The rules have since been changed in response to Chelsea. From this season you can only spread the fee over 5 yrs for Premier League FFP purposes. It hasn't been applied retrospectively so Chelsea are OK for existing signings. UEFA have brought in a similar rule change which Chelsea have cleverly avoided by finishing 12th!
Let's all laugh at chelsea
- Thread starter Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret
- Start date
king_hellfire
Well-known member
Looks like Caicedo and Lavia made the right decision in not joining us. 
BoroMart
Well-known member
I make it 210m in transfer fees due next season just from the last 2 seasons transfers.
Likely you can add another 100m+ for the years before that.
So maybe over 300m in transfer fees due next year on players they already own. Not sure how much money due for outgoing sales
But it’s very likely they’ll need to sell to remain ffp compliant and have any money to spend at all
Likely you can add another 100m+ for the years before that.
So maybe over 300m in transfer fees due next year on players they already own. Not sure how much money due for outgoing sales
But it’s very likely they’ll need to sell to remain ffp compliant and have any money to spend at all
festa5
Well-known member
That'll be bad news for Brighton. Hope they have a contingency plan in place for alternative revenue streams.
h_m_boro
Well-known member
Over a billion spent on making the squad considerably worse is some going.
Didn't someone on here point out that they have 2 ish years to basically become successful - like win the CL - or they are in deep, deep sh*t.
Wish Dr Brown could pick me up in his DeLorean.....can't really wait that long
Didn't someone on here point out that they have 2 ish years to basically become successful - like win the CL - or they are in deep, deep sh*t.
Wish Dr Brown could pick me up in his DeLorean.....can't really wait that long
coluka
Well-known member
I used to describe Chelsea as a farm rather than a football club due to the nature of their hoovering up and trading of young talent from around the world. I am now beginning to think they have moved a stage further on. It now seems they are more like an abattoir where slightly more ‘seasoned‘ footballers get sent to their slaughter. In animal terms they appear to be like a whale slowly dying, the internal gases are looking increasingly likely to bring the possible explosion to the fore.
Because putting players on 8 year contracts is generally a terrible idea especially when they are on inflated wages. How many players can you name that have been consistently good for 8 years at the top level?
That means they are likely going to end up either:
a) paying big wages for deadwood for a number of years
b) loaning these players out where they are paying the majority of the wages for a number of years
c) giving these players away hoping that someone will pay the inflated wages if there is no transfer fee attached.
Even when they do come across a diamond and potentially have them tied into an 8 year contract, they will still have to give them the money they are worth eventually.
Last edited:
uncle_rico
Well-known member
BoroMart may correct me, but I think you can only split the transfer fee over a max of 5 years.
When clubs pay for players they buy, or receive money for those they sell is just cash flow.
The amortisation of transfer fees is for financial accounting purposes. So a £10 million buy amortised over 5 years is £2 million each year, irrespective of whether the club gets the cash on day 1, or year 5.
Todd Beauly offers long term contracts to LA Dodger players, and that seems to work. Chelsea will have to rework their P&L for FFP, but I wouldn't write off Beauly, he's a cute cookie.
The_Lizards_Jumpers
Well-known member
My mates a Chelsea fan, and he pointed out that they can't have a goal of the month competition for September as they dont play until Monday night (October) and they've not yet scored in September
BoroMart
Well-known member
That is splitting recent transfer fees over 5-8 years. It's difficult to know exactly how long each individual purchase is, and my number was euros which I forgot to say. but 200-300m euro per season for the next 3 or 4 years.
According to Spotrac their wage bill is 150m, so possibly similar to what they will raise in (non-transfer) revenue now that they have no euro football.
They then have the running costs for the club facilities and non-playing staff. Prem League rules are 105m loss across 3 seasons? Well without significant sales, possibly 2 high earning, high value players, they'll surely breach that, even with the high transfer fees owed to them.
The second season will get even tougher. If, as it looks there will be no european football again, then I suspect it'll take 4 big player sales to stay within ffp.
The third season would be firesale time.
They''d be scraping around for cheap players in this time too.
Surely the only thing that can save them from ffp meltdown within 3 seasons, is if they can get back into the champs league, or player sales.
BoroMart
Well-known member
Good point, it's early, I haven't had my coffee, yes the sales will be already on the ffp calculations at time of sale, income is an entirely different point and affects the cash flow not ffp. Unless there are additional transfer fee clauses that get met in those future years, they could then be added to ffp calculations, but it won't be enough on it's own to keep them compliant.
The only certainty I guess, is that Chelsea MUST sell players for significant fees every year for the next 3 or 4 years.
h_m_boro
Well-known member
Yeah, Mudryk and Fernandez really look like slow burners ......just getting used to the PL and.......yeah.......
WindyNook
Well-known member
According to Bogarde, it would be next to impossible to find a team that would offer him a contract comparable to the one he had at Chelsea: he was astounded at the salary the club had agreed on, as his value depreciated severely due to lack of first-team action, and decided to stay and honour his contract to the letter and appear for training every day, despite being only rarely selected to play.[13] In the end, he only appeared 11 times during his four-year tenure, reportedly earning £40,000 a week during this period
Didn't they lean anything? Winston Bogarde 2000/2004
£8 Mill in wages for 11 games.
I know they managed things this year due to player sales but they could have 10 Bogardes on 2024 wages for the next 5/6/7/8 years
Didn't they lean anything? Winston Bogarde 2000/2004
£8 Mill in wages for 11 games.
I know they managed things this year due to player sales but they could have 10 Bogardes on 2024 wages for the next 5/6/7/8 years
Jedi boro
Well-known member
From Forbes
Chelsea has gone about its business as if it is a Major League Soccer expansion team assembling a roster from scratch.
Despite this sudden influx of new players, Boehly and the Chelsea hierarchy have continually spoken more about long-term planning rather than short-term fixes. The suggestions were that Potter would be given time and that the Englishman shared their long-term plan whereas Tuchel might not have.
“We weren’t sure Thomas [Tuchel] saw it the same way we saw it,” Boehly said at a conferencelast year. “No one’s right or wrong, we just didn’t have a shared vision for the future.”
www.forbes.com
Chelsea has gone about its business as if it is a Major League Soccer expansion team assembling a roster from scratch.
Despite this sudden influx of new players, Boehly and the Chelsea hierarchy have continually spoken more about long-term planning rather than short-term fixes. The suggestions were that Potter would be given time and that the Englishman shared their long-term plan whereas Tuchel might not have.
“We weren’t sure Thomas [Tuchel] saw it the same way we saw it,” Boehly said at a conferencelast year. “No one’s right or wrong, we just didn’t have a shared vision for the future.”
Chelsea Transfer Spending Spree Derails Season For Potter And Boehly
The transfer market is often viewed as a quick fix, but too many new signings have broken Chelsea's 2022/23 season.
www.forbes.com
Muttley
Well-known member
What really gets me is not the financial goings on (which may or may not work out for them as a lot if it is hidden from view) but the very simple fact they still have not bought a decent striker, the lad Jackson looks like he has some potential but is, at least at the moment, unreliable as a finisher.
Ipad1977
Well-known member
Kind of like a Premier version of us from the Monk to Woodgate time?
Yes, I can see the similarity.