecutive games.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Is it a loophole if the PL had already investigated and judged an identical case with a different club a few years ago and approved it, deeming it fair and within the rules?

Is that the case?

If that happened, I wouldn't say it was a loophole. I would say it's just a fucking poor rule. A loophole to me suggests someone tries to stop something (for example clubs manipulating income for FFP purposes) but hasn't taken all possibilities into account and so has left one or two possibilities open (for example non-football intergroup transactions).

But I don't think this is what that is. The PL haven't taken any steps at all to ensure clubs don't manipulate income for FFP purposes so it's just a crap rule. What Chelsea have done simply is just not against any rules, other than maybe acting in bad faith. The PL is much less smart than UEFA with their financial rules.

 

[Vialli98]

Is that the case?

If that happened, I wouldn't say it was a loophole. I would say it's just a fucking poor rule. A loophole to me suggests someone tries to stop something (for example clubs manipulating income for FFP purposes) but hasn't taken all possibilities into account and so has left one or two possibilities open (for example non-football intergroup transactions).

But I don't think this is what that is. The PL haven't taken any steps at all to ensure clubs don't manipulate income for FFP purposes so it's just a crap rule. What Chelsea have done simply is just not against any rules, other than maybe acting in bad faith. The PL is much less smart than UEFA with their financial rules.

I don't know if this is something they written into the rulebooks, but there was a definitely a case of a club selling club property to themselves for the sole purpose of complying with the financial rules.

The PL investigated it and then approved it. Which in my eyes means they've set the precedent for that kind of thing, making it not a loophole but a stupid rule that shouldn't exist.

In 2020.

Aston Villa: Premier League to scrutinise Villa Park sale

The Premier League will assess whether the sale of Villa Park to Aston Villa's owners breached financial fair play rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

Premier League make decision on Villa Park sale – reports

Aston Villa latest news - Villa filed their financial records for 2018/19 on Tuesday, announcing total losses of £68.3m, a £30m increase from the previous year

www.birminghammail.co.uk

I actually agree with you that exploiting loopholes is acting in bad faith. I also think these owners are deeply unlikable, poorly behaved bad faith actors who would love nothing more than to find a new loophole to exploit, so please don't take my responses to you as some kind of defence of their actions. I just disagree in this specific instance that selling hotels to themselves was a loophole being exploited.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don't know if this is something they written into the rulebooks, but there was a definitely a case of a club selling club property to themselves for the sole purpose of complying with the financial rules.

The PL investigated it and then approved it. Which in my eyes means they've set the precedent for that kind of thing, making it not a loophole but a stupid rule that shouldn't exist.



I actually agree with you that exploiting loopholes is acting in bad faith. I also think these owners are deeply unlikable, poorly behaved bad faith actors who would love nothing more than to find a new loophole to exploit, so please don't take my responses to you as some kind of defence of their actions. I just disagree in this specific instance that selling hotels to themselves was a loophole being exploited.

Well thank you for that. Then they are even more stupid than I thought they were. That is clearly financial manipulation and if they didn't disapprove the deal or change the rules immediately, then there is no case at all against Chelsea.

Incidentally, the same can be said about City's two IP sales in 2013 in that case, so I expect no issues with either of those. I can't believe how incompetent it is to set financial rules based on profitability without defining exactly what items of revenue and expense should be included / excluded. I mean Jesus, I thought UEFA were bad, but they are streets ahead of these jokers.

 

[M23 Citizen]

In terms of money, Chelsea’s Summer this year isn’t much didfreeent to City’s last year.

We spent about £220m on Gvardiol, Doku, Kovačić, Echeverri and Nunes.
We made about £107m on Palmer (very sad to see him go, by the way, look after the Wythenshawe boy!), Mahrez, Laporte, Herrera, Ferreresi and Phillips’ loan move.

We looked at that as a good way to go about business.

Difference being though is that City have a small squad compared to most clubs, whereas Chelsea’s is ridiculously big and the balance of the squad seems all over the place with someone in charge of transfers who doesn’t seem to understand positions and just has a list of ‘Rated U23 Players In The World’ and is ticking off the list no matter the position.

There are eight goalkeepers in the first team.



That would be ⅓ of City’s entire squad.

It seems fucking mental… at the moment.

However, who’s to say that in three years time, Chelsea’s plan isn’t going to work? Are you just doing with each position what a tennis player does when they ask for four or five balls off the ballboys when serving, to see which are the best two, and discarding the worst?

Yes, it’s very impersonal, and the players are just seen as inanimate objects that are just part of a football match like a tennis ball is by a tennis player. But who can say for sure this isn’t going to work out?

Chelsea’s young lads are only going to get better with age, and if they whittle down their squad into the best of the bunch they’ve picked, they all stay together on these long contracts, they have spent heavily now but will just need to top up the squad from time-to-time after these first few years… they could win a lot of trophies for a sustained period of time… maybe.

 

[jamesha]

Is anyone else surprised that Maresca seems to be the person choosing who should be in the Chelsea first team squad? I liked the guy when he was at City but cannot see him succeeding at Chelsea (not even sure what would be construed as success by the senior club figures). I can see him being gone before Xmas and, if that happens, is the slate wiped clean for the players currently on the fringe?
Is he just a frontman who spouts whatever he is told to?

 

[rowarta]

Palmer may be injured after tonight game

 

[Platt Lane 59]

In terms of money, Chelsea’s Summer this year isn’t much didfreeent to City’s last year.

We spent about £220m on Gvardiol, Doku, Kovačić, Echeverri and Nunes.
We made about £107m on Palmer (very sad to see him go, by the way, look after the Wythenshawe boy!), Mahrez, Laporte, Herrera, Ferreresi and Phillips’ loan move.

We looked at that as a good way to go about business.

Difference being though is that City have a small squad compared to most clubs, whereas Chelsea’s is ridiculously big and the balance of the squad seems all over the place with someone in charge of transfers who doesn’t seem to understand positions and just has a list of ‘Rated U23 Players In The World’ and is ticking off the list no matter the position.

There are eight goalkeepers in the first team.

View attachment 129166

That would be ⅓ of City’s entire squad.

It seems fucking mental… at the moment.

However, who’s to say that in three years time, Chelsea’s plan isn’t going to work? Are you just doing with each position what a tennis player does when they ask for four or five balls off the ballboys when serving, to see which are the best two, and discarding the worst?

Yes, it’s very impersonal, and the players are just seen as inanimate objects that are just part of a football match like a tennis ball is by a tennis player. But who can say for sure this isn’t going to work out?

Chelsea’s young lads are only going to get better with age, and if they whittle down their squad into the best of the bunch they’ve picked, they all stay together on these long contracts, they have spent heavily now but will just need to top up the squad from time-to-time after these first few years… they could win a lot of trophies for a sustained period of time… maybe.

A very interesting and informative post.
But, your suggestion that Chelsea's young lads will only improve is a big assumption.
However, the biggest "what if" with Chelsea, in my opinion, is the continual change of head coach/manager.
Chelsea are currently a "revolving door" football club.
Continuity of the coaching staff seems to be irrelevant. I cannot see how they can be successful in winning the league.
A cup could be a possibility if they don't chop and change at their current level...

 

[117 M34]

Is anyone else surprised that Maresca seems to be the person choosing who should be in the Chelsea first team squad? I liked the guy when he was at City but cannot see him succeeding at Chelsea (not even sure what would be construed as success by the senior club figures). I can see him being gone before Xmas and, if that happens, is the slate wiped clean for the players currently on the fringe?
Is he just a frontman who spouts whatever he is told to?

I don't think he has the clout to be telling experienced players who have won 4 trophies that they aren't welcome in the squad.