Chelsea

[VillaChris]

40 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Summarises the problem with football fans these days (not saying YOU, just generally).

Most people were saying the same about Arteta at Arsenal but the club stuck with him and are reaping the rewards. It can take time for a manager to come in and change the culture and playing style at a club. Potter has had 16 games at Chelsea and people are already speculating on him being sacked. It’s **** all time at a club. 

Probably guilty of just assuming Chelsea will follow the Abramovich model of sacking managers. Scolari, AVB and Lampard were all sacked in Jan/Feb when they were well adrift of top 4 and two of those had only been there six months.

Boehly might be different but him sacking Tuchel after six league games and one CL match dosen't strike me as an owner who's going to be that patient and Chelsea in a weeks time could be out of both domestic cup competitions which will add to the pressure.

[Zatman]

Chelsea are in the United/Arsenal phase of denial that Arsenal have fought out of now.

I think the Abramovich league trophy era is over and they are struggling to accept it. Boehly seems a Xia type transfer nutjob

[gwi1890]

11 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Chelsea are in the United/Arsenal phase of denial that Arsenal have fought out of now.

I think the Abramovich league trophy era is over and they are struggling to accept it. Boehly seems a Xia type transfer nutjob

Good they can drop back to where they belong. They’ll waste millions and then the money will stop. 

[OutByEaster?]

In fairness to Boehly, if you look at what Chelsea are doing, they're hoovering up masses of young talent from all over Europe - if it pays off for them in 18 months time they could have a hell of a side.

We're yet to see how patient he'll be with managers and I think that'll be an interesting indication of how they're planning for their future - in principle, if the plan is to build a young team of huge talent over the next couple of seasons and then have a tilt at the big prizes, then they'll need to be very patient until that starts to pay off.

 

[KAZZAM]

Are Chelsea 'cheesing' FFP through there takeover? 

I mean all this splashing of cash by Boehly must be because of Roman inserting that investing or investment must be guaranteed up to x amount. 

However Chelsea always make a loss every year and Roman subsidised that annually to the tune of 90 mill. 

If they're buying Enzo Fernandez and Co for another January spend of close to £200 mill and add that to there summer spend of £250-275 mill?? 

How are they not breaking FFP? Is there a loophole through new ownership? 

 

 

 

 

[Demitri_C]

Apparently spending another 100m on a player. Can someone explain to me how they havent breached FFP? As that takes their spending to almost 400m?

Not even city have spent that much in a season 

[Delphinho123]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Apparently spending another 100m on a player. Can someone explain to me how they havent breached FFP? As that takes their spending to almost 400m?

Not even city have spent that much in a season 

No, and City, to be fair to them, move players on quite regularly for decent sums of money.

This kind of spending is beyond the pale. I don’t know how they’re managing it and I hope their house of cards comes crashing down (it most likely won’t). 

[OutByEaster?]

With Chelsea isn't it that they just have periods where they've not been allowed to spend money - so the period where Abramovich's spending was suspended by government and the their transfer ban means that they have periods where they spend nothing, then big blowouts where they spend the whole of their three year FFP allowance?

Something like that anyway.

FFP does seem to get weaker every day - it seems to apply to the chasing pack a lot more diligently than it applies to the Superleague six.

[Demitri_C]

6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

With Chelsea isn't it that they just have periods where they've not been allowed to spend money - so the period where Abramovich's spending was suspended by government and the their transfer ban means that they have periods where they spend nothing, then big blowouts where they spend the whole of their three year FFP allowance?

Something like that anyway.

FFP does seem to get weaker every day - it seems to apply to the chasing pack a lot more diligently than it applies to the Superleague six.

That wasnt a very long period though. The war started in feb which was after the jan window when i think chelsea spent money. They they still spent massive in the summer. Lets not forget they spent 100m on lukaku who flopped and is out on loan.

Somethink stinks even with the ban they had which i think was one window there is no way 400m is within ffp rules.

 

[duke313]

19 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

In fairness to Boehly, if you look at what Chelsea are doing, they're hoovering up masses of young talent from all over Europe - if it pays off for them in 18 months time they could have a hell of a side.

We're yet to see how patient he'll be with managers and I think that'll be an interesting indication of how they're planning for their future - in principle, if the plan is to build a young team of huge talent over the next couple of seasons and then have a tilt at the big prizes, then they'll need to be very patient until that starts to pay off.

Will be interesting to see if their fans accept that, as they are used to competing for trophies.  Also be interesting to see if their owner accepts this transition period, it will defeat  the purpose if the go through managers hand over fist in that 18 month period.

As @Zatmanhas said, this seems like the start of their decline, hopefully they waste a few hundred million in the process.

Edited January 3, 2023 by duke313

[Demitri_C]

17 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Will be interesting to see if their fans accept that, as they are used to competing for trophies.  Also be interesting to see if their owner accepts this transition period, it will defeat  the purpose if the go through managers hand over fist in that 18 month period.

As @Zatmanhas said, this seems like the start of their decline, hopefully they waste a few hundred million in the process.

I think they are wasting a lot of money. Look at their business it doesnt come close to what city and Newcastle have done.

I think they have over spent on players like auba, cucurella sterling. Pre new owners they wasted 100m on kepa and mendy alone

[duke313]

11 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I think they are wasting a lot of money. Look at their business it doesnt come close to what city and Newcastle have done.

I think they have over spent on players like auba, cucurella sterling. Pre new owners they wasted 100m on kepa and mendy alone

Big time, the new owner flashing the cash thinking he's Roman Abramovich.  You only have to look at United to see that throwing money at it doesn't work. 

It would be nice to see Chelsea drop out of the 'big 6' back where they belong, although it would seem their spot will be taken by Newcastle.  

[bobzy]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

With Chelsea isn't it that they just have periods where they've not been allowed to spend money - so the period where Abramovich's spending was suspended by government and the their transfer ban means that they have periods where they spend nothing, then big blowouts where they spend the whole of their three year FFP allowance?

Something like that anyway.

FFP does seem to get weaker every day - it seems to apply to the chasing pack a lot more diligently than it applies to the Superleague six.

So, as I was discussing with @Demitri_C in entirely the wrong thread (  ) I think FFP works - very crudely - by spreading transfer fees over the length of a contract but applying fees received immediately into the current period.  Each FFP period is a rolling 3 years.
 

Looking at transfermarkt, Chelsea's main business (in Euros) is:
2020/21 - Havertz for 80m, Werner for 53m, Chilwell for 50m, Ziyech for 40m, Mendy for 24m
2021/22 - Lukaku for 113m
2022/23 - Fofana for 80m, Cucurella for 65m, Sterling for 56m, Koulibaly for 38m, Chukwuemeka for 18m, Aubameyang for 12m, NEW Fofana for 12m

Sales:
2020/21 - Morata for 35m, Pasalic for 14.5m
2021/22 - Abraham for 40m, Zouma for 35m, Tomori for 32m
2022/23 - Werner for 20m, Emerson for 15m

This is 641m Euros on players bought and 191.5m Euros on players sold - so they've made a 449.5m loss.  However, it doesn't quite work out like that (as far as I'm aware).  As a really rough example, we'll look at the first two years I've mentioned:

PLAYERS BOUGHT:
Havertz - 48m (5 year deal, 16m/year)
Werner - 33m (bought for 53m and sold for 20m in same period, 33m loss)
Chilwell - 30m (5 year deal, 10m/year)
Ziyech - 24m (5 year deal, 8m/year)
Mendy - 14.4m (5 year deal, 4.8m/year)
Lukaku - 67.8m (5 year deal, 22.6m/year)
SPENT:  217.2m Euros ('down' from 360m)

PLAYERS SOLD:
Morata - 0m (signed on 5 year deal for 66m, sold after 2 years assume 0m 'profit')
Pasalic - 14.5m (signed young, 6 years at Chelsea so assume full 'profit')
Abraham - 40m (youth product)
Zouma - 35m (7 years at Chelsea, assume full 'profit')
Tomori - 32m (youth product)
RECEIVED: 121.5m Euro

The very crude net spend here would be 95.7m Euros.  I can't be bothered going through each of the 22/23 details, but if we assume all players signed on 5 year deals (which Chelsea seem to use a LOT) then the figure would increase by 56.2m on players bought (281m total divided by 5 for this first year) and assuming no benefit for the Emerson sale.

This would give a net spend of 151.9m Euros for the 3 year period of 20/21 to 22/23 which, obviously, is much much lower than the 449.5m net spend that it appears Chelsea have incurred.

You then bring in their transfer ban before 20/21 which may mean some profit rolls into the initial first year here and also any revenue vs. costs they get elsewhere (I imagine Chelsea make a lot of money each season) and it's probable that they'll be nowhere near an FFP breach.

As I say, it's a very crude example of my understanding on transfers with FFP.  Also demonstrates how us selling Chukwuemeka for 18m gives us 'more than 18m' in immediate benefit.

[Demitri_C]

9 minutes ago, bobzy said:

So, as I was discussing with @Demitri_C in entirely the wrong thread (  ) I think FFP works - very crudely - by spreading transfer fees over the length of a contract but applying fees received immediately into the current period.  Each FFP period is a rolling 3 years.
 

Looking at transfermarkt, Chelsea's main business (in Euros) is:
2020/21 - Havertz for 80m, Werner for 53m, Chilwell for 50m, Ziyech for 40m, Mendy for 24m
2021/22 - Lukaku for 113m
2022/23 - Fofana for 80m, Cucurella for 65m, Sterling for 56m, Koulibaly for 38m, Chukwuemeka for 18m, Aubameyang for 12m, NEW Fofana for 12m

Sales:
2020/21 - Morata for 35m, Pasalic for 14.5m
2021/22 - Abraham for 40m, Zouma for 35m, Tomori for 32m
2022/23 - Werner for 20m, Emerson for 15m

This is 641m Euros on players bought and 191.5m Euros on players sold - so they've made a 449.5m loss.  However, it doesn't quite work out like that (as far as I'm aware).  As a really rough example, we'll look at the first two years I've mentioned:

PLAYERS BOUGHT:
Havertz - 48m (5 year deal, 16m/year)
Werner - 33m (bought for 53m and sold for 20m in same period, 33m loss)
Chilwell - 30m (5 year deal, 10m/year)
Ziyech - 24m (5 year deal, 8m/year)
Mendy - 14.4m (5 year deal, 4.8m/year)
Lukaku - 67.8m (5 year deal, 22.6m/year)
SPENT:  217.2m Euros ('down' from 360m)

PLAYERS SOLD:
Morata - 0m (signed on 5 year deal for 66m, sold after 2 years assume 0m 'profit')
Pasalic - 14.5m (signed young, 6 years at Chelsea so assume full 'profit')
Abraham - 40m (youth product)
Zouma - 35m (7 years at Chelsea, assume full 'profit')
Tomori - 32m (youth product)
RECEIVED: 121.5m Euro

The very crude net spend here would be 95.7m Euros.  I can't be bothered going through each of the 22/23 details, but if we assume all players signed on 5 year deals (which Chelsea seem to use a LOT) then the figure would increase by 56.2m on players bought (281m total divided by 5 for this first year) and assuming no benefit for the Emerson sale.

This would give a net spend of 151.9m Euros for the 3 year period of 20/21 to 22/23 which, obviously, is much much lower than the 449.5m net spend that it appears Chelsea have incurred.

You then bring in their transfer ban before 20/21 which may mean some profit rolls into the initial first year here and also any revenue vs. costs they get elsewhere (I imagine Chelsea make a lot of money each season) and it's probable that they'll be nowhere near an FFP breach.

As I say, it's a very crude example of my understanding on transfers with FFP.  Also demonstrates how us selling Chukwuemeka for 18m gives us 'more than 18m' in immediate benefit.

Thanka for this. If thats correct then we should have  a he of a lot of leeway to spend money of over the next few windows?

I still thinkneven with your numbers somethibg dont add up because i think other clubs like city newcastle etc would be spending stupidly like they have

[bobzy]

9 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Thanka for this. If thats correct then we should have  a he of a lot of leeway to spend money of over the next few windows?

I still thinkneven with your numbers somethibg dont add up because i think other clubs like city newcastle etc would be spending stupidly like they have

Yeah, we should be doing pretty well in the current period - particularly with £100m for Grealish.  Important to note, though, that this profit just drops off after 3 years so you still need to have a plan for income vs selling players vs purchases.

Using the same 5 year example, we could theoretically offset £500m in purchases against the Grealish sale in 1 year, but after that year you start to suffer.  After the 3 year period inc. Grealish sale ends, you'd essentially be looking at a £300m loss in a rolling 3-year period which a club like Man City could probably absorb with income... but not so much Aston Villa.

On the other club point, I think owners generally still like to see some profit so operating with a profit is a good thing to do.  I also would've thought that Newcastle will be looking at where they finish this season and the calibre of player they're able to attract before committing to a huge spend.

[VillaChris]

5 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Apparently spending another 100m on a player. Can someone explain to me how they havent breached FFP? As that takes their spending to almost 400m?

Not even city have spent that much in a season 

Over the last 2-3 years they've sold likes of Tomori, Zouma, Tammy etc for 100m +. Livramento played about two games for them and he went to Southampton for 5m. Not much but probably more than we sold Trez or AEG for. Think Lamptey to Brighton was similar fee.

I assume there's options to buy on the Timo Werner and Lukaku deals so they'll get a decent amount of money for those two next summer to cover this mass outlay.

Add in the endless sponsorship deals and that's how they get around it every year.

[Villaphan04]

I also read that they are overpaying Fernandez's release clause so they can spread the payments out over a longer period of time

[Follyfoot]

On 01/01/2023 at 21:12, jim said:

I’ll be amazed if Potter sees out the season.

or the month

 

[Genie]

 

[penguin]

I really hope this Fernandez deal goes through. Can’t see it as anything but completely reckless, degenerate gambling.

He played 40 games in the Argentinian league over 3 seasons. Moved to Benéfica this year and has played 14 league games, and obviously had a very good World Cup. Does that make a £100m+ player?

Hope this new owner blows up the club, he’s making all the right moves for me. Reminds me of Everton after their takeover, on steroids.