Topic: Chelsea - schooled by Liverpool's kids

[Nick110581]

I just can’t get over the money spent.

And they aren’t even that good.

[Samie]

Crystal Palace have considered formally reporting Chelsea for making an illegal approach to Michael Olise.

There are concerns at Palace that Chelsea’s move for Olise has contravened transfer rules and etiquette.

[@SamiMokbel81_DM]

[Passmaster Molby]

It will be delicious when they eventually crumble

I just can’t see how all this spending doesn’t eventually catch up with them. You just can’t spend near a billion pounds in 18 months and not end up breaking FFP rules. They must be banking on selling 75mill of players each year for the next few seasons, without spending anything at all. It’s absolute bonkers gambling by Boehly.

[slaphead]

I just can’t see how all this spending doesn’t eventually catch up with them. You just can’t spend near a billion pounds in 18 months and not end up breaking FFP rules. They must be banking on selling 75mill of players each year for the next few seasons, without spending anything at all. It’s absolute bonkers gambling by Boehly.

I didn't hear it myself but apparently Simon Jordan (who is recovering from Prostate cancer and good wishes to him) did a piece yesterday on radio talking about how Bohely is working things and how he thinks they're not breaking FFP rules. It would be interesting to hear because I have no idea how they're doing it, it's just mental.

[Passmaster Molby]

I didn't hear it myself but apparently Simon Jordan (who is recovering from Prostate cancer and good wishes to him) did a piece yesterday on radio talking about how Bohely is working things and how he thinks they're not breaking FFP rules. It would be interesting to hear because I have no idea how they're doing it, it's just mental.

I heard the same thing, and he said in the short term they can do it as they are selling players to balance the books. However long term it will catch up with them when they run out of players to sell and they are still paying for players they bought 2 or 3 seasons ago.

[slaphead]

I heard the same thing, and he said in the short term they can do it as they are selling players to balance the books. However long term it will catch up with them when they run out of players to sell and they are still paying for players they bought 2 or 3 seasons ago.

Oh right, I didn't know about the part about how it works later on, cheers mate. Massive risk then. I just hope they finish outside the CL places for a couple of years and then maybe they won't be so smug

[darragh85]

It's great that they spend so big to get the generational talent from under the noses of a rival. Can only sit back and admire it really

Big money, big transfers, big wages, big names. Here we go, here we go. I love it.   Its what i Iive for.

[shank94]

Fcuk this

[rafathegaffa83]

Excellent

[decosabute]

They lose around £150m-£200m every year before transfers. Last season, they had a bloated wage bill and they spent £600m (still adds up regardless of amortization). I don't see how they pass PL's FFP when considering the last 3 seasons.

According to the PL rules, a club can lose £105m in 3 seasons. In the first two seasons (I.e 20/21 and 21/22), they have an accumulated loss of £260m (before adjustments) which is almost double the limit and there is no way they made a profit last season.

I'm honestly baffled by journalists' attempts to portray them as compliant. "Oh, they sold some players! Very smart!".

It's like that summer they spent £300 odd million on loads of players, but it was all explained away with the transfer ban (the same "ban" where they still managed to sign Kovacic and Pulisic for a combined £100m), and the Hazard money, which seemed to be a magically bottomless pot of gold.

[Black Bull Nova]

Bizarre that they were so desperate to shift Mount for £55m (+£5m), player of the year for 20/21 and 21/22 and only 24 and then rush out and spend the same amount on a 19 YO who has played 29 games and was so good last year as a DM his team finished bottom conceding an average of 2 goals a game. He may be good but it is a strange gamble, both ways.

Same with the desire to shift Gallagher
Something is not right

[Black Bull Nova]

I heard the same thing, and he said in the short term they can do it as they are selling players to balance the books. However long term it will catch up with them when they run out of players to sell and they are still paying for players they bought 2 or 3 seasons ago.

It was posted here, sounded logical but assumed long contracts meant spending was spread over years/amortized. That said, reports were that Brighton were getting their £115m pretty quickly so something not right. Would love to hear from the selling clubs about how the deals are structured, I suspect Southampton can't wait 8 years for their money either.

[The G in Gerrard]

How exactly?

Good question. It was on Sky. Their calculations.

Why is that surprising they have sold around players for around £215m.

They've spent half that amount on 1 player that's why.

Not sure that's right. I think you'd have to count all of MacAllister's add-ons, and none of Chelsea's.
It would have been true prior to the Caicedo signing, mainly due to the sales of Mount and Havertz.

In any case, it's a daft statistic because they've spent 200m+ in the two previous windows as well.

I was bemused by it and then it was how they've spent nearly a billion quid. All a load of shite.

For all this spending they don't really have many players to be envious of.

Hope they finish outside top 5.

[Historical Fool]

It was posted here, sounded logical but assumed long contracts meant spending was spread over years/amortized. That said, reports were that Brighton were getting their £115 pretty quickly so something not right. Would love to hear from the selling clubs about how the deals are structured, I suspect Southampton can't wait 8 years for their money either.

I think it doesn’t matter for accounting purposes how fast the selling club receives the money, it will still be on expense books as amortised over the contract length …

[JovaJova]

I think it doesn’t matter for accounting purposes how fast the selling club receives the money, it will still be on expense books as amortised over the contract length …

Yes, and it is the single reason why Chelsea are so utterly screwed in the future.

Almost all of this money they have spent so far has seemingly been on failed players, with the jury obviously still out on the most recent signings. For all those failed players (E.g Cucurella, Mudryk etc etc etc) there are only two things that will happen from an accounting perspective.

1) Chelsea have to sell them at a huge loss, meaning in addition to the annual amortisation they are also likely to incur a loss in the year they are sold. This means they are totally fecked in the future.
2) Nobody wants to buy the player because they are awful and on obscene wages. This is the issue that has been plaguing Man United for years. They are therefore stuck with the players and can’t improve their squad much beyond it.

So unless Chelsea get all these signing right, which it seems in most cases they already have not done, Boehly’s nonsense “strategy” has already killed their future.

[decosabute]

For anyone thinking these are actually being clever and finding a shortcut, their costs just amortising fees are surely going to be close to £200m a year, even without making any more big buys. Not to mention the enormous squad and wage bill. They can't simply sell two or three players for big money every year to balance it. Players like Mount and Havertz also need replacing with big money signings, and for all that there have been some sellable assets, there are more of the category of Cucurella and Kepa, who were signed for ridiculous money and are now going on loan.

[Alan_X]

I didn't hear it myself but apparently Simon Jordan (who is recovering from Prostate cancer and good wishes to him) did a piece yesterday on radio talking about how Bohely is working things and how he thinks they're not breaking FFP rules. It would be interesting to hear because I have no idea how they're doing it, it's just mental.

They're doing a Ridsdale. Betting the farm on future success. It didn't work for Leeds in the end and I'm not sure it will work for Chelsea. Chelsea's gamble depends on them winning Leagues, European Cups and massively increasing their off-field revenues before the shit hits the fan. But they aren't in a farmer's league or two-team league - the possible challengers for the trophies and top four include Man City, Newcastle (in coming years), Liverpool, Man United & Arsenal.

When Mourinho took over in 2004-05 Chelsea already had a good team and half a billion made a huge difference against the rest of the league. The advantage this time is far less, paartly because they've pissed away large parts of their latest splurge on players that aren't worth the money spent.

I hope they crash and burn but with Pochettino and some decent players they'll do ok for a while. Whether it's enough to justify the outlay is debatable.

[RJH]

Bizarre that they were so desperate to shift Mount for £55m (+£5m), player of the year for 20/21 and 21/22 and only 24 and then rush out and spend the same amount on a 19 YO who has played 29 games and was so good last year as a DM his team finished bottom conceding an average of 2 goals a game. He may be good but it is a strange gamble, both ways.

Same with the desire to shift Gallagher
Something is not right

For FFP purposes it makes sense, at least in the short term. Mount is home grown, so his sale is 100% profit this year.
With purchases spread over 5 years, essentially his 60m sale balances 300m of purchases this summer.

Obviously that's only this year though. Next year you'd have to find another way of balancing the 60m amortisation from purchases this year.
Possibly the plan is to buy multiple players and sell off the ones that don't work, with the assumption that continuing inflation in transfer prices will offset any decline in their real value. If that is the plan though, they may find players with 6/7 years still left on their contract aren't that bothered about moving on.

[elbow]

I hope they end up with a whole team of Winston Bogarde’s!

[BigCDump]

For FFP purposes it makes sense, at least in the short term. Mount is home grown, so his sale is 100% profit this year.
With purchases spread over 5 years, essentially his 60m sale balances 300m of purchases this summer.

Obviously that's only this year though. Next year you'd have to find another way of balancing the 60m amortisation from purchases this year.
Possibly the plan is to buy multiple players and sell off the ones that don't work, with the assumption that continuing inflation in transfer prices will offset any decline in their real value. If that is the plan though, they may find players with 6/7 years still left on their contract aren't that bothered about moving on.

And this is when the real enemy will make themselves known. Clearlake will step in with their A(rab)counting where money will start magically appearing out of thin air. Like City. Boehly knows this. New sponsors: Air Saudia, 10 billion sponsorship over 15 years.

The Arabs have their third club in the PL already.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

It was posted here, sounded logical but assumed long contracts meant spending was spread over years/amortized. That said, reports were that Brighton were getting their £115 pretty quickly so something not right. Would love to hear from the selling clubs about how the deals are structured, I suspect Southampton can't wait 8 years for their money either.

For accounting purposes it makes sense, but it does leave them in a bit of an endless loop, gambling that the next set of players will make them the dream team

They get a bunch of players in, their costs are spread over 8 years (or perhaps 5 years with the new PL rules not sure how that counts for past signings when that comes in) and they pay it off with player sales

Problem is they pay it off with player sales, leaving gaps in their team to plug the already existing gaps in the team.

Right now they have a really good stating midfield. They don't have much behind that, and they have very few attacking midfielders because they sold them all. Their defence isn't very deep, they are missing a good goalkeeper, and their attack is thin.

They need a fair bit of rebuild still, but they need to keep paying off the current rebuild which carries over for the next 8 years, which comes either from success or from selling players to keep paying.

Basically they have to be successful pretty quickly or they just keep ripping up the team to pay off the new team, with diminishing returns.

Also am I correct in thinking of they sell any players on these 8 year contracts before the 8 years, what is remaining of their fee becomes crystalized upon sale of them - so let's say they sell Caicedo in 2 years time, having paid about £29 million for him so far for accounting purposes, would what's left of his £115 million (£86 million) then instantly be seen as paid upon sale? So any profit on Caicedo for accounting purposes would be whatever they get minus the remainder of his fee, i.e - £86 million in this hypothetical

[MonsLibpool]

For accounting purposes it makes sense, but it does leave them in a bit of an endless loop, gambling that the next set of players will make them the dream team

They get a bunch of players in, their costs are spread over 8 years (or perhaps 5 years with the new PL rules not sure how that counts for past signings when that comes in) and they pay it off with player sales

Problem is they pay it off with player sales, leaving gaps in their team to plug the already existing gaps in the team.

Right now they have a really good stating midfield. They don't have much behind that, and they have very few attacking midfielders because they sold them all. Their defence isn't very deep, they are missing a good goalkeeper, and their attack is thin.

They need a fair bit of rebuild still, but they need to keep paying off the current rebuild which carries over for the next 8 years, which comes either from success or from selling players to keep paying.

Basically they have to be successful pretty quickly or they just keep ripping up the team to pay off the new team, with diminishing returns.

Also am I correct in thinking of they sell any players on these 8 year contracts before the 8 years, what is remaining of their fee becomes crystalized upon sale of them - so let's say they sell Caicedo in 2 years time, having paid about £29 million for him so far for accounting purposes, would what's left of his £115 million (£86 million) then instantly be seen as paid upon sale? So any profit on Caicedo for accounting purposes would be whatever they get minus the remainder of his fee, i.e - £86 million in this hypothetical

You are correct for the players that signed before the PL and/or CL rules changed.  What if a player gets crocked (Fofana) or flops (Mudryk)? I guess that's what Saudi is there for.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

You are correct for the players that signed before the PL and/or CL rules changed.  What if a player gets crocked (Fofana) or flops (Mudryk)? I guess that's what Saudi is there for.

I see that as the big problem. For the likes of those two, if they sell them they don't get the big  payment that clears the monstrous yearly obligations of all their players - I am not an accountant so I don't know how correct this is, but once they start selling the players they have  brought in on this scheme, the amount of profit they get back in for selling them decreases dramatically (as you pay off what is left of their fee right then at sale right?) so you start hitting the problem of not having the resources to fund the spread out fee's, so you need to have the success to pay for it instead.

It feels like they need to be in the CL and winning trophy's before they have to start selling their own rebuild players, or they start getting into a death spiral or just completely stagnate in the market without wiggle room to spend.

I think at least. Again not an accountant that's just my understanding of it

[Walshy nMe®]

I heard the same thing, and he said in the short term they can do it as they are selling players to balance the books. However long term it will catch up with them when they run out of players to sell and they are still paying for players they bought 2 or 3 seasons ago.

The video is in this thread a few times.

[Walshy nMe®]

From a footballing perspective, it doesn't seem like it will work with having a lot of over paid players on 8 year deals.  A bit of a decline over the next 18 months on those players, they aren't working or pushing for a new deal. They are guaranteed a 3rd of their career to be fully paid on high wages regardless of how they play.

[Black Bull Nova]

From a footballing perspective, it doesn't seem like it will work with having a lot of over paid players on 8 year deals.  A bit of a decline over the next 18 months on those players, they aren't working or pushing for a new deal. They are guaranteed a 3rd of their career to be fully paid on high wages regardless of how they play.

That's exactly the issue, they MUST see this and have something factored in. Koulibaly came in and went straight out to Saudi. If this gamble is somehow covered by another agency then football needs to latch on as soon as possible as this club has the potential to do even more damage than others. If the PL does not get a grip (which they won't) they will have lost the game. Of course those who work for the PL are made for life anyway so what do they care about other people's futures.

[bird_lfc]

Based on the attitude of some in the transfer thread, , I can’t help but feel they would be loving it if we were backed and were spending money in a certain way to be honest.

[Koplord]

From a footballing perspective, it doesn't seem like it will work with having a lot of over paid players on 8 year deals.  A bit of a decline over the next 18 months on those players, they aren't working or pushing for a new deal. They are guaranteed a 3rd of their career to be fully paid on high wages regardless of how they play.

As we have well seen the last 12 months footballers can decline in the blink of an eye so it makes no sense what their plan is here unless there are going to use Saudi connections to ship out those footballers when the time comes.

Would never happen but would be glorious to these vile c*nts floating around in championship or lower

[Eeyore]

For accounting purposes it makes sense, but it does leave them in a bit of an endless loop, gambling that the next set of players will make them the dream team

They get a bunch of players in, their costs are spread over 8 years (or perhaps 5 years with the new PL rules not sure how that counts for past signings when that comes in) and they pay it off with player sales

Problem is they pay it off with player sales, leaving gaps in their team to plug the already existing gaps in the team.

Right now they have a really good stating midfield. They don't have much behind that, and they have very few attacking midfielders because they sold them all. Their defence isn't very deep, they are missing a good goalkeeper, and their attack is thin.

They need a fair bit of rebuild still, but they need to keep paying off the current rebuild which carries over for the next 8 years, which comes either from success or from selling players to keep paying.

Basically they have to be successful pretty quickly or they just keep ripping up the team to pay off the new team, with diminishing returns.

Also am I correct in thinking of they sell any players on these 8 year contracts before the 8 years, what is remaining of their fee becomes crystalized upon sale of them - so let's say they sell Caicedo in 2 years time, having paid about £29 million for him so far for accounting purposes, would what's left of his £115 million (£86 million) then instantly be seen as paid upon sale? So any profit on Caicedo for accounting purposes would be whatever they get minus the remainder of his fee, i.e - £86 million in this hypothetical

For me they are looking to emulate the Galacticos model at Madrid. Spend huge sums on young players they expect to be the core of the team for years. If and it is a big if that happens then the players they sell will be the ones that come through the academy that aren't quite good enough but will still generate a lot of money because ironically Chelsea has distorted the market.

It is something they have already done for years under Abramovich and it does work look at the fees they have received for players that have come through or have been bought for the academy. Their academy is basically an industrialised talent factory. They bring in dozens of players loan them out and then sell them for big fees. The way they stockpile players actually drives up the market so it is a win-win scenario for them.

They also have the insurance of knowing that there are likely to be 5 CL spots for the foreseeable future plus the real possibilities of streaming dwarfing the value of traditional TV deals plus an ESL.

People talk about Chelsea being owned by Saudi which I think is way wide of the mark. However, if you look at how Clearlake work then it wouldn't surprise me if they are looking to build the revenues and then sell to a sportswasher in the next three or four years.     

[Mister Flip Flop]

As we have well seen the last 12 months footballers can decline in the blink of an eye so it makes no sense what their plan is here unless there are going to use Saudi connections to ship out those footballers when the time comes.

Would never happen but would be glorious to these vile c*nts floating around in championship or lower

As great as that idea seems they where funded by the Russian gangster/Putin's friend for years and the square root of fcuk all happened to them. No fines, no points deduction, no trophies taken back etc... You'd want to be very naive to think there is any karma in football.

[The North Bank]

They havent won a home game for about 6 months yet everyone is somehow jealous of them. Even their fans are celebrating, theyre playing in the league cup second round soon. Transfers seem far more important than results these days. Not one of their billion pound signings can get anywhere near the Man City team. So ultimately im not sure what they are celebrating.

[jillcwhomever]

So are Chelsea taking action against their fans for singing tragedy songs? Disgusting how this has been swept under the carpet while everyone talks about their indecent spending instead.

[Samie]

[MD1990]

They havent won a home game for about 6 months yet everyone is somehow jealous of them. Even their fans are celebrating, theyre playing in the league cup second round soon. Transfers seem far more important than results these days. Not one of their billion pound signings can get anywhere near the Man City team. So ultimately im not sure what they are celebrating.

Transfer window champions for the 3rd window in a row.
Been a hell of a ride for them & they have Romano to keep the fans entertained on twitter too with the updates of each saga.

Finishing 12th just a secondary concern for them

[The North Bank]

Transfer window champions for the 3rd window in a row.
Been a hell of a ride for them & they have Romano to keep the fans entertained on twitter too with the updates of each saga.

Finishing 12th just a secondary concern for them

The weird thing is that other fan bases seem to get sucked in , why cant we be like chelsea, theyd want to be like brighton not Chelsea.

[ShatnersBassoon]

The weird thing is that other fan bases seem to get sucked in , why cant we be like chelsea, theyd want to be like brighton not Chelsea.

a lot of people are more obsessed with transfers and point scoring over them than with success on the field.

we saw the same thing with everton before. they pandered to their fan base transfer obsession, about signing "names" andt "winning the transfer window" and look what mess theyre in now.

what chelsea are doing isnt sustainable and itll bite them in the arse before long

[Elzar]

For all they have spent, they have got rid a lot of their experience, and I'm really not sure on their squad.

Goalkeepers - Sanchez (+ 1 to come in)
Centre back - Thiago Silva, Colwill, Disasi, Badiashile, Fofana(long term injury), Chalobah
Right back - James, Gusto (one injury prone and one unproven)
Left back - Chilwell, Cucurella, Maatsen (Cucurella expected to leave)
Centre mid - Fernandez, Caicedo, Lavia, Gallagher, Chukwuemeka
Left wing - Sterling, Mudryk
Right wing - Ziyech, Madueke (Olise on his way in)
Striker - Jackson, Broja, Nkunku(Long term injury)(Lukaku not really part of the squad)

Obviously a lot of young talent, but that at the moment doesn't scream top four to me.

[Red Beret]

a lot of people are more obsessed with transfers and point scoring over them than with success on the field.

we saw the same thing with everton before. they pandered to their fan base transfer obsession, about signing "names" andt "winning the transfer window" and look what mess theyre in now.

what chelsea are doing isnt sustainable and itll bite them in the arse before long

Unless the PL are planning to fine Chelsea £100m and dock them 20 points a season for eight seasons so they absolutely do not benefit from breeching profit and sustainability rules, then it won't be so much a bite on their arse as a light nibble.

[decosabute]

For me they are looking to emulate the Galacticos model at Madrid. Spend huge sums on young players they expect to be the core of the team for years. If and it is a big if that happens then the players they sell will be the ones that come through the academy that aren't quite good enough but will still generate a lot of money because ironically Chelsea has distorted the market.

It is something they have already done for years under Abramovich and it does work look at the fees they have received for players that have come through or have been bought for the academy. Their academy is basically an industrialised talent factory. They bring in dozens of players loan them out and then sell them for big fees. The way they stockpile players actually drives up the market so it is a win-win scenario for them.

They also have the insurance of knowing that there are likely to be 5 CL spots for the foreseeable future plus the real possibilities of streaming dwarfing the value of traditional TV deals plus an ESL.

People talk about Chelsea being owned by Saudi which I think is way wide of the mark. However, if you look at how Clearlake work then it wouldn't surprise me if they are looking to build the revenues and then sell to a sportswasher in the next three or four years.   

For what it's worth I've generally agreed with you regarding LFC's ownership the past few years. But I really feel you're trying too hard to talk up Chelsea's model here.

For all that they've used their Academy as an industrial talent factory since the mid 2000s, they've still run enormous losses through much of that time. Until 2013, their losses were gigantic. Between 2013-2018, they were more break even, but recently their books are shit again. For example, the two most recent sets of accounts saw losses of £153m and £121m. Last accounts before covid was also a £100m loss.

I just mean, it's all well and good to say they can sell young players, as though that's going to balance things, when it was hardly working before (not without an oligarch to prop them up at least). And now they're spending at a ridiculous, unprecedented level, even by their standards.

Still don't see it myself.

[Pistolero]

Chelsea 2023/24 season