Chelsea

[VillaChris]

Their squad building is so lopsided, they need about 3 new CMs to have good depth in that area next season. Way it's going Chukwuemeka will be starting the August games in central midfield.

[Zatman]

57 minutes ago, Mr_Dogg said:

Can you explain that one?

They cant afford the full payment so paid more to balance it over time

[villa4europe]

Loftus Cheek gone to Milan for 16m

[Demitri_C]

I dont think chelseas business has been that great so far tbh.

[mikeyp102]

17 hours ago, VillaChris said:

Their squad building is so lopsided, they need about 3 new CMs to have good depth in that area next season. Way it's going Chukwuemeka will be starting the August games in central midfield.

He still won’t play 

[Villaphan04]

22 hours ago, Mr_Dogg said:

Can you explain that one?

From what I understand, release clauses (if met) are supposed to be paid in full within a year. 

[MrBlack]

45 minutes ago, Villaphan04 said:

From what I understand, release clauses (if met) are supposed to be paid in full within a year. 

They're not even release clauses. They're a figure the player has to pay the club to buy out his contract and then leave on a free.

The buying club give the player the cash effectively.

Same end result though. They don't want to pay that immediately in this years FFP window. By agreeing a deal with the club, they can pay it over however many years they want to agree on.

[MaVilla]

23 hours ago, Mr_Dogg said:

Can you explain that one?

this is very basic, so dont go nuts anyone, if i dont explain it "perfectly", im just trying to give a rough idea.

lets use an example, a completely made up one.

Scenario 1:

Club A has 100m a year to spend in the market.

Club A want to sign a player from Club B.

Club B's player has a release clause of 50m.

If Club A pay the 50m release, which has to be paid in full, thats 50m spent right now, reducing Club A's transfer Kitty to 50m.

Club A now has only 50m left to spend this window.

Scenario 2:

Same as Scenario 1, expect Club A offers to pay above the release fee if they can be allowed to spread the payment over multiple years.

Club A now purchases Club B's player for 55m (5m more than release fee).

However, the players is placed on a 8 year contract.

The total 55m fee is now amortised over the full 8 years of the contract, which is now the equivalent of speeding 6.9m NOW, and 6.9m in the remaining 7 years.

This then leaves Club A with 93m left to spend this year.

In this way, Club A could in theory buy more than 10 players costing 55m ish each, amortised over 8 years (8 year contracts) - rather than the 2 players for 50m, in scenario 1.

 

Note:

Scenario 2 obviously is more risky long term, as if they player doesnt do well, you may be stuck with 8 years amortisation.

However, if you buy 10 of them, you only need a couple of them to sell for a profit, or decent money, to offset the 8 others being amortised, so its just an informed gamble.

Obviously, the 8 year thing loophole was fixed from 1st July 2023, where it can only be amortised over 5 years, regardless of contract length, but the principle is still the same.

All clubs obviously do this to a degree, but Chelsea got creative with the 8 year contract to spread the fees even more, allowing them by FFP to spend even more in one window.

 

its also worth noting the concern over the Saudi clubs buying players from teams like Chelsea, as the Saudis have some level of financial investment in Chelsea, but also have investment in the Saudi clubs, so in theory, if Chelsea buy 10 players for 55m over 5-8 years, if it doesnt work out, they then, in theory, could just ask daddy saudi to get one of their clubs to buy one of chelsea's players for a nice big fee, and help them with FFP, this works especially well as the Saudi clubs arent beholden to FFP, so they could spend whatever they wanted, literally.

this last bit removes any risk to Chelsea, as even if those 10 players dont work out, there is no actual financial risk if daddy saudi club will just buy all your offcasts......or at least buy a few of them for good fee's, to mitigate any financial risk, reduce FFP risk, and allow you to just keep spending.

 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by MaVilla

[Zatman]

2 hours ago, Villaphan04 said:

From what I understand, release clauses (if met) are supposed to be paid in full within a year. 

Yes but if you cant afford it you can spread it out for a higher cost

[Zatman]

6 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

I dont think chelseas business has been that great so far tbh.

Yep probably actually weakened themselves. Even Poch isnt that inspiring 

[Demitri_C]

10 hours ago, Zatman said:

Yep probably actually weakened themselves. Even Poch isnt that inspiring 

Agreed i think they will struggle tk vet top four next year.

I think it will be city united newcastle and one of liverpool/arsenal

[Davkaus]

11 hours ago, MaVilla said:

 

The total 55m fee is now amortised over the full 8 years of the contract, which is now the equivalent of speeding 6.9m NOW, and 6.9m in the remaining 7 years.

This then leaves Club A with 93m left to spend this year.

In this way, Club A could in theory buy more than 10 players costing 55m ish each, amortised over 8 years (8 year contracts) - rather than the 2 players for 50m, in scenario 1.

 

 

I think this is irrelevant, they can sign contracts of whatever length they like for amortisation/FFP considerations regardless of the release fee, surely. I think it's as simple as if they pay more than the fee, the player's current club will be more amenable to payments over x years, so the benefit is short-term cashflow

[foreveryoung]

You know this 8 year signing thingy has been banned by the FA, after this season. FA and Premier League just wanted to show off with another record transfer year and to give Chelsea one last chance, then it's limited to, I think 5 years.

[bobzy]

8 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

You know this 8 year signing thingy has been banned by the FA, after this season. FA and Premier League just wanted to show off with another record transfer year and to give Chelsea one last chance, then it's limited to, I think 5 years.

Lumbers Chelsea with a lot of cost, though.  The way is works well for Chelsea is if they get their signings spot on.  If they don't, they get stuck somewhat.

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

Lumbers Chelsea with a lot of cost, though.  The way is works well for Chelsea is if they get their signings spot on.  If they don't, they get stuck somewhat.

If it were another club, sure. They've shown their hand though, the Saudis will be along again to bail them out if they make more poor decisions. Some of these clubs are now simply beyond the consequences of poor financial decisions. This season has shown that chucking loads of money around doesn't guarantee success, but if they throw enough shit at the wall some of it will stick eventually. The game is all but rigged.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Davkaus

[The_Rev]

14 hours ago, MaVilla said:

this is very basic, so dont go nuts anyone, if i dont explain it "perfectly", im just trying to give a rough idea.

lets use an example, a completely made up one.

Scenario 1:

Club A has 100m a year to spend in the market.

Club A want to sign a player from Club B.

Club B's player has a release clause of 50m.

If Club A pay the 50m release, which has to be paid in full, thats 50m spent right now, reducing Club A's transfer Kitty to 50m.

Club A now has only 50m left to spend this window.

Scenario 2:

Same as Scenario 1, expect Club A offers to pay above the release fee if they can be allowed to spread the payment over multiple years.

Club A now purchases Club B's player for 55m (5m more than release fee).

However, the players is placed on a 8 year contract.

The total 55m fee is now amortised over the full 8 years of the contract, which is now the equivalent of speeding 6.9m NOW, and 6.9m in the remaining 7 years.

This then leaves Club A with 93m left to spend this year.

In this way, Club A could in theory buy more than 10 players costing 55m ish each, amortised over 8 years (8 year contracts) - rather than the 2 players for 50m, in scenario 1.

 

Note:

Scenario 2 obviously is more risky long term, as if they player doesnt do well, you may be stuck with 8 years amortisation.

However, if you buy 10 of them, you only need a couple of them to sell for a profit, or decent money, to offset the 8 others being amortised, so its just an informed gamble.

Obviously, the 8 year thing loophole was fixed from 1st July 2023, where it can only be amortised over 5 years, regardless of contract length, but the principle is still the same.

All clubs obviously do this to a degree, but Chelsea got creative with the 8 year contract to spread the fees even more, allowing them by FFP to spend even more in one window.

 

its also worth noting the concern over the Saudi clubs buying players from teams like Chelsea, as the Saudis have some level of financial investment in Chelsea, but also have investment in the Saudi clubs, so in theory, if Chelsea buy 10 players for 55m over 5-8 years, if it doesnt work out, they then, in theory, could just ask daddy saudi to get one of their clubs to buy one of chelsea's players for a nice big fee, and help them with FFP, this works especially well as the Saudi clubs arent beholden to FFP, so they could spend whatever they wanted, literally.

this last bit removes any risk to Chelsea, as even if those 10 players dont work out, there is no actual financial risk if daddy saudi club will just buy all your offcasts......or at least buy a few of them for good fee's, to mitigate any financial risk, reduce FFP risk, and allow you to just keep spending.

 

 

 

Buyout clauses in Spain are a bit more complicated than that, it was highlighted by Manchester United's failed attempt to sign Ander Herrera on deadline day ten years ago.  AFAIK it breaks down like this: 

1)  Under Spanish law anybody has the right to buy themselves out of a contract they have with their employer.  This isn't just for footballers, it's for any job in Spain but footballers are high profile.  Football clubs will set a value for a contract which gets reported as the release clause. 

2) The important bit of the first sentence is that anybody has the right to buy themselves out of a contract.  This means the person subject to the contract is the person who has to pay the fee.  Obviously if the fee is high (like, €50m) then finding that kind of money is borderline impossible for an individual but a third party can step in and stump up the money.  Thing is they have to give the money to the individual buying themselves out, so the Spanish government will see that is income and want income tax on it, so a €50m fee would require a payment of €50m plus tax, which might be another 20 or 30% on top.   

3) Usually it's quicker, easier and cheaper to avoid step 2 and just come to an agreement between the buying club and the selling club.  In Chelsea's case Villarreal knew that there was a serious amount of time pressure on the deal so they were in a strong bargaining position, they could just ask for more than the release clause and be fairly confident that Chelsea would pay so that they could be in front of the July 1st cut off date for their 8 year contract. 

[Demitri_C]

43 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

If it were another club, sure. They've shown their hand though, the Saudis will be along again to bail them out if they make more poor decisions. Some of these clubs are now simply beyond the consequences of poor financial decisions. This season has shown that chucking loads of money around doesn't guarantee success, but if they throw enough shit at the wall some of it will stick eventually. The game is all but rigged.

Would be absolutely hilarious if chelsea finished 4th and cost newcastle 5th.

It would have been their own fault 

[Zatman]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Would be absolutely hilarious if chelsea finished 4th and cost newcastle 5th.

It would have been their own fault 

5th will probably get Champions League next season with new rules

[Demitri_C]

12 minutes ago, Zatman said:

5th will probably get Champions League next season with new rules

Great news for us then

[Rds1983]

3 hours ago, Zatman said:

5th will probably get Champions League next season with new rules

Depends on the team and their European coefficient doesn't it though?

So if Chelsea or Liverpool etc got 5th they'd qualify for Champs League, but if we or Newcastle did we wouldn't.