Jump to content

coda

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

23 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Did he really say this? OMG im scared for them

I remember reading it in The Athletic but can't find the article now as, like most people, I didn't renew my subscription. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Zatman said:

41 wins in 142 Premier League games and a -15 goal difference

On what planet did he deserve the Chelsea job

Even more than that, this is a guy that played for small heath and has only ever managed mid range players. 

Dealing with players who are in the 75-125 million bracket is a different kettle of fish. Especially when the best you've ever played for is SHA & Albion :crylaugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hornso said:

Potter needs 6-12 months out of the game. He looks like a burnt-out mess. Good thing for him is, he can afford it.

Surely chelsea will be close to being a ffp mess if they miss out on CL for 3-4 years?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Did he really say this? OMG im scared for them

Don’t be scared for them. They are getting everything they deserve. Always were a scummy club. Karma’s a bitch. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/04/2023 at 02:01, YLN said:

man84.png

The obvious choice I would have thought

Curbishley was a funny one. Did a great job at Charlton, was considered for the England job, then quit and went to West Ham. Did ok there but ended up in legal issues with his dismissal- and then nothing.  He hasn't managed for over 10 years and is still 10 years younger than Hodgson.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Surely chelsea will be close to being a ffp mess if they miss out on CL for 3-4 years?

I think they already are. I think the wheel is still moving but the hamster is dead. It may take a couple of years to stop spinning completely, but imo the last 12 months for Chelsea will do for them. The financial model they have chosen has mortgaged their future for a success today that has already failed. 

The only way I see out for them now is somehow getting CL qualification this season, which they look far from capable of doing. It might explain the somewhat desperate decision making at the moment 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Straggler said:

I think they already are. I think the wheel is still moving but the hamster is dead. It may take a couple of years to stop spinning completely, but imo the last 12 months for Chelsea will do for them. The financial model they have chosen has mortgaged their future for a success today that has already failed. 

The only way I see out for them now is somehow getting CL qualification this season, which they look far from capable of doing. It might explain the somewhat desperate decision making at the moment 

Massive opportunity for a club like us brighton and newcastle to creep  in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the other day… Chelsea have players like Mudryk on 8 year deals to help with FFP accounting, so the £100m gets spread over 8 seasons (£12.5m per season). If Mudryk were to leave after 2 seasons does the remaining £75m get lumped into their FFP calculation for that season or does it vanish or does it stay as £12.5m per season regardless if he’s there or not?

Edited by Genie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Genie said:

I was thinking the other day… Chelsea have players like Mudryk on 8 year deals to help with FFP accounting, so the £100m gets spread over 8 seasons (£12.5m per season). If Mudryk were to leave after 2 seasons does the remaining £75m get lumped into their FFP calculation for that season or does it vanish or does it stay as £12.5m per season regardless if he’s there or not?

Think it would depent on how much they sold him for, if they take a massive hit it would count as a loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Think it would depent on how much they sold him for, if they take a massive hit it would count as a loss.

 

19 minutes ago, Genie said:

I was thinking the other day… Chelsea have players like Mudryk on 8 year deals to help with FFP accounting, so the £100m gets spread over 8 seasons (£12.5m per season). If Mudryk were to leave after 2 seasons does the remaining £75m get lumped into their FFP calculation for that season or does it vanish or does it stay as £12.5m per season regardless if he’s there or not?

The remaining amount gets amortised at the point of sale...meaning that 75m becomes an instant cost to them. So unless they sell him for more than 75m, they incur a loss in their FFP accounts for that year of the difference.

It really is a high risk model that will only work if they continue to be successful (and could in theory have worked very well had they been in the top 4). As it is, it will likely bankrupt them if they aren't. Or force them to sell all their prizes youth assets.

This is why it's a decision to make when you buy Chelsea's players off them. You relieve the pressure on them to try again next season. If you don't, the pressure builds up and up and they could well implode. For me, I wouldn't go near any of their players. The problem is, someone else will. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

 

The remaining amount gets amortised at the point of sale...meaning that 75m becomes an instant cost to them. So unless they sell him for more than 75m, they incur a loss in their FFP accounts for that year of the difference.

It really is a high risk model that will only work if they continue to be successful (and could in theory have worked very well had they been in the top 4). As it is, it will likely bankrupt them if they aren't. Or force them to sell all their prizes youth assets.

This is why it's a decision to make when you buy Chelsea's players off them. You relieve the pressure on them to try again next season. If you don't, the pressure builds up and up and they could well implode. For me, I wouldn't go near any of their players. The problem is, someone else will. 

With the example of Mudryk it doesn’t seem infeasible that he will move on well before the 8 years are up, and for a lot less than the £100m Chelsea paid.

Maybe the club will be sold off to the middle east who can help balance the books with over-market-value sponsorship deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Genie said:

With the example of Mudryk it doesn’t seem infeasible that he will move on well before the 8 years are up, and for a lot less than the £100m Chelsea paid.

Maybe the club will be sold off to the middle east who can help balance the books with over-market-value sponsorship deals.

Yes but if they sell him in 4 years time, his FFP worth only has £50m left. So if they then sold him for £40m, it's only a £10m hit in that years accounts and FFP calc.  

They'll just get someone to buy a shitty youth player for £10m to make up the difference.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

 

The remaining amount gets amortised at the point of sale...meaning that 75m becomes an instant cost to them. So unless they sell him for more than 75m, they incur a loss in their FFP accounts for that year of the difference.

It really is a high risk model that will only work if they continue to be successful (and could in theory have worked very well had they been in the top 4). As it is, it will likely bankrupt them if they aren't. Or force them to sell all their prizes youth assets.

This is why it's a decision to make when you buy Chelsea's players off them. You relieve the pressure on them to try again next season. If you don't, the pressure builds up and up and they could well implode. For me, I wouldn't go near any of their players. The problem is, someone else will. 

And academy players are a huge boost to FFP, as the cost practically nothing and being sold for pure profit.  They will be desperate to cash in on the likes of Mount, Gallagher, Chalobah, Loftus-Cheek etc.  As you say, even if we don't buy anyone, someone will.

I would absolutely love them to go bankrupt, what a spectacle that would be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is why do the players like Mudryk move on? There is almost no way they will get a contract as lucrative as the ones they are on ever again. None of this new intake will ever have to work again, they will need to be really motivated to play to take the financial hit it will almost certainly be to move on. A decent proportion won't make it and won't leave.

On the flip side, I can't see many clubs offering to match the wages these guys are on. The only way this model works is if Chelsea have got their player selection spot on. I mean with a higher success rate than pretty much any club has managed to do ever.

I think they will become the ultimate dead wood club.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â