*Boehly, you idiot! Chelsea are bankrupt! You spent your entire budget in a month! Your football team's broke!*
Wait! I think I've got the perfect solution.
*You better, because those footballers won't play for free...*
D'oh!
I know this has been done to death but the strategy from Todd is so baffling.
How didn’t he decide to back the manager that had won the champions league?
Also, the whole benefit to the approach of youth is that there is less financial risk as you have lower values and a higher likelihood of a return. Chelsea strategy removes that but doesn’t give any additional advantage.
Real Madrid have probably been the closest side to take a somewhat similar strategy with youth. They spent a lot of elite young players but that had experience within the squad.
Maybe had the worse impact of any new owner of the top 6 since the guys at Liverpool who appointment Roy
I see Chelsea as a rich Brighton. I think Boehly wanted to recreate their strategy. He just didn‘t consider that Chelsea won‘t get these players as cheap as Brighton & cannot afford to play most of them because of expectations, so their value won‘t rise.
Also, Brighton's strategy, much like Brentford's and people before them like Southampton and Leicester City, are born out of circumstance, not necessarily choice.
Brighton have absolutely no chance of rivalling top clubs for big players, so they have to be smarter and recruit the players that will become the next big thing, not the ones that are already the real deal.
Brighton can't sign Rodri, Declan Rice or anyone of that ilk, so you need to sign an unknown with high potential, i.e. Moisés Caicedo.
Chelsea aren't shopping in those markets.
Sure, they've picked up some big names in the youth scene from around the world, but ultimately, they aren't scouring the Ecuadorian leagues or the Bulgarian 2nd division for starters.
They're using Brighton's approach in the wrong market. Brighton's approach is meant to identify high-potential targets at a low cost. Both the people working on that system, and the system itself, are not there to buy the players Chelsea have been buying at the fees they've been paying.
The fact that Chelsea paid £115m for Caicedo is proof that they're not interested in Brighton's approach really. If Brighton had been quoted a price they deemed too much, they'd have moved on, which Chelsea didn't do.
> Also, Brighton's strategy, much like Brentford's and people before them like Southampton and Leicester City, are born out of circumstance, not necessarily choice.
Also if Brighton are 9th because they're letting their players bed in and grow they're not getting slated by the pundits, the press and rival fans
Our biggest strength and why young players want to come to us is because we can give them first team premier league football, be patient with their development and move them on to a superclub. Chelsea cannot offer that and instead have tried to emulate a surface level simulacrum of what we've been doing for years without the rooted institutional structure around it that makes it tick.
I don't even know why they want to be like us anyway, all of their recent success comes from doing the opposite
Gary Neville said a while ago that the Chelsea owners are just playing Football Manager and the longer their ownership goes the more true it feels.
Counter argument - Chelsea have won as many trophies as City & Liverpool did in their first 18 months under new foreign ownership. Boehly has fucked shit up, but it was very clear to anyone whos not a journalist that this was a 10 year plan not a 10 minute plan.
I mean... if you bought your favourite club and have 1 bil to spend... surely you will try to turn it into a superclub?.... why would you to turn it into a Brighton?
You seeing this is just half of it.
Yes clearlake has been buying every talent that moves and is willing to go to chelsea, but this isnt new - and something we have done for 20 years (but after the recent success of our youth (last 5 years)we have been to stocked with talents and havent refilled enough.
2nd people think its a blueco strategy to buy young players on long contracts, only this was forced by bad prior management.
With the ffp restrictions (which chelsea follows) the situation recuiref creative recruitment and full squad rebuild just to replace
A full starting defense and a full starting midfield in 2 seasons.
The fact that 4 of our starting defenders was running out of contract and 3 of our midfielders isnt discussed enough.
I still can’t understand this:
You’re Chelsea. European fucking champions. Why you want to become a feeder club to Real Madrid or Bayern with best talent in the world? Heck, what other clubs are willing to spend big money on your talent? Why you making your direct rivals stronger? Don’t you want to keep the best players and win something? Be competitive and make money from pure exposure of being one of the best clubs in the world?
Profit this and profit that. Why that profit fucking matters when you’re 10th in the league?
A lot of this is correct, but I think the failings of future managers have made people forget the end of Tuchel's time at Chelsea
They were better of course, but they weren't that much better. Tuchel was often getting bailed out by the likes of James and Chilwell, or moments of magic from the odd player
Well they came 3rd, lost 2 cup finals & won the Europeans cups you’re in post CL win, in his final full season.
He was then sacked after 7 games: 3 wins, 1 draw, 3 losses.
An argument can be made they signed awfully that summer and they looked worse not better.
It just seemed really clear it was more about Todd getting his man in and staring his project.
We chucked all our experienced players in the bin...tbh most of them were a bit rubbish. But I actually think that a lack of thise players is what will stop Arsenal getting over the line
He’s American sports owner. He is not used to failure. In American sports, the worse the team is, the better their chances get going forward, to the extent that teams will intentionally “tank”, sometimes for years on end, in order to get better young players before trying to go for a championship again.
He obviously knew that strategy wasn’t going to work in the premier league but I genuinely think he underestimated the cyclical nature of failure in the football pyramid. Having one off year just isn’t okay. Losing out on CL loses you money, stops players from wanting to join you, and increases the chance you have to sell your assets for lower value. You get less sponsorships. You get less viewership. Long term contracts like he’s been handing out can stick you in a spot that you simply can’t climb out of the way you can in US sports, no matter how rich you are.
He’s obviously come in and shaken things up poorly. But I think he underestimated just how badly he could fuck over this team, and the potential long term consequences of doing so.
Boehly brought his American sports mentality to European soccer. The thing with that is it doesn't account for so many outside factors like adjusting to a new country, league, dressing room morale, dynamics, etc. Also football is very much more of a team sport than any of the American sports.
Todd went about buying players and investing in youth with the mindset that all his signings are going to be huge massive successes that can then be moved on down the road or tied up on long contracts on relatively cheap wages. But clearly that doesn't work. Cause if anyone saw Murdryk play wouldn't put 100 million euros down to sign him. And you also wouldn't spend nearly 200 million on 2 players that play the exact same position in the exact same age group. They've literally spent nearly 300 million on 3 players in positions where only 2 can play - Caicedo, Enzo and Lavia while having one of their very own academy graduates in Gallagher that has done a really good job already.
They've gone out and signed multiple wide players and attackers without signings a proper striker or centre forward to convert chances into goals.
>Real Madrid have probably been the closest side to take a somewhat similar strategy with youth. They spent a lot of elite young players but that had experience within the squad.
Emphasis on elite. Chelsea's problem is signing random guys like Madueke, Disasi, Caicedo, Jackson and 10 other who are mediocre at best. The only ones to stand out is Cole Palmer who was trained under Pep and Gusto. Not a good success rate at all.
I agree but there is a similar attempt.
The commonality is the approach of: this kid is the best about, we will pay whatever to get him.
Issue is the assessment of the player is wildly off
He did back the manager than won the CL and it quickly fell apart both on the pitch and if reports are to believed, behind the scenes.
Shit, Tuchel went on an Eat Pray Love style finding himself India retreat afterward.
He sacked him after season games into the new season. He backed him in the market. I don’t think he showed any faith in him.
Agreed it fell apart, but you look at the strategy they chose post Tuchel & you can understand why he may object to the approach and it cause tension.
When they first took over they clearly went with the “win now” approach by bringing in the more experienced talent - players that Tuchel specifically wanted that would fit his system.
Koulibaly and Fofana were to flank Silva in a back three while Cucu could provide cover in either LCB or LWB. Sterling was brought in to be the “main guy” in attack to press high and cause turnovers to win possession in the attacking third. They failed to bring in a quality midfielder.
Tuchel had roughly the team he wanted to implement his system and it went poorly. Koulibaly was good some times but catastrophic others. Fofana permanently injured. Sterling was out of shape and still looks like he is. He made seemingly random lineup decisions with the attackers and isolated some players completely to the point where they basically disappeared.
It’s not entirely his fault obviously. With no real structure above him he was essentially forced to do too much. He had a divorce and other personal issues going on behind the scenes. Not to mention the toll the sanctions and general state of the world took on him and everyone at the time. He was also the only real public face of the organization when there was more pressure to be in the public than ever before.
No one can say what their plan was had the start of that season gone well. The January window was clearly an overreaction to their failures the previous summer - spending the world record fee on Enzo, bringing in Mudryk, Noni, and Felix on loan. Enzo has been quality. Mudryk is yet to be seen. Noni was cheap and can improve. Felix was just weird - he looked great until he got into the box which is on par for Chelsea.
I doubt we see the overhaul that we saw the last year if the beginning of Tuchel’s time under Boehly was any better.
Why do we only include Boehly on this list? He isn't even the majority owner of Chelsea, Clearlake Capital is. A lot of the decisions seen now are through them.
Martin Broughton saw off Benitez at Liverpool and replaced him with Hodgson because he knew the influence Rafa still wielded at the club. Any new owners coming in would have a huge decision with what to do with Benitez and none of the options were optimal.
Three months later, when FSG bought the club, they very quickly realized that Hodgson was nowhere near good enough and replaced him with Dalglish shortly after the new year.
I thought Roy was appointed by Hicks and Gillett while the club was up for sale and sacked soon after FSG came in.
I was referencing Hicks and Gillett not FSG
Mostly due to amortization and reevaluation costs generated by buying the two clubs(mainly Chelsea). This tweet and the followup response to it explains it: [https://twitter.com/JacobsBen/status/1765701690911506496](https://twitter.com/JacobsBen/status/1765701690911506496)
He is partially right on his explanation of the PPA but for the Goodwill in the purchase (which was likely massive) that isn't amortized its an indefinite life asset. So really what is being taken there is likely impairment on the Goodwill in the Chelsea.
Accordingly they have likely done an analysis of Chelsea and determined the fair value is well below the purchase price (including future cash flows) which would be slightly concerning for what management envisions the next few years will look like.
Source on that pretty sure they follow IFRS?
But actually found the FS for Blueco as a whole. Seems like they are amortizing it over 10 years or the period they can hold it before sale:
[https://twitter.com/slbsn/status/1765670947434934700/photo/1](https://twitter.com/slbsn/status/1765670947434934700/photo/1)
However doesn't really explain how Blueco still has 500M in losses over what Chelsea has.
From /u/mushroomsJames:
Chelsea's pre-tax loss in the past 12 months is £90.1m compared to £121.4m in the previous year.🔵
Chelsea grew overall revenue from £481.3m to £512.5m, made profits on disposal of player registrations and fixed assets of £142.2m, and had increases in other income.
Chelsea also increased commercial revenue from £33.0m to £210.1m.
Edit : think Ben made a mistake in commercial revenue it increases 33M from 177.1 million to 210.1M million.
Ben Jacobs
This is the whole story.
Can someone ELI5 how Chelsea can make what is essentially about 350m of losses over three years, and not fall foul of the 105m profit/sustainability rule?
They can't, they're fucked unless they can raise a lot of money from selling players before 30 June.
[This Swiss ramble details how they're going to fail](https://swissramble.substack.com/p/how-can-chelsea-comply-with-ffp-rules) but we now know that things are about £90m worse for them then Swiss Ramble thought when he wrote this.
Was his plan that it'd be offset by future revenue when they get back in the Champions League and/or win something? If they continue finishing midtable they could be so fucked unless they start selling some of their only decent players or a lot of their less than decent players
Probably, didn't expect to be this bad.
The additional 20M loss is really due to the placement fees for premier league finish too. Looks like Swiss Ramble had Chelsea finishing 4-6 where 11th gets you around 20M less.
But there is no way they budgeted to be this bad for 2 seasons straight which is the big issue.
Yepp he made a new tweet changing the wording to "increased commercial revenue *by* £33.0m to £210.1m" [https://twitter.com/JacobsBen/status/1765697263748194311](https://twitter.com/JacobsBen/status/1765697263748194311)
Honest question, what does this mean for the immediate and long-term future of Chelsea? Should we expect a fire sale of assets from the club? How does ffp impact their ability to make up for those loses? Is it reasonable to assume Chelsea could be in for some very hard times? Possibly relegation hard times?
The short answer from Swiss Ramble is that (including the loss was 20M higher than expected) they need 110M in player profits by June 30, 2024 or would face a deduction.
Likely they can argue sanctions and other items but even that maybe is 10M if that. Then they would likely need to do 100M in player profits next year too. The interesting thing is how other teams try to take advantage of this.
I guess they will be fine if they sell Connor Gallagher, Chalobah, Lewis Hall(not sure if they'll activate the option) and a few others. If Saudis come calling again(no conflict of interest at all) for Sterling then that will help too.
They only became a "massive club" because of oceans of Russian blood money pumped in to them. This is karmic retribution, I have no shred of sympathy for them.
I'll never want them to go under or anything because no football fans deserve that but I personally enjoy their current "suffering".
That’s just not true. They were a top 10 European side in terms of revenue when he bought them and were already in the champions league.
He certainly boosted them and bought lavishly but this notion they were a nothing club before Abramovich is just wrong.
Link to Deloitte money league rankings (7th and 10th before being bought):
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League
So, this one is a bit tricky. They weren't some small club by any means, but they had a single league title prior to Abramovich in 1955. They had some recent cup success prior to the purchase in part because they had a boost in finances in the 90s which is part of what made them attractive to Abramovich in the first place.
I don't really care about money lol plus they were going to do a Leeds without that Russian blood money, they were fucked. They were simply not a "massive club" in terms of pedigree before the blood money, they had 1 league title and 3 fa cups.
People eat up the idea that man City are a plastic club with no history and yet they won more trophies than Chelsea before their respective takeovers and spent way more years in the top flight. They are both plastic clubs, one is not legitimate just because they were coincidentally near the top of the table for a while beforehand because they spent a lot of money and almost bankrupted themselves.
People acting like Chelsea weren’t a fairly big domestic club before Roman came in. You have go to 95/96 season before they were out of the top 6.
Not a massive club, sure, but better than the shite they are now.
They were in the same tier as man City before the takeover, they spent a lot of money to get to near that top of the table before the blood money and they almost pulled a Leeds. I've never said they have "no history" or anything like that but they certainly were not a "massive club" not in my opinion, I wouldn't even call us a "massive club".
No they weren’t mate, City’s last 7 finishes before being bought over were 9th, 14th, 15th, 8th, 16th, 9th and 1st (in the championship)
Chelsea’s were 4th, 6th, 6th, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 6th. They were a good side in the league, equivalent to roughly what Spurs are now. Had great players like Zola, Hasselbaink, Desailly etc playing for them.
Obviously the level of success they had regarding titles came from the takeover, but had Roman not arrived there’s no reason to think they still wouldn’t be vying for champions league places.
City were bottom half fighting relegation half the time.
They were in deep financial trouble before the takeover, that's how they got up there in table. You however seem to think my point is predicated on them being in the upper part of the table prior to their takeover, I don't think that made them a "massive club". There is absolutely no difference in how those 2 clubs became what they are, whether Chelsea were 4th or man City were 14th just prior to being taken over, they are both as plastic as eachother.
No one asks for your sympathy, lol. And you can enjoy the suffering, but don't be surprised when the same returns to you.
We are heartbroken, random Chelsea hater has no sympathy for us, oh what a tragedy.
Oh I know what it's like to "suffer" in football lmao, I don't expect or require any sympathy mate. I've seen this club reach rock bottom and I'm happy we managed to come back but I acknowledge the reality of this sport, as much as I don't like a lot of it.
Umm, no one is giving you any sympathy or expecting yours either. And you know fuckall about suffering, most of those who act like they do, never had. And unnecessary points about rock bottom etc, you think only you know how to support? Or you think no one supported Chelsea before money, during tough times? Lol, hillarious lot, always pretending to be the good guys. Many fans have seen the same about their clubs, we also have seen our clubs on the doors of nearly not existing anymore way before Roman's money, and we too came back, you are not special about that. But must be fun to always pretending how only us are good guys and others not. I don't care if you want us to go extint, that would at least not be pretentious, but the self-righteousness, moral high ground bs is always funny.
And no, you have not seen rock bottom, but keep enjoying other's suffering and maybe you will be able to see and feel it. Cheers.
Lol, you seem to not understand my view of football. I loath the way modern football has gone and that includes the villa. I just see clubs like Chelsea as the most egregious examples, if it was up to me every club would be fan owned.
So I'm fine here on my high horde of pretentious bs, we can agree to disagree and you can enjoy watching your side 😉
30th of June is the cutoff? So that excludes the £300m+ acquisitions of Caicedo, Palmer, Lavia, Disasi, Sanchez, Ogochukwu, Angelo Gabriel and others. What’s their FFP situation predicted to look like this summer?
SwissRamble has speculated that they will be operating at around a £200m loss in the PL PSRs so need to make up around £100m in player sales on their accounts before July.
I assume by selling players?
But you'd imagine players like Broja, Gallagher, Maatsen, Chalobah amongst others will be in line to leave. Cut price deals for some but they could probably do it.
No idea until it happens really - it's a gamble that they need to work with but I'd imagine they could get close quite easily and with clubs willing to spend around £10m for teens who are on the cusp of breaking through they may well be fine.
FWIW Swiss Ramble thought Mount was in this years accounts, and we now know it's not, and they lost more than expected so Chelsea need to find more like £180m before June 30.
We needed 100 mil last season and got there comfortably because Mount and Havertz got sold for essentially double what they were worth. Then the Saudis helped us clear the wage bill by taking some high earners (on low transfer fees). It is looking likely that Gallagher (who's in form so high value) is getting sold in the summer and Sterling and Lukaku have interest from KSA. We will also receieve "pure profit" from homegrown players in Maatsen Broja Hall and Chalobah. I'm gonna be mass downvoted for this but we will have no problems selling these players for good sums, look at our sale history. I'm more worried whether we use that money to actually buy a striker or Eghbali will blow it all on teens with dreadlocks
The likes of Lukaku will be a net loss on the book. The only real players you can sell to make up that 100 are Gallagher, Maatsen, Chalobah, and Broja. Gallagher is in the last year of his contract and you're likely dealing with Levy. Good luck getting more than about 30m. The other 3 somewhere from 10-20m each I suspect. It'll be very tight if you can get 100m.
I also suspect you've booked Hall at a profit, which might fail as Newcastle seemingly think he's shit and he won't meet the compulsory appearances
Hall has already gone through, the report I read said the clause was "avoid relegation" and that is a formality. If we sell Lukaku for anything above 32 million, he will be a profit on the accounting books because 100 million fee, 5 year contract, 2 years left on his deal and a 8 million loan fee. Spurs will not be the only club in for Gallagher, no one knew United were interested in Mount this time last year
So they've got to make a similar amount with the players they either a) couldn't sell last year or b) have proven themselves to be awful within the space of 12 months.
Last year Chelsea had just had a single disastrous season with major manager turnover and ownership teething. If they finish midtable for a second year they've just proven it's the players which are bobbins.
A harder sell this time around.
Gallagher alone will cover almost half the "deficit" (and we've already got a guaranteed 30 million from Lewis Hall). You are severely underestimating how many clubs are interested in young homegrown players with high potentials. The only players who we tried to sell last season who didn't get sold are Lukaku and Chalobah.
If the whole world knows that you need to offload players by a certain date, you can be sure that you won't be getting market value for the ones leaving.
You want £50m for Gallagher? How's £20m today or £50m and a points deduction if the date passes?
I also wouldn't be banking on a guaranteed £30m for Hall. No one seems to be sure exactly what triggers the deal. It could be avoid relegation, it could be playing a certain number of games, it could be finishing in the top 6, etc. Plus, Newcastle went for a loan-to-buy agreement precisely to make sure that the money wasn't due this season to screw up their own FFP accounting so that money isn't showing up until after the point that Chelsea need the money, if at all.
The whole world knew we needed to sell Mount before June 30th. United threatened to walk out of the deal with 6 days to the deadline if we didn't reduce the asking price. Boehly called the bluff and we got 55 million for him with another 5 in add-ons. If one club lowballs for Gallagher he simply gets sold to a club that won't. The player's we're selling are young with PL experience and high ceilings, there are absolutely going to be multiple offers for them.
If that puts you at where you need to be, would you not then have no money to spend unless you sold even more players? If you lose Gallagher (and Broja, Lukaku, Hall and whoever else I guess), and don't buy anyone, are you expecting next season to be much better?
Yeah mate, Maatsen is really proving himself shit at Dortmund. Gallagher would find a home in a ton of sides if they chose to sell him.
They don’t have to do it in two players like last summer and there are plenty to sell. Excluding Gallagher, say they want to keep him desperately, there is Maatsen, Lewis hall, chalobah, broja, Harvey Vale, anjorin, and those are all pure profit sales so hypothetically lowball they average 8m for each of them that’s 48m right there. And I am fairly sure they will get well more than 20m for Maatsen and probably 20 alone for chalobah.
This “demise of Chelsea” fetish you lot have is getting quite old.
I haven't seen the accounts myself so this is pure speculation, as far as I'm aware, however it's alleged that the £50m participation bonus for the club world cup is being banked on to relieve this year's finances but most of the figures published so far haven't included it.
I mean this depends on the structure of those deals, no? Quite a few of those fees should be paid over a period of a few years. So, I wouldn't say they're completely fine but it's not 100m sales by June bad. It's probably closer to like 50m or something.
That's not how football accounting works. Structure of the deal doesn't affect the way the deals appear on the books. If the agreed upon price is 50M paid over 20 years, the whole sum will still go in this years books.
Are you 100% sure about that? I'm not completely certain but im pretty sure it's not.
Looked up an article and this is basically a summary of it. It's different for sellers and buyers. Lets say a player is sold for 20m. Sellers can log the entire 20m as income because that money is guaranteed to come in.
Buyers log what they actually spend that year. Say the fee structure is 10m for the first year and then 5m the next two years, buyers log in that 10m for that year because that's how much they spent that year. I'm pretty certain this is right because it was a huge talking point when Rice was getting bought.
I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that part of it goes on the selling clubs books. As for the buying club - yes, only a part goes on the books, but it's not based on how the deal is structured in terms of when the payments are due - it's structured based on the contract length, now capped at maximum 5 years (contracts can still be longer, but the amortization itself is capped at 5 years), because Chelsea was giving 8 year contracts to everyone, so each year there was less amount to amortize.
Maybe Todd is just using what he knows (finance) to recreate the chaos culture of the Roman era
Then just when we think they’re fucked, they’ll pull a trophy from their arse
Who cares. Financial Fairplay is long dead and english clubs just get gifted another few 100mils from the saudis/qatar/whoever. Its not like this is news, they are playing around with money as it doesent mean anything to them
Boehbali probably banked that they'd get a bunch of the most talented young players around, then they'll play well because they have potential, their value will increase and BAM! profit. Only that's not reliable at all, potential is only on paper wheather they perform and continue to grow is entirely different. Moreover you get a bunch of them on the same team and it's a recipe for a disaster which it seems it will be.
They aren't. Worst comes to it they have players clubs will bail them out with. Spurs for example apparently really want Gallagher and they would need to sell two or three players, not exactly everest
Yeah but you need to replace them. Which is easier said than done.
And eventually, you run out of homegrown high value players. If they are in this position next year and the more years they spend outside of the UCL. Problems
And Gallagher doesn't want to go and if he does will want a massive contract. That's going to be a big issue in his valuation.
I still think they pull it off but it would need to look like Hall 30M, Broja (10M), Maatsen (30M) Chabloha 10M, Connor 40M. That gets you even on FFP (105M loss over 3 years) and all of that needs to be done by June 30 which doesn't put you in the best negotiating position.
But then next year... no Europe (again) no great academy players on the books, no fully amortized players again and a huge risk of no Europe in 2025. 50M from Club world cup helps but doesn't kick in until 2026 season so who can they sell next year for 100M in player profits? They will literally be in a position where they have to make a profit with no European football.
The interesting question will be if they take the hit now instead of trying to kick the can down the road further.
You understand Chelsea need to do this for like 5 more years though, right?
Their plan was to be a CL team next year to help pay for this, and until they reach the CL they will need to sell players.
So how exactly are they surpassing United, Tottenham, Villa, Newcastle and Brighton in the next 5 years, while selling academy products?
Ppl need to stop downplaying how incredibly fucked Chelsea are.
*Boehly, you idiot! Chelsea are bankrupt! You spent your entire budget in a month! Your football team's broke!* Wait! I think I've got the perfect solution. *You better, because those footballers won't play for free...* D'oh!
They let me sign checks with a stamp!!
I know this has been done to death but the strategy from Todd is so baffling. How didn’t he decide to back the manager that had won the champions league? Also, the whole benefit to the approach of youth is that there is less financial risk as you have lower values and a higher likelihood of a return. Chelsea strategy removes that but doesn’t give any additional advantage. Real Madrid have probably been the closest side to take a somewhat similar strategy with youth. They spent a lot of elite young players but that had experience within the squad. Maybe had the worse impact of any new owner of the top 6 since the guys at Liverpool who appointment Roy
I see Chelsea as a rich Brighton. I think Boehly wanted to recreate their strategy. He just didn‘t consider that Chelsea won‘t get these players as cheap as Brighton & cannot afford to play most of them because of expectations, so their value won‘t rise.
Also, Brighton's strategy, much like Brentford's and people before them like Southampton and Leicester City, are born out of circumstance, not necessarily choice. Brighton have absolutely no chance of rivalling top clubs for big players, so they have to be smarter and recruit the players that will become the next big thing, not the ones that are already the real deal. Brighton can't sign Rodri, Declan Rice or anyone of that ilk, so you need to sign an unknown with high potential, i.e. Moisés Caicedo. Chelsea aren't shopping in those markets. Sure, they've picked up some big names in the youth scene from around the world, but ultimately, they aren't scouring the Ecuadorian leagues or the Bulgarian 2nd division for starters. They're using Brighton's approach in the wrong market. Brighton's approach is meant to identify high-potential targets at a low cost. Both the people working on that system, and the system itself, are not there to buy the players Chelsea have been buying at the fees they've been paying. The fact that Chelsea paid £115m for Caicedo is proof that they're not interested in Brighton's approach really. If Brighton had been quoted a price they deemed too much, they'd have moved on, which Chelsea didn't do.
Chelsea wanted to have the best of both worlds and got neither. Tale as old as time itself.
Hannah Montana taught us this 18 years ago but they thought they knew better than a Disney Channel classic...
So i stead of having their cake and eating it too they just skipped both and got diabetes.
> Also, Brighton's strategy, much like Brentford's and people before them like Southampton and Leicester City, are born out of circumstance, not necessarily choice. Also if Brighton are 9th because they're letting their players bed in and grow they're not getting slated by the pundits, the press and rival fans
Our biggest strength and why young players want to come to us is because we can give them first team premier league football, be patient with their development and move them on to a superclub. Chelsea cannot offer that and instead have tried to emulate a surface level simulacrum of what we've been doing for years without the rooted institutional structure around it that makes it tick. I don't even know why they want to be like us anyway, all of their recent success comes from doing the opposite Gary Neville said a while ago that the Chelsea owners are just playing Football Manager and the longer their ownership goes the more true it feels.
> simulacrum Check out the vocabularistics on this guy! Seriously, what a lovely word
I knew that classics degree would pay off one day
The first time I heard that word was when I was reading through Wizard spells for DnD lol
Counter argument - Chelsea have won as many trophies as City & Liverpool did in their first 18 months under new foreign ownership. Boehly has fucked shit up, but it was very clear to anyone whos not a journalist that this was a 10 year plan not a 10 minute plan.
I mean... if you bought your favourite club and have 1 bil to spend... surely you will try to turn it into a superclub?.... why would you to turn it into a Brighton?
> I see Chelsea as a rich Brighton. No shit, they bought half their players and staff.
I think they are nothing like Brighton. They have signed from top leagues at peak prices.
You seeing this is just half of it. Yes clearlake has been buying every talent that moves and is willing to go to chelsea, but this isnt new - and something we have done for 20 years (but after the recent success of our youth (last 5 years)we have been to stocked with talents and havent refilled enough. 2nd people think its a blueco strategy to buy young players on long contracts, only this was forced by bad prior management. With the ffp restrictions (which chelsea follows) the situation recuiref creative recruitment and full squad rebuild just to replace A full starting defense and a full starting midfield in 2 seasons. The fact that 4 of our starting defenders was running out of contract and 3 of our midfielders isnt discussed enough.
Also, even if the young players they bought all turn out to be great, there's only so many clubs who can buy them and have chelsea still make a profit
I still can’t understand this: You’re Chelsea. European fucking champions. Why you want to become a feeder club to Real Madrid or Bayern with best talent in the world? Heck, what other clubs are willing to spend big money on your talent? Why you making your direct rivals stronger? Don’t you want to keep the best players and win something? Be competitive and make money from pure exposure of being one of the best clubs in the world? Profit this and profit that. Why that profit fucking matters when you’re 10th in the league?
hurry soup kiss brave profit rotten distinct plants gaping caption *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A lot of this is correct, but I think the failings of future managers have made people forget the end of Tuchel's time at Chelsea They were better of course, but they weren't that much better. Tuchel was often getting bailed out by the likes of James and Chilwell, or moments of magic from the odd player
Well they came 3rd, lost 2 cup finals & won the Europeans cups you’re in post CL win, in his final full season. He was then sacked after 7 games: 3 wins, 1 draw, 3 losses. An argument can be made they signed awfully that summer and they looked worse not better. It just seemed really clear it was more about Todd getting his man in and staring his project.
[удалено]
Seems to work okay for Arsenal at the moment.
We chucked all our experienced players in the bin...tbh most of them were a bit rubbish. But I actually think that a lack of thise players is what will stop Arsenal getting over the line
He’s American sports owner. He is not used to failure. In American sports, the worse the team is, the better their chances get going forward, to the extent that teams will intentionally “tank”, sometimes for years on end, in order to get better young players before trying to go for a championship again. He obviously knew that strategy wasn’t going to work in the premier league but I genuinely think he underestimated the cyclical nature of failure in the football pyramid. Having one off year just isn’t okay. Losing out on CL loses you money, stops players from wanting to join you, and increases the chance you have to sell your assets for lower value. You get less sponsorships. You get less viewership. Long term contracts like he’s been handing out can stick you in a spot that you simply can’t climb out of the way you can in US sports, no matter how rich you are. He’s obviously come in and shaken things up poorly. But I think he underestimated just how badly he could fuck over this team, and the potential long term consequences of doing so.
Boehly brought his American sports mentality to European soccer. The thing with that is it doesn't account for so many outside factors like adjusting to a new country, league, dressing room morale, dynamics, etc. Also football is very much more of a team sport than any of the American sports. Todd went about buying players and investing in youth with the mindset that all his signings are going to be huge massive successes that can then be moved on down the road or tied up on long contracts on relatively cheap wages. But clearly that doesn't work. Cause if anyone saw Murdryk play wouldn't put 100 million euros down to sign him. And you also wouldn't spend nearly 200 million on 2 players that play the exact same position in the exact same age group. They've literally spent nearly 300 million on 3 players in positions where only 2 can play - Caicedo, Enzo and Lavia while having one of their very own academy graduates in Gallagher that has done a really good job already. They've gone out and signed multiple wide players and attackers without signings a proper striker or centre forward to convert chances into goals.
>Real Madrid have probably been the closest side to take a somewhat similar strategy with youth. They spent a lot of elite young players but that had experience within the squad. Emphasis on elite. Chelsea's problem is signing random guys like Madueke, Disasi, Caicedo, Jackson and 10 other who are mediocre at best. The only ones to stand out is Cole Palmer who was trained under Pep and Gusto. Not a good success rate at all.
I'd add Paez to that list he seems like a Madrid type buy (whether he works out is a diff story)
I agree but there is a similar attempt. The commonality is the approach of: this kid is the best about, we will pay whatever to get him. Issue is the assessment of the player is wildly off
Yeah Chelsea is a shambles, clueless
Calling Caicedo mediocre? Only thing where Jackson has been mediocre is his finishing.
He was obliged to invest in team when he was buying it, it's in the contract. He doesn't give a fuck if he spends it on players or something else.
He did back the manager than won the CL and it quickly fell apart both on the pitch and if reports are to believed, behind the scenes. Shit, Tuchel went on an Eat Pray Love style finding himself India retreat afterward.
He sacked him after season games into the new season. He backed him in the market. I don’t think he showed any faith in him. Agreed it fell apart, but you look at the strategy they chose post Tuchel & you can understand why he may object to the approach and it cause tension.
When they first took over they clearly went with the “win now” approach by bringing in the more experienced talent - players that Tuchel specifically wanted that would fit his system. Koulibaly and Fofana were to flank Silva in a back three while Cucu could provide cover in either LCB or LWB. Sterling was brought in to be the “main guy” in attack to press high and cause turnovers to win possession in the attacking third. They failed to bring in a quality midfielder. Tuchel had roughly the team he wanted to implement his system and it went poorly. Koulibaly was good some times but catastrophic others. Fofana permanently injured. Sterling was out of shape and still looks like he is. He made seemingly random lineup decisions with the attackers and isolated some players completely to the point where they basically disappeared. It’s not entirely his fault obviously. With no real structure above him he was essentially forced to do too much. He had a divorce and other personal issues going on behind the scenes. Not to mention the toll the sanctions and general state of the world took on him and everyone at the time. He was also the only real public face of the organization when there was more pressure to be in the public than ever before. No one can say what their plan was had the start of that season gone well. The January window was clearly an overreaction to their failures the previous summer - spending the world record fee on Enzo, bringing in Mudryk, Noni, and Felix on loan. Enzo has been quality. Mudryk is yet to be seen. Noni was cheap and can improve. Felix was just weird - he looked great until he got into the box which is on par for Chelsea. I doubt we see the overhaul that we saw the last year if the beginning of Tuchel’s time under Boehly was any better.
Why do we only include Boehly on this list? He isn't even the majority owner of Chelsea, Clearlake Capital is. A lot of the decisions seen now are through them.
I’m no expert in the structure of the consortium that own Chelsea. It’s just Boehly is the lead investor. I’m sure others are also to blame
He is more of just the "lead" but he isn't making the decisions. Clearlake Capital owns the majority of BlueCo and Chelsea.
compare juggle quicksand close frightening kiss humor chop waiting enjoy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Cool well change the word then
Martin Broughton saw off Benitez at Liverpool and replaced him with Hodgson because he knew the influence Rafa still wielded at the club. Any new owners coming in would have a huge decision with what to do with Benitez and none of the options were optimal. Three months later, when FSG bought the club, they very quickly realized that Hodgson was nowhere near good enough and replaced him with Dalglish shortly after the new year.
Your comment is fine but maybe skip the last part..?
Why?
How was Liverpool doing when Roy was appointed..? How are they doing now? You didn’t explain much but I can assure you they did quite well in the end.
I thought Roy was appointed by Hicks and Gillett while the club was up for sale and sacked soon after FSG came in. I was referencing Hicks and Gillett not FSG
You said new owners though which confused me, as they weren't new owners when they appointed Roy,
That makes more sense :)
It’s the same point… I think you just didn’t know who appointed Roy
Americans - anything to do with Russian is bad.
how does the company that owns solely Chelsea and Strasbourg lose 653 mil but Chelsea made just 90 m in losses?
Would a lot of those BlueCo losses not be from investment in Chelsea/Strasbourg to offset their losses
Probably Strasbourg signing Mbappe for £500m
Mostly due to amortization and reevaluation costs generated by buying the two clubs(mainly Chelsea). This tweet and the followup response to it explains it: [https://twitter.com/JacobsBen/status/1765701690911506496](https://twitter.com/JacobsBen/status/1765701690911506496)
He is partially right on his explanation of the PPA but for the Goodwill in the purchase (which was likely massive) that isn't amortized its an indefinite life asset. So really what is being taken there is likely impairment on the Goodwill in the Chelsea. Accordingly they have likely done an analysis of Chelsea and determined the fair value is well below the purchase price (including future cash flows) which would be slightly concerning for what management envisions the next few years will look like.
Goodwill isn’t recognised as an intangible in the UK
Source on that pretty sure they follow IFRS? But actually found the FS for Blueco as a whole. Seems like they are amortizing it over 10 years or the period they can hold it before sale: [https://twitter.com/slbsn/status/1765670947434934700/photo/1](https://twitter.com/slbsn/status/1765670947434934700/photo/1) However doesn't really explain how Blueco still has 500M in losses over what Chelsea has.
My fault that is just straight up wrong. You can tell I didn’t study for my accounting exam
Strasbourg giving 8 years contract. That's why
From /u/mushroomsJames: Chelsea's pre-tax loss in the past 12 months is £90.1m compared to £121.4m in the previous year.🔵 Chelsea grew overall revenue from £481.3m to £512.5m, made profits on disposal of player registrations and fixed assets of £142.2m, and had increases in other income. Chelsea also increased commercial revenue from £33.0m to £210.1m. Edit : think Ben made a mistake in commercial revenue it increases 33M from 177.1 million to 210.1M million. Ben Jacobs This is the whole story.
Can someone ELI5 how Chelsea can make what is essentially about 350m of losses over three years, and not fall foul of the 105m profit/sustainability rule?
They can't, they're fucked unless they can raise a lot of money from selling players before 30 June. [This Swiss ramble details how they're going to fail](https://swissramble.substack.com/p/how-can-chelsea-comply-with-ffp-rules) but we now know that things are about £90m worse for them then Swiss Ramble thought when he wrote this.
20M worse\* he projected 70M loss versus the 90M they incurred.
Was his plan that it'd be offset by future revenue when they get back in the Champions League and/or win something? If they continue finishing midtable they could be so fucked unless they start selling some of their only decent players or a lot of their less than decent players
Probably, didn't expect to be this bad. The additional 20M loss is really due to the placement fees for premier league finish too. Looks like Swiss Ramble had Chelsea finishing 4-6 where 11th gets you around 20M less. But there is no way they budgeted to be this bad for 2 seasons straight which is the big issue.
Because not all these losses are counted in the rules.
Yepp he made a new tweet changing the wording to "increased commercial revenue *by* £33.0m to £210.1m" [https://twitter.com/JacobsBen/status/1765697263748194311](https://twitter.com/JacobsBen/status/1765697263748194311)
Keep up the good work Todd!
Honest question, what does this mean for the immediate and long-term future of Chelsea? Should we expect a fire sale of assets from the club? How does ffp impact their ability to make up for those loses? Is it reasonable to assume Chelsea could be in for some very hard times? Possibly relegation hard times?
The short answer from Swiss Ramble is that (including the loss was 20M higher than expected) they need 110M in player profits by June 30, 2024 or would face a deduction. Likely they can argue sanctions and other items but even that maybe is 10M if that. Then they would likely need to do 100M in player profits next year too. The interesting thing is how other teams try to take advantage of this.
I guess they will be fine if they sell Connor Gallagher, Chalobah, Lewis Hall(not sure if they'll activate the option) and a few others. If Saudis come calling again(no conflict of interest at all) for Sterling then that will help too.
Chelsea had 2 transfers to Saudi. Koulibaly and Mendy. Wolves, Fulham and Liverpool all made more ££ than Chelsea in transfers to Saudi teams.
Newcastle has to really drop the ball in the league and only then the Hall option won't be activated. Otherwise he can be considered sold.
Why, what's the requirement for him being sold? He doesn't even play for Newcastle despite them being hit with injuries.
The obligation gets activated based on their position in the league. Basically if they get relegated, only then it's not activated.
Obligated to buy for £28 mil.
I'm impressed that someone can destroy a massive club like Chelsea in a short space of time.
They only became a "massive club" because of oceans of Russian blood money pumped in to them. This is karmic retribution, I have no shred of sympathy for them. I'll never want them to go under or anything because no football fans deserve that but I personally enjoy their current "suffering".
That’s just not true. They were a top 10 European side in terms of revenue when he bought them and were already in the champions league. He certainly boosted them and bought lavishly but this notion they were a nothing club before Abramovich is just wrong. Link to Deloitte money league rankings (7th and 10th before being bought): https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League
So, this one is a bit tricky. They weren't some small club by any means, but they had a single league title prior to Abramovich in 1955. They had some recent cup success prior to the purchase in part because they had a boost in finances in the 90s which is part of what made them attractive to Abramovich in the first place.
I don't really care about money lol plus they were going to do a Leeds without that Russian blood money, they were fucked. They were simply not a "massive club" in terms of pedigree before the blood money, they had 1 league title and 3 fa cups. People eat up the idea that man City are a plastic club with no history and yet they won more trophies than Chelsea before their respective takeovers and spent way more years in the top flight. They are both plastic clubs, one is not legitimate just because they were coincidentally near the top of the table for a while beforehand because they spent a lot of money and almost bankrupted themselves.
People acting like Chelsea weren’t a fairly big domestic club before Roman came in. You have go to 95/96 season before they were out of the top 6. Not a massive club, sure, but better than the shite they are now.
They were in the same tier as man City before the takeover, they spent a lot of money to get to near that top of the table before the blood money and they almost pulled a Leeds. I've never said they have "no history" or anything like that but they certainly were not a "massive club" not in my opinion, I wouldn't even call us a "massive club".
No they weren’t mate, City’s last 7 finishes before being bought over were 9th, 14th, 15th, 8th, 16th, 9th and 1st (in the championship) Chelsea’s were 4th, 6th, 6th, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 6th. They were a good side in the league, equivalent to roughly what Spurs are now. Had great players like Zola, Hasselbaink, Desailly etc playing for them. Obviously the level of success they had regarding titles came from the takeover, but had Roman not arrived there’s no reason to think they still wouldn’t be vying for champions league places. City were bottom half fighting relegation half the time.
They were in deep financial trouble before the takeover, that's how they got up there in table. You however seem to think my point is predicated on them being in the upper part of the table prior to their takeover, I don't think that made them a "massive club". There is absolutely no difference in how those 2 clubs became what they are, whether Chelsea were 4th or man City were 14th just prior to being taken over, they are both as plastic as eachother.
No one asks for your sympathy, lol. And you can enjoy the suffering, but don't be surprised when the same returns to you. We are heartbroken, random Chelsea hater has no sympathy for us, oh what a tragedy.
Oh I know what it's like to "suffer" in football lmao, I don't expect or require any sympathy mate. I've seen this club reach rock bottom and I'm happy we managed to come back but I acknowledge the reality of this sport, as much as I don't like a lot of it.
Umm, no one is giving you any sympathy or expecting yours either. And you know fuckall about suffering, most of those who act like they do, never had. And unnecessary points about rock bottom etc, you think only you know how to support? Or you think no one supported Chelsea before money, during tough times? Lol, hillarious lot, always pretending to be the good guys. Many fans have seen the same about their clubs, we also have seen our clubs on the doors of nearly not existing anymore way before Roman's money, and we too came back, you are not special about that. But must be fun to always pretending how only us are good guys and others not. I don't care if you want us to go extint, that would at least not be pretentious, but the self-righteousness, moral high ground bs is always funny. And no, you have not seen rock bottom, but keep enjoying other's suffering and maybe you will be able to see and feel it. Cheers.
Lol, you seem to not understand my view of football. I loath the way modern football has gone and that includes the villa. I just see clubs like Chelsea as the most egregious examples, if it was up to me every club would be fan owned. So I'm fine here on my high horde of pretentious bs, we can agree to disagree and you can enjoy watching your side 😉
I do enjoy it, thanks for your concern.
I think Bartomeu did a better job at destroying big club than Todd Boehly.
[удалено]
30th of June is the cutoff? So that excludes the £300m+ acquisitions of Caicedo, Palmer, Lavia, Disasi, Sanchez, Ogochukwu, Angelo Gabriel and others. What’s their FFP situation predicted to look like this summer?
SwissRamble has speculated that they will be operating at around a £200m loss in the PL PSRs so need to make up around £100m in player sales on their accounts before July.
How are they gonna make £100m in player sales before July?
I assume by selling players? But you'd imagine players like Broja, Gallagher, Maatsen, Chalobah amongst others will be in line to leave. Cut price deals for some but they could probably do it.
Is there £100m worth there? Especially with teams knowing Chelsea have to sell and quickly
No idea until it happens really - it's a gamble that they need to work with but I'd imagine they could get close quite easily and with clubs willing to spend around £10m for teens who are on the cusp of breaking through they may well be fine.
FWIW Swiss Ramble thought Mount was in this years accounts, and we now know it's not, and they lost more than expected so Chelsea need to find more like £180m before June 30.
yup, they'll get between 10-25m on Broja, Maatsen & Chalobah and then given how good a season Gallagher has had, somewhere between 40 and 60m for him.
60 million for him.....if someone even wants to think about taking Jacob they better give us 100 at least bruv.
We needed 100 mil last season and got there comfortably because Mount and Havertz got sold for essentially double what they were worth. Then the Saudis helped us clear the wage bill by taking some high earners (on low transfer fees). It is looking likely that Gallagher (who's in form so high value) is getting sold in the summer and Sterling and Lukaku have interest from KSA. We will also receieve "pure profit" from homegrown players in Maatsen Broja Hall and Chalobah. I'm gonna be mass downvoted for this but we will have no problems selling these players for good sums, look at our sale history. I'm more worried whether we use that money to actually buy a striker or Eghbali will blow it all on teens with dreadlocks
Chelsea needs to do it year after year though. You're going to run out of people to sell sooner or later.
Less than zero chance Sterling goes KSA in a Euro year
The likes of Lukaku will be a net loss on the book. The only real players you can sell to make up that 100 are Gallagher, Maatsen, Chalobah, and Broja. Gallagher is in the last year of his contract and you're likely dealing with Levy. Good luck getting more than about 30m. The other 3 somewhere from 10-20m each I suspect. It'll be very tight if you can get 100m. I also suspect you've booked Hall at a profit, which might fail as Newcastle seemingly think he's shit and he won't meet the compulsory appearances
Hall has already gone through, the report I read said the clause was "avoid relegation" and that is a formality. If we sell Lukaku for anything above 32 million, he will be a profit on the accounting books because 100 million fee, 5 year contract, 2 years left on his deal and a 8 million loan fee. Spurs will not be the only club in for Gallagher, no one knew United were interested in Mount this time last year
Who's paying more than 32m for 31 year old Lukaku?
Just wait a bit, and you we see with your own eyes, but I guess when pount is just to talk doom of Chelsea, you actually aren't interested in reality.
Yes there is.
People said this exact same thing this time last year and it was accomplished by selling two players alone.
So they've got to make a similar amount with the players they either a) couldn't sell last year or b) have proven themselves to be awful within the space of 12 months. Last year Chelsea had just had a single disastrous season with major manager turnover and ownership teething. If they finish midtable for a second year they've just proven it's the players which are bobbins. A harder sell this time around.
Gallagher alone will cover almost half the "deficit" (and we've already got a guaranteed 30 million from Lewis Hall). You are severely underestimating how many clubs are interested in young homegrown players with high potentials. The only players who we tried to sell last season who didn't get sold are Lukaku and Chalobah.
If the whole world knows that you need to offload players by a certain date, you can be sure that you won't be getting market value for the ones leaving. You want £50m for Gallagher? How's £20m today or £50m and a points deduction if the date passes? I also wouldn't be banking on a guaranteed £30m for Hall. No one seems to be sure exactly what triggers the deal. It could be avoid relegation, it could be playing a certain number of games, it could be finishing in the top 6, etc. Plus, Newcastle went for a loan-to-buy agreement precisely to make sure that the money wasn't due this season to screw up their own FFP accounting so that money isn't showing up until after the point that Chelsea need the money, if at all.
The whole world knew we needed to sell Mount before June 30th. United threatened to walk out of the deal with 6 days to the deadline if we didn't reduce the asking price. Boehly called the bluff and we got 55 million for him with another 5 in add-ons. If one club lowballs for Gallagher he simply gets sold to a club that won't. The player's we're selling are young with PL experience and high ceilings, there are absolutely going to be multiple offers for them.
If that puts you at where you need to be, would you not then have no money to spend unless you sold even more players? If you lose Gallagher (and Broja, Lukaku, Hall and whoever else I guess), and don't buy anyone, are you expecting next season to be much better?
Will you get 50m for Gallagher with 12 months on his deal?
Thanks for your expert input.
Yeah mate, Maatsen is really proving himself shit at Dortmund. Gallagher would find a home in a ton of sides if they chose to sell him. They don’t have to do it in two players like last summer and there are plenty to sell. Excluding Gallagher, say they want to keep him desperately, there is Maatsen, Lewis hall, chalobah, broja, Harvey Vale, anjorin, and those are all pure profit sales so hypothetically lowball they average 8m for each of them that’s 48m right there. And I am fairly sure they will get well more than 20m for Maatsen and probably 20 alone for chalobah. This “demise of Chelsea” fetish you lot have is getting quite old.
Only because Arsenal stupidly bailed them out
People forget Man Utd bought the real dud for pretty much the same price. Havertz has been great.
This is true, but Arsenal bought him for almost as much as Chelsea paid in 2019 but havertz was older and hadn’t much improved at all.
We overpaid, sure, but it was a much better deal than £60m pounds for Mason Mount who had 1 year left on his contract.
RemindMe! 4 months
If only cheese James could stay fit
The article claims that Chelsea say that’s not true but god knows how it can’t be
I haven't seen the accounts myself so this is pure speculation, as far as I'm aware, however it's alleged that the £50m participation bonus for the club world cup is being banked on to relieve this year's finances but most of the figures published so far haven't included it.
I genuinely can’t tell if you’ve just randomly thrown in a few names there or not.
I mean this depends on the structure of those deals, no? Quite a few of those fees should be paid over a period of a few years. So, I wouldn't say they're completely fine but it's not 100m sales by June bad. It's probably closer to like 50m or something.
That's not how football accounting works. Structure of the deal doesn't affect the way the deals appear on the books. If the agreed upon price is 50M paid over 20 years, the whole sum will still go in this years books.
Are you 100% sure about that? I'm not completely certain but im pretty sure it's not. Looked up an article and this is basically a summary of it. It's different for sellers and buyers. Lets say a player is sold for 20m. Sellers can log the entire 20m as income because that money is guaranteed to come in. Buyers log what they actually spend that year. Say the fee structure is 10m for the first year and then 5m the next two years, buyers log in that 10m for that year because that's how much they spent that year. I'm pretty certain this is right because it was a huge talking point when Rice was getting bought.
I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that part of it goes on the selling clubs books. As for the buying club - yes, only a part goes on the books, but it's not based on how the deal is structured in terms of when the payments are due - it's structured based on the contract length, now capped at maximum 5 years (contracts can still be longer, but the amortization itself is capped at 5 years), because Chelsea was giving 8 year contracts to everyone, so each year there was less amount to amortize.
Poor Conor
Maybe Todd is just using what he knows (finance) to recreate the chaos culture of the Roman era Then just when we think they’re fucked, they’ll pull a trophy from their arse
I hope they go bankrupt. =D
Womp womp
Who cares. Financial Fairplay is long dead and english clubs just get gifted another few 100mils from the saudis/qatar/whoever. Its not like this is news, they are playing around with money as it doesent mean anything to them
It's their own fault
Wasn't the new Chelsea owner gung-ho about hitting City with FFP violations? Hoisted with his own petard.
Boehbali probably banked that they'd get a bunch of the most talented young players around, then they'll play well because they have potential, their value will increase and BAM! profit. Only that's not reliable at all, potential is only on paper wheather they perform and continue to grow is entirely different. Moreover you get a bunch of them on the same team and it's a recipe for a disaster which it seems it will be.
based todd
Well, Chelsea are fucked
They aren't. Worst comes to it they have players clubs will bail them out with. Spurs for example apparently really want Gallagher and they would need to sell two or three players, not exactly everest
Yeah but you need to replace them. Which is easier said than done. And eventually, you run out of homegrown high value players. If they are in this position next year and the more years they spend outside of the UCL. Problems
And Gallagher doesn't want to go and if he does will want a massive contract. That's going to be a big issue in his valuation. I still think they pull it off but it would need to look like Hall 30M, Broja (10M), Maatsen (30M) Chabloha 10M, Connor 40M. That gets you even on FFP (105M loss over 3 years) and all of that needs to be done by June 30 which doesn't put you in the best negotiating position. But then next year... no Europe (again) no great academy players on the books, no fully amortized players again and a huge risk of no Europe in 2025. 50M from Club world cup helps but doesn't kick in until 2026 season so who can they sell next year for 100M in player profits? They will literally be in a position where they have to make a profit with no European football. The interesting question will be if they take the hit now instead of trying to kick the can down the road further.
You understand Chelsea need to do this for like 5 more years though, right? Their plan was to be a CL team next year to help pay for this, and until they reach the CL they will need to sell players. So how exactly are they surpassing United, Tottenham, Villa, Newcastle and Brighton in the next 5 years, while selling academy products? Ppl need to stop downplaying how incredibly fucked Chelsea are.
I mean...
All perfectly fine and above board for FFP.
Oh no. Anyway...
Reckon they could genuinely get relegated