ender4 Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 10 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Well united are buying mount for 50m so that generally covers thw 60m ugarte fee Still dont understand how they have any wiggle room to sign players Selling Mount for £50m and buying Ugarte for £60m over a 6 year contract actually gives Chelsea a £40m FFP profit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinVilla Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 Nothing dodgy about this at all….. Not sure how they can tell him he can only sign for Chelsea if PSG have triggered his release clause. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 Just now, DublinVilla said: Nothing dodgy about this at all….. Not sure how they can tell him he can only sign for Chelsea if PSG have triggered his release clause. I thought UEFA were banning 8 year deals before this window opens ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villaphan04 Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted June 5, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted June 5, 2023 9 hours ago, tonyh29 said: I thought UEFA were banning 8 year deals before this window opens ? They can sign players on whatever contract they like but the FFP accounting period is limited to 5 years now. Why they would offer a longer contract than that is not certain. Perhaps they can still convince players to take a lower salary for a longer period and hope to sell them on mid-contract, plus less chance of the transfer fee diminishing towards the end of that contract. But for FFP purposes it's "banned" yes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Boehly already out of control again 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Criticise Chelsea all you like but most of there recent signings are on sub £100k pw… They’ve walked away from Ugarte after offering him £40k then £80k pw… Wages are the killer as they’re a recurring cost obviously. Think they’re being astute in many ways - scattergun approach aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 13 hours ago, ender4 said: Selling Mount for £50m and buying Ugarte for £60m over a 6 year contract actually gives Chelsea a £40m FFP profit! They can only amortise the contract over 5 years, regardless of the length of contract, so this year they'd make a £38M profit on the two deals. For the next 4 years, they'd make a £12m loss per year. But the overall point is a good one, the only hope they've got of staving off FFP meltdown (not to mention squad disharmony) is by selling the likes of Mount and Gallagher. The rest of the Premier League should realise this, and leave all their players exactly where they are. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 21 minutes ago, thabucks said: Criticise Chelsea all you like but most of there recent signings are on sub £100k pw… They’ve walked away from Ugarte after offering him £40k then £80k pw… Wages are the killer as they’re a recurring cost obviously. Think they’re being astute in many ways - scattergun approach aside. You would have a point apart from the fact it’s not just a couple of signings, they have brought a massive squad. It’s like me saying I brought a really good car for a great price to go with my other 30 good cars that I got for a great price. They have 3 to 4 players per position. While they can sell some of them, it’s hard and costly to shift players on good long contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 1 hour ago, thabucks said: Criticise Chelsea all you like but most of there recent signings are on sub £100k pw… They’ve walked away from Ugarte after offering him £40k then £80k pw… Wages are the killer as they’re a recurring cost obviously. Think they’re being astute in many ways - scattergun approach aside. But they were all 8 yr contracts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalfTimePost Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 12 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said: But they were all 8 yr contracts At the time that allowed them to spread the huge transfer fees over 8 years in the accounts. Them spending £600m at once over 8 years would be the same as spending £75m per year for 5 years. Obviously, it didn't go to plan, had it worked out, they'd have had a highly talented young team locked down for 8 years. They'll have to continue spending now whereas I anticipate they thought they'd maybe get another window before the loophole was closed and would have a great team to build around adding 1-2 quality players a year moving forwards...selling off the youth prospects to be within FFP. They probably didn't expect none of the players they bought would be worth the money they spent just 12 months later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 3 hours ago, fightoffyour said: They can sign players on whatever contract they like but the FFP accounting period is limited to 5 years now. Why they would offer a longer contract than that is not certain. Perhaps they can still convince players to take a lower salary for a longer period and hope to sell them on mid-contract, plus less chance of the transfer fee diminishing towards the end of that contract. But for FFP purposes it's "banned" yes. Is this retrospective, or only forward-looking? i.e., is Mudryk's value being amortised over just 5 years now or is it still 8? I assume the latter, but not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Move to off topic Shame but we Move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrim Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 2 hours ago, thabucks said: Criticise Chelsea all you like Cheers, will do. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 People were worried about Newcastle talking all our targets but it looks like PSG is the main problem! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted June 5, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted June 5, 2023 36 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Is this retrospective, or only forward-looking? i.e., is Mudryk's value being amortised over just 5 years now or is it still 8? I assume the latter, but not sure. Still 8, only in effect from this window. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danceoftheshamen Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 (edited) Another one who has chosen a comparatively poor, one team league over one of the top ones, as in the "Premier League". As for Chelsea Does this mean all of those 8 year contracts they dished out will now only be useable against FFP for 5 years? Or do they once again get an unfair advantage over everyone else? Just like they did all those years ago when they had the Rusky land and spend unabated for so long before FFP came in preventing the rest of us from catching up.? Edited June 5, 2023 by danceoftheshamen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 14 hours ago, DublinVilla said: Nothing dodgy about this at all….. Not sure how they can tell him he can only sign for Chelsea if PSG have triggered his release clause. This is absolutely mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 14 minutes ago, Made In Aston said: People were worried about Newcastle talking all our targets but it looks like PSG is the main problem! In fairness, if I take my heart and bias out of it, these are good signings for them. Much better than signing galacticos for the sake of it. From a Villa perspective though... F*ck em. It sucks but a good indication of our ambition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts