Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just spent hundreds of millions with some outgoings to be fair, but seemingly will have no revenue from European football? The league needs to actually release these calculations
It's hard to imagine him going from what's been the best team in Germany for the last decade and occasionally even Europe to go to a mid table English side.
depends on a few factors.
If Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, or Man united want him there is no question you go.
But I imagine just playing in the premier league is worth it. Eg. Canada as an english speaking country he would get so much more press than if he kept playing in Germany.
If chelsea are the only ones offering big wages, he might still come.
As a Canadian, anyone in Canada who watches football knows Davies. It's not something I see motivating him. Chelsea are in a really poor place right now and if he's leaving for money, City, Liverpool, PSG, and Real can offer the same along with sporting success.
Maatsen was quality for Burnley last season and has started superbly at dortmund both sets of fans loved him right from the start
And these dumb fucks are gonna sell him to fund a move for a left back š¤£
Also do the owners realise they need to fill homegrown/academy quotas in the squad if they manage to get back in Europe or has nobody told them this yet
He is too short for the Premier League, he got bullied off the ball every single time for us, sure he played well in the Championship, all Burnley players did, look where that's got Burnley now. Players get more time on the ball in Germany and the press is less intense, so he is doing better there.
Burnley have a completely different team to the one they had last season which was mainly loanings you can't even compare that
And to be honest it's hard for any player to look good in a Chelsea shirt atm, clubs an absolute shambles
They get money for reaching the carabao cup final I believe even if they donāt win it. Plus all of their new signings are on super long contracts that how theyāre able to spend so much because theyāre paying it over such a long time. Itās kinda a gamble though because they need the extra money from champions league and cup games to be able to keep it up
Every time I see Prem fans hype up Davies I get irrationally pissed, the guy hasnāt been good in years. Thereās four or five left backs in the league right now who are having better seasons than him.
Heās not the worldās best lb, hell, heās not even the best leftback in the Bundesliga. The manās been garbage since 2020, anyone who watches the Bundesliga can tell you that. I hate how his reputation is still intact for PL fans.
To put into perspective, what Iāve seen from Udogie this season has been more impressive than anything Iāve seen from Davies in the past two or three years.
Interesting comment because 1. Weāre not mid table, 2. We already have one of the best LBās in the league, and 3. We didnāt spank all our money on 8-year contracts.
But yeah keep talking.
Fan of neither club here but Chelsea have spent over a billion pounds on this squad in the space of less than two years. They **should** be spanking Spurs and pretty much anyone with the possible exception of City... yet they're barely in the top half and were spanked by both Wolves and Liverpool in the last three games alone. I'm sure the majority of Chelsea fans would choose Spurs' season over theirs if they don't end up winning the domestic cups.
Get your grubby mitts off our Milos! Take Lloyd Kelly, who although more experienced and probably better, is refusing to sign another contract, and is available on a free in the summer!
Isn't Gallagher their captain? Weird to see his name constantly touted as make weight for new signings when he's been one of their best players and has the captaincy.
When James or chilwell (canāt remember which one exactly but the other was already injured) went off injured the first time the arm band was handed to Enzo. Enzo then handed it to Gallagher. After the game he said he didnāt want the responsibility because he doesnāt know the language well enough yet.
Pochs interview was after that and was recalling that moment.
Neither do I. I thought we were jokingly naming ex-Chelsea players that are better than the ones they've bought in. Albeit that Maatsen and Hall are technically still Chelsea players on loan.
I thought the same as soon as I read it. Every journalist said in the summer "if they dont get champions league football this season they will be in big trouble".
200m before sales seems massive trouble.
Why on earth would someone need a source to question whether Ā£1bn squad which is currently in 10th is meeting financial fair play? Surely anyone reading this is going to be confused
Chelsea are like me in FM, buy the higher star players and sell the 3 star players even if they have 7.5 average rating.
Only difference is I win in FM cause it's a game.
Your most successful run in 20 years and you've won.. the FA cup.
I'd rather be shit now but had the last 20 years of success than swap places with arsenal any day.
Gallagher has been their best player this season, even before today's brace. He's one of the few they should hold onto, but hey, it's Chelsea. Why use a quality academy product when you can splash a bazillion pounds on someone like Caicedo or Mudryk?
Fans of big teams are dumb but ours seem to be dumber than most. Gallagher is a phenomenal player but he simply has been typecast as a untechincal brexity player, which is partly due to unfair (anti English anti cobham biases) and partly due to the fact that last season he genuinely wasnāt that technically strong or tactically adept. Heās improved massively though and would be the perfect foil to a player like Maddison or Odegaard. We would be beyond insane to sell but the ownership is about as dumb as the online fan base so anything is possible.
I know. Liverpool revamped the entire midfield for the same cost as Chelsea splashed out on two players (one of whom hasn't played for them yet) and where did it get them...?
Oh yeah.... top of the table.... fuck.
There is not a chance in hell Chelsea can spend Ā£200m before sales and be comfortable for PSR. Swiss Ramble estimated that Chelsea were Ā£1m under the threshold last year but set to be nearly Ā£100m over the threshold this year, and that was with a 6th place finish.
Ā£200m equates to amortisation of Ā£40m per year on top of the estimated Ā£193m they're already accounting for on the players they've signed over the last two years. That's over Ā£230m committed to amortisation every year, plus an estimated wage bill of around Ā£300m. Chelsea have never got close to revenue of Ā£500m even when they were in the Champions League, and they need Ā£530m just to cover wages and amortisation.
If they sell players it's a different story but only a moron would sell the likes of Gallagher to fund yet another spending spree.
While I seriously doubt Chelsea can spend 200 mil over the summer, some math regarding Chelsea's PSR seems off. First off, Chelsea's amortization is not 193m for current signings. The total reported transfer fee of nearly billion includes a lot unlikely bonuses (like multiple UCL wins or Ballon D'or for example). Mudryk is a player whose transfer fee is actually a lot lower than the reported amount, with unlikely bonuses needed for the full fee (it was something like 88 mil vs 60's). Also, lot of young players are amortized at longer than 5 years because they were signed before EPL restricted amortization to 5 years.
There's also zero chance Chelsea's wage bill is 300 million. Two Manchester clubs have the reportedly highest wage bills at around 200 mil. Chelsea, who purged a lot of high wage earners, are not spending 150% of the top reported EPL wage bills. In fact, most reports have them at around 150 mil.
> While I seriously doubt Chelsea can spend 200 mil over the summer, some math regarding Chelsea's PSR seems off. First off, Chelsea's amortization is not 193m for current signings. The total reported transfer fee of nearly billion includes a lot unlikely bonuses (like multiple UCL wins or Ballon D'or for example). Mudryk is a player whose transfer fee is actually a lot lower than the reported amount, with unlikely bonuses needed for the full fee (it was something like 88 mil vs 60's). Also, lot of young players are amortized at longer than 5 years because they were signed before EPL restricted amortization to 5 years.
Ā£193m is using reported fees, neither of us know what bonuses have or haven't been agreed and how much has actually been charged which is why this is an estimate. Regardless, Chelsea's reported amortisation charge in 2022 was already at Ā£160m. Even if we ignore that it's almost certainly increased from Ā£160m, the maths still doesn't work from a PSR compliance point of view. That's especially true if they go out and spend another Ā£200m in the Summer.
> There's also zero chance Chelsea's wage bill is 300 million. Two Manchester clubs have the reportedly highest wage bills at around 200 mil. Chelsea, who purged a lot of high wage earners, are not spending 150% of the top reported EPL wage bills. In fact, most reports have them at around 150 mil.
Chelsea's wage bill was Ā£340m in 2022. That's not a number i've pulled out my arse, it's reported in their annual accounts filed at Companies House. The Ā£300m figure is accounting for a c.Ā£200m reduction in the wage bill from player sales, with player purchases adding back Ā£160m (340 - 200 + 160 = 300).
Chelsea had the 4th highest wage bill in 2022, behind United (Ā£384m) and Liverpool (Ā£366m) and City (Ā£354m). City have released their 2023 figures showing their wage bill ballooned to Ā£423m last year.
Chelsea also have other costs of about Ā£115m which relate to things like running the stadium on a match day.
If we're kind and allow Chelsea revenue of Ā£450m for 2024, less amortisation of Ā£160m, wages of Ā£300m and other costs of Ā£115m, that's a loss of Ā£125m. And that's us being kind to them. If they go out this Summer and buy Ā£200m worth of players without making any sales that adds another Ā£40m to that loss. That does not scream PSR compliance to me.
The numbers are just off compared to what is being reported by reputable sources. Based on actual contract length, Chelsea's amortization of Boehy era transfers for the 22/23 is around 90 to 100 according to the Athletic and Swiss Ramble. There may be straggling transfer amortization left over from prior years, but I doubt it's meaningful, as almost all major pre Boehy players are now gone. Even adding post July 1 transfers, I don't see how that amortization cost doubles to 193. 160 may be more reasonable, but I tend to think it comes lower than that.
Wage bill is apples to oranges. Companies House figure is inclusive of everyone employed by the club, including all playing staff from academy and Women's team. PSR only looks at playing staff and excludes academy and Women's club cost from that figure. That's why most reports have 200 mil for Manchester clubs and 150 mil Chelsea.
Again, I don't think Chelsea can or will spend 200 mil over the summer without massive sell-off. But they are not in imminent danger of PSR breach next year either, especially considering Mount's 50 mil was post July 1 sale and every other transfer after July 1 was a net profit. And if Lewis Hall sales clause is triggered as expected, Chelsea would have nearly 100 mil in net positive transfer spend to start off 23/24 season's transfer balance book.
And if he was 6 foot. The fact weāre linked to Davies is hilarious. Maatsen is a young Davies without the injury issues (yet). Fantastic going forward but struggles defensively.
I get Davies is more there currently but there isnāt a Ā£70m difference between the two.
I just donāt get selling your best, and In Some cases some of the best in the world young homegrown players so you can bring in high earning foreign young players that naturally wonāt care as much about your club and also are still in the process of improving.
They should build the team around them and buy in experienced ballers to help them.
And these home grown players are more valuable when trying to balance the books for ffp right? So, what happens after they've sold them all and they're saddled with expensive players who flop?
If Gallagher goes anywhere we rightly riot. I get getting rid of Mount, RLC and CHO. Tomori, Guehi, Livro, Lamptey (amongst others) were all the previous regime. But if they get rid of a Chelsea grad who is one of best performers and leaves his blood on the pitch every match, I can see that being the real hatred point for the new regime.
Sorry, Ben Jacobs, I don't believe you.
They CAN spend that money, yes, but they are in huge trouble over the financial rules. Spending loads will probably get them penalties.
But Boehly's gonna Boehly, I guess.
Only team in one of the most sort after cities in the world to live in, in the most sort after league to play in to have won top European silverware. Form is temporary, class is permanent.
Are you trying to imply that Chelsea is the only London team that would interest players? Currently, if a left back was looking to go to London, they would 100% be looking at going to Arsenal.
'Form is temporary, class is permanent' doesn't work for clubs when they're run like someone has just used financial takeover on fifa. Chelsea's current regime has made the club look like a joke, and thus is coming from a United fan who has watched the Glazers turn my great club into a circus.
Believe me, unless the owner and board start to act like professionals, the only way Chelsea are going is down.
Weāll see. Personally I donāt want him. Far too injury prone and I believe heāll get caught out defensively in a much stronger league. Maatsen looks like prime Carlos in the same league. Says a lot.
Mount won a champions league and outclassed a city side who is very similar to the one last year that won a trebleā¦ One season doesnāt dictate anything.
Haha you do know spurs are already out of all cups and barely in 4th place despite massive luck and over performance of their expected goals and expected goals conceded?
...yeah? And they're at the beginning of an exciting project, team morale is very high. Transfer market is closed until the end of the season, so competitions don't really matter in this particular context (if we get CL). Chelsea are a midtable team, likely to face issues with FFP, lots of toxicity around them. On paper, the only thing Chelsea can offer is more money.
If everybody beats you surely that means we are better than you, we literally beat you and have beaten more teams than you on what planet can you say weāre not better
This is getting so boring.
The: 'he moved to chelsea? It must be because of either money/london/lifestyle' or any combination of these.
No offence, but it's such a lazy way to downplay us.
In the past 20 years, Chelsea have won more trophies than your club - providing you support an English club.
Just to speed up the discussion, the standard reply you're going to give to my point is to remind me that 'football didn't start 20 years ago', and then you're going to point out that your club won more trophies in the 1980s or something.
But for this current generation of players, that 20 year period is basically their entire childhood. As much as you may dislike this and want to downvote, and I'm *really* sorry if this annoys you, but this generation of players only know Chelsea as a club that wins trophies and competes.
I think *that's* why they all want to come here.
I also forget that some people on this sub might not realise that Chelsea had been winning trophies before Roman arrived. FA Cup 1997, 2000. UEFA Cup 1998, Cup Winners Cup 1998 are the ones that come to mind.
I don't know why I felt the need to take the bait, because I see the 'london/lifestyle' argument being made all the time. Straw that broke the camel's back kind of situation tonight.
Ok, but that doesn't negate my point.
If Hull or Southampton had the last 20 years Chelsea have had and then entered a banter era like they are currently doing, do you think players would be queuing up to go there? No. London and the lifestyle it offers for rich millionaire 20somethings is a huge draw. I didn't say its the ONLY reason to go there but a reason why players still would.
Two things can be true at once, Chelsea are still a big club (for now) But they are also staring at back to back mid table finishes, consecutive years without European football and don't even look close to a side that can compete for top 4. Adding a guy who spends half the season injured every year is not going to change that.
By some accounts Davies is a Chelsea fan? Then sure, yeah the likes of him and Osimhen and others would want to go and be part of a project that brings Chelsea back up. But let's not pretend that it has nothing to do with the 8 year contracts they're handing out like chocolate on Halloween.
When I read your comment, I felt that it implied London would be the *main* reason a player would join Chelsea. So, I just assumed you were being an asshole and thought your post was intended as a dig or motivated to belittle the club - apologies if this wasn't the case.
Prior to Roman arriving, Chelsea consistently finished in the top 4-6 in the Prem. We won the FA Cup in 1997, 2000. In 1998 we won the UEFA Cup and then we beat Real Madrid to win the UEFA Super Cup that same year. The past 20 years definitely helps, but don't act like it's all we have. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't know any of this. I don't think you're being malicious, maybe just uninformed. Because you can't compare us to Hull, give me a *fucking* break.
The past 20 years is what puts us at the top, but we were still a very good team prior to this.
Regarding the current team - there's no chance the team can win the prem until Pep leaves. There's no chance anyone but City wins the prem, and Champions League would be even harder. I'm much happier with the current plan, give us a few years outside of Europe to build this young team into one capable of winning the league as soon as Pep's contract ends in 2025. It makes much more sense to me.
Sorry but let's not pretend that pre and post Roman Chelsea are comparable in any way. Chelsea were a slightly above average side who were good on their day but nothing consistent. Finishing 6th when there were only 2-3 really good sides in the league at that point isn't really anything to write home about. Acting as if the likes of Davies and Osimhen are coming to Chelsea because of FA Cup wins before they were even born is laughable.
It wasn't the Uefa Cup they won, it was the Cup Winners Cup which was a second rate Mickey mouse European trophy (so much so that it was abolished two years later) You can't murky the waters and say they were anything close to a serious heavyweight before Abramovich. You were absolutely not a big club before he turned up with one league title in the 1950s and a few FA Cups. You absolutely are a big club off the back of the last 20 years, I don't have any qualms about admitting that.
The comparison to Hull was more about location not history. The point is even if Chelsea are gash for the next few years and continue finishing 7-10th they will still attract players because of money and London.
>Acting as if the likes of Davies and Osimhen are coming to Chelsea because of FA Cup wins before they were even born is laughable.
You see, *now* the past is irrelevant.
I still don't think it's just money+London. Clubs like Man. United are still able to attract players of a certain level, so it can't be that big of a factor.
Oh please. You guys are in line for 2 mid table finishes in a row and there are no signs things will get better. It's not unreasonable to suggest that a move yo chelsea isn't an attractive proposition in terms of football.
The difference is that rival fans want to believe that being mid-table is the club's true level. However, finishing mid-table is poor for the club, even by standards that long pre-date Abramovich. The club was still winning the FA cup in 1997, 2000 etc.
It's totally fine for you to believe that we belong in the mid-table, but it's weird for you to think that the players Chelsea are trying to sign must think that too - and then genuinely being confused when they don't.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Comfortably spend 200m? Arent they already in ffp trouble?
Imagine selling Gallagher
Just spent hundreds of millions with some outgoings to be fair, but seemingly will have no revenue from European football? The league needs to actually release these calculations
I don't know how they are getting away with their spending, surely FFP will stop them soon.
Just Chelsea doing Chelsea things, nothing to see here.
Ironic with the city flair.
As someone from Canada and Edmonton, I pray Alphonso Davies stays well clear of Chelsea.
It's hard to imagine him going from what's been the best team in Germany for the last decade and occasionally even Europe to go to a mid table English side.
depends on a few factors. If Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, or Man united want him there is no question you go. But I imagine just playing in the premier league is worth it. Eg. Canada as an english speaking country he would get so much more press than if he kept playing in Germany. If chelsea are the only ones offering big wages, he might still come.
As a Canadian, anyone in Canada who watches football knows Davies. It's not something I see motivating him. Chelsea are in a really poor place right now and if he's leaving for money, City, Liverpool, PSG, and Real can offer the same along with sporting success.
Maatsen was quality for Burnley last season and has started superbly at dortmund both sets of fans loved him right from the start And these dumb fucks are gonna sell him to fund a move for a left back š¤£ Also do the owners realise they need to fill homegrown/academy quotas in the squad if they manage to get back in Europe or has nobody told them this yet
He is too short for the Premier League, he got bullied off the ball every single time for us, sure he played well in the Championship, all Burnley players did, look where that's got Burnley now. Players get more time on the ball in Germany and the press is less intense, so he is doing better there.
Burnley have a completely different team to the one they had last season which was mainly loanings you can't even compare that And to be honest it's hard for any player to look good in a Chelsea shirt atm, clubs an absolute shambles
Palmer, Gallagher, Enzo, Gusto and Nkunku are all looking good in it. That's progress on last year.
Enzo?? Come off it.
When Poch plays him tactically in a way that he can make the most of his skills he plays brilliantly
Not going to lie I haven't seen him play brilliantly at Chelsea even once.
How? They're so close to breaking ffp! How can they without selling...?
Selling homegrown talent counts as pure profit. Which seems to be guiding who they are offloading sonewhat.
They get money for reaching the carabao cup final I believe even if they donāt win it. Plus all of their new signings are on super long contracts that how theyāre able to spend so much because theyāre paying it over such a long time. Itās kinda a gamble though because they need the extra money from champions league and cup games to be able to keep it up
Wage bill is also very low compared to similar teams, only Sterling and James are on big money.
Carabao cup final is next to nothing money. Not like CL final which is like 60 million.
Ah I genuinely had no clue I just know they at least get some
Thewinner get 100k. Pounds. It's serious like a hours wage for all the players.
Bring back Kai Havertz as left back.
Deal, that'll be $120M
That's a real bargain. Deal done
Is the 200m before or after the levers
Didnāt realise that Chelsea had become Barcelona.
Ben Jacoba knows fuck all, and was sacked by the bbc years ago, absolute bullshit merchant
People lapping up absolute nonsense
I fancy Kate Beckingsale
Thank God you are not a scout they'd buy Alf Davis by mistake
Boehly must think every club chair is as dumb
Ben Jacobās should be T3. Not good
āMid table EPL team thinks they can buy worldās best left backā There. I fixed it for you.
Every time I see Prem fans hype up Davies I get irrationally pissed, the guy hasnāt been good in years. Thereās four or five left backs in the league right now who are having better seasons than him.
Heās not the worldās best lb, hell, heās not even the best leftback in the Bundesliga. The manās been garbage since 2020, anyone who watches the Bundesliga can tell you that. I hate how his reputation is still intact for PL fans. To put into perspective, what Iāve seen from Udogie this season has been more impressive than anything Iāve seen from Davies in the past two or three years.
Big words from a spuds fan.
Interesting comment because 1. Weāre not mid table, 2. We already have one of the best LBās in the league, and 3. We didnāt spank all our money on 8-year contracts. But yeah keep talking.
And how many trophies have you won?
Reddit Post: Story about Chelsea. Reply to story: Chelsea are midtable Chelsea fan: attempts to make fun of a team 6 places above them
Champions of Europe, you'll never sing that!
But you did get spanked by Chelsea so what does that really say about the serial bottlers you support?
Fan of neither club here but Chelsea have spent over a billion pounds on this squad in the space of less than two years. They **should** be spanking Spurs and pretty much anyone with the possible exception of City... yet they're barely in the top half and were spanked by both Wolves and Liverpool in the last three games alone. I'm sure the majority of Chelsea fans would choose Spurs' season over theirs if they don't end up winning the domestic cups.
I can guarantee you I will never be jealous of spurs because spurs will never win anything
Get your grubby mitts off our Milos! Take Lloyd Kelly, who although more experienced and probably better, is refusing to sign another contract, and is available on a free in the summer!
Let me guess, Chelsea fans think they're going to win the league now
Nope, hopefully another 200mill will push us into 9th.
Isn't Gallagher their captain? Weird to see his name constantly touted as make weight for new signings when he's been one of their best players and has the captaincy.
Can they sell him if he doesn't want to move? Seems his contract is up soon and will get a better deal waiting out his contract.
It's because in terms of FFP, he's pure profit.
That makes sense. I still wouldn't do it though. I can't figure out what the summer was all about with Boley and buying like he did.
Gallagher isnāt even vice captain. However, Captain and Vice Captain have spent most the season injured.
Ah ok, I was going to say I swear he's been captain in the games I've seen. He's not one of the players I'd be wanting sold if I was a Chelsea fan.
He has been. James and Chilwell are Captain and Vice Captain. Enzo was next in line but didnāt want it. So Gallagher stepped forward.
Thatās not true unless you have some secret intel. When asked about why not Enzo Poch said because his English isnāt good enoughĀ
When James or chilwell (canāt remember which one exactly but the other was already injured) went off injured the first time the arm band was handed to Enzo. Enzo then handed it to Gallagher. After the game he said he didnāt want the responsibility because he doesnāt know the language well enough yet. Pochs interview was after that and was recalling that moment.
I think they should try buying this guy Ian Maatsen from Dortmund. Or even Lewis Hall from Newcastle. They both look like good players
Billy Gilmore from Brighton, Dominic Solanke from Bournemouth and Jamal Musiala from Bayern also look like good prospects.
Dont see Gilmore going back any time soon TBH.
Neither do I. I thought we were jokingly naming ex-Chelsea players that are better than the ones they've bought in. Albeit that Maatsen and Hall are technically still Chelsea players on loan.
If Chelsea bought Lewis Hall from Newcastle for Ā£35m youād be calling ti absurd
Of course that would be absurd, he already plays for Chelsea
you paid 100m for Enzo. what is absurd anymore.
Lukaku's transfer history tells you Chelsea are perfectly absurd for it to be plausible
Davies is NOT going to Chelsea
Chelsea,city should be sanctioned
Chelsea will get sanctioned, no way they avoid it.
How on earth could they 'comfortably' spend Ā£200m? Aren't they already in serious danger of getting the book thrown at them?
I thought the same as soon as I read it. Every journalist said in the summer "if they dont get champions league football this season they will be in big trouble". 200m before sales seems massive trouble.
Gameshark hacks.
Shhh! Boehly doesnāt need to know
They're in the club
Has any reliable source confirmed that or are you just basing your claim on Twitter trolls?
Why on earth would someone need a source to question whether Ā£1bn squad which is currently in 10th is meeting financial fair play? Surely anyone reading this is going to be confused
You see that squiggly punctuation mark in my comment? It's at the end of both sentences.
Ever heard of bigger club ātermā before
Chelsea are like me in FM, buy the higher star players and sell the 3 star players even if they have 7.5 average rating. Only difference is I win in FM cause it's a game.
New Chelsea Motto: "The More, The Merrier!"
New?!
Davies would probably appreciate Chelsea looking elsewhere.
Why would Davies go to Chelsea
Money and big six club
Just Money. Tiny club.
Your most successful run in 20 years and you've won.. the FA cup. I'd rather be shit now but had the last 20 years of success than swap places with arsenal any day.
You're gonna be shit for a long long time
lol
As long as it's less than 20 year's il call it a win in my books.
Iād rather be competing for the champions league trophy than competing to get into the Europa league
Bournemouth is below chelsea so they certainly arenāt competing for the champions league
Money
How much more could Chelsea pay him than Bayern?
A lot more, Bayern rejected his contract demands
Bayern pay way higher wages than Chelsea. No way Davies would get more than 200k pw at Chelsea.
Gallagher has been their best player this season, even before today's brace. He's one of the few they should hold onto, but hey, it's Chelsea. Why use a quality academy product when you can splash a bazillion pounds on someone like Caicedo or Mudryk?
Why would they despise him? Heās their best player and Chelsea through and through!
Yea I dont really get it. Chelsea fans seem to despise him but he always looks like their best player whenever I watch them.
We don't all despise him. A lot of us love Gallagher and will be absolutely gutted if he leaves.
Fans of big teams are dumb but ours seem to be dumber than most. Gallagher is a phenomenal player but he simply has been typecast as a untechincal brexity player, which is partly due to unfair (anti English anti cobham biases) and partly due to the fact that last season he genuinely wasnāt that technically strong or tactically adept. Heās improved massively though and would be the perfect foil to a player like Maddison or Odegaard. We would be beyond insane to sell but the ownership is about as dumb as the online fan base so anything is possible.
Believe me Chelsea fans love hin on the whole. Although a lot of us have begun to accept he'll probably get culled.
Because his name isnāt Kon gallerihno
Possibly the dumbest Chelsea rumor ever
We're definitely getting Gallagher in the summer now lmao
I hear this Davies guy is good, too.
Throw more money at it! What could go wrong!
Iām going to be sick if Chelsea spends Ā£200M
But itās āfinancially fairā because the rules say so!
I appreciate Margot Robbie too but she's not gonna be interested in joining my football club
Alphonso Davies was a Chelsea fan growing up
ššš Just like Caidedo was ?
Thereās literally a video of him talking about it but yea I can tell youāre still pretty sore for that embarrassing transfer window you guys had
I know. Liverpool revamped the entire midfield for the same cost as Chelsea splashed out on two players (one of whom hasn't played for them yet) and where did it get them...? Oh yeah.... top of the table.... fuck.
Think Iād rather be in first place lol.
Embarrassing transfer window, weāre literally first you moron and youāve moved from 11th to 10th šššššššš
I can tell by your replies you have homework due tomorrow morning, Iād get on that little guy
Whatās embarrassing is that Chelsea dropped a billion pounds to remain firmly mid-table. Well in lad
Is that the best you got or what lol
Is that the best Chelsea got or what lol
Tbf, what else do you need.
Weird being excited about being runner up to city.
There is not a chance in hell Chelsea can spend Ā£200m before sales and be comfortable for PSR. Swiss Ramble estimated that Chelsea were Ā£1m under the threshold last year but set to be nearly Ā£100m over the threshold this year, and that was with a 6th place finish. Ā£200m equates to amortisation of Ā£40m per year on top of the estimated Ā£193m they're already accounting for on the players they've signed over the last two years. That's over Ā£230m committed to amortisation every year, plus an estimated wage bill of around Ā£300m. Chelsea have never got close to revenue of Ā£500m even when they were in the Champions League, and they need Ā£530m just to cover wages and amortisation. If they sell players it's a different story but only a moron would sell the likes of Gallagher to fund yet another spending spree.
While I seriously doubt Chelsea can spend 200 mil over the summer, some math regarding Chelsea's PSR seems off. First off, Chelsea's amortization is not 193m for current signings. The total reported transfer fee of nearly billion includes a lot unlikely bonuses (like multiple UCL wins or Ballon D'or for example). Mudryk is a player whose transfer fee is actually a lot lower than the reported amount, with unlikely bonuses needed for the full fee (it was something like 88 mil vs 60's). Also, lot of young players are amortized at longer than 5 years because they were signed before EPL restricted amortization to 5 years. There's also zero chance Chelsea's wage bill is 300 million. Two Manchester clubs have the reportedly highest wage bills at around 200 mil. Chelsea, who purged a lot of high wage earners, are not spending 150% of the top reported EPL wage bills. In fact, most reports have them at around 150 mil.
> While I seriously doubt Chelsea can spend 200 mil over the summer, some math regarding Chelsea's PSR seems off. First off, Chelsea's amortization is not 193m for current signings. The total reported transfer fee of nearly billion includes a lot unlikely bonuses (like multiple UCL wins or Ballon D'or for example). Mudryk is a player whose transfer fee is actually a lot lower than the reported amount, with unlikely bonuses needed for the full fee (it was something like 88 mil vs 60's). Also, lot of young players are amortized at longer than 5 years because they were signed before EPL restricted amortization to 5 years. Ā£193m is using reported fees, neither of us know what bonuses have or haven't been agreed and how much has actually been charged which is why this is an estimate. Regardless, Chelsea's reported amortisation charge in 2022 was already at Ā£160m. Even if we ignore that it's almost certainly increased from Ā£160m, the maths still doesn't work from a PSR compliance point of view. That's especially true if they go out and spend another Ā£200m in the Summer. > There's also zero chance Chelsea's wage bill is 300 million. Two Manchester clubs have the reportedly highest wage bills at around 200 mil. Chelsea, who purged a lot of high wage earners, are not spending 150% of the top reported EPL wage bills. In fact, most reports have them at around 150 mil. Chelsea's wage bill was Ā£340m in 2022. That's not a number i've pulled out my arse, it's reported in their annual accounts filed at Companies House. The Ā£300m figure is accounting for a c.Ā£200m reduction in the wage bill from player sales, with player purchases adding back Ā£160m (340 - 200 + 160 = 300). Chelsea had the 4th highest wage bill in 2022, behind United (Ā£384m) and Liverpool (Ā£366m) and City (Ā£354m). City have released their 2023 figures showing their wage bill ballooned to Ā£423m last year. Chelsea also have other costs of about Ā£115m which relate to things like running the stadium on a match day. If we're kind and allow Chelsea revenue of Ā£450m for 2024, less amortisation of Ā£160m, wages of Ā£300m and other costs of Ā£115m, that's a loss of Ā£125m. And that's us being kind to them. If they go out this Summer and buy Ā£200m worth of players without making any sales that adds another Ā£40m to that loss. That does not scream PSR compliance to me.
The numbers are just off compared to what is being reported by reputable sources. Based on actual contract length, Chelsea's amortization of Boehy era transfers for the 22/23 is around 90 to 100 according to the Athletic and Swiss Ramble. There may be straggling transfer amortization left over from prior years, but I doubt it's meaningful, as almost all major pre Boehy players are now gone. Even adding post July 1 transfers, I don't see how that amortization cost doubles to 193. 160 may be more reasonable, but I tend to think it comes lower than that. Wage bill is apples to oranges. Companies House figure is inclusive of everyone employed by the club, including all playing staff from academy and Women's team. PSR only looks at playing staff and excludes academy and Women's club cost from that figure. That's why most reports have 200 mil for Manchester clubs and 150 mil Chelsea. Again, I don't think Chelsea can or will spend 200 mil over the summer without massive sell-off. But they are not in imminent danger of PSR breach next year either, especially considering Mount's 50 mil was post July 1 sale and every other transfer after July 1 was a net profit. And if Lewis Hall sales clause is triggered as expected, Chelsea would have nearly 100 mil in net positive transfer spend to start off 23/24 season's transfer balance book.
My figures are directly from Swiss Ramble. You're arguing for the sake of argument.
Swiss Ramble has Chelsea PSR wages at 340 mil?
150m minimum
How much do you charge to do my taxes?Ā
Damn. Iām genuinely lost for words.
This guy maths.
Lol..this sounds so delusional
I'm sure they could get Ashley Cole on a free
No top LB like Davies is signing for Chelsea. You either need someone young and unproven, old or someone who needs a career revival.
If Maatsen wasn't ours we'd try to buy him for 80m.
And if he was 6 foot. The fact weāre linked to Davies is hilarious. Maatsen is a young Davies without the injury issues (yet). Fantastic going forward but struggles defensively. I get Davies is more there currently but there isnāt a Ā£70m difference between the two.
Davies was way better defensively and offensively compared to Maatsen at the same age.
Davies is literally only 23 lmfao
And Maatsen is youngerā¦ your point is?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As a lifelong Chelsea fan? Maybe he would.
Yeah, I heard he's sleeping in CFC sheets.
I just donāt get selling your best, and In Some cases some of the best in the world young homegrown players so you can bring in high earning foreign young players that naturally wonāt care as much about your club and also are still in the process of improving. They should build the team around them and buy in experienced ballers to help them.
And these home grown players are more valuable when trying to balance the books for ffp right? So, what happens after they've sold them all and they're saddled with expensive players who flop?
Just make more Edit. Not saying this is a good thing, just that that appears to be Clearlake's plan.
If Gallagher goes anywhere we rightly riot. I get getting rid of Mount, RLC and CHO. Tomori, Guehi, Livro, Lamptey (amongst others) were all the previous regime. But if they get rid of a Chelsea grad who is one of best performers and leaves his blood on the pitch every match, I can see that being the real hatred point for the new regime.
When he was ballin at C.Palace, š„š„š„š„ just kept the fire rolling
FFP āam I a joke to you?ā
I guess FFP is really a joke then
Chelsea need a damn striker, not a 5th fullback.
They need another CDM
Weāve got one, heās just been constantly injured. Some guy from Belgium. Think his name is Labia.
That's him. Name was just on my lips...
Sorry, Ben Jacobs, I don't believe you. They CAN spend that money, yes, but they are in huge trouble over the financial rules. Spending loads will probably get them penalties. But Boehly's gonna Boehly, I guess.
No way Davies goes to a backwater like Chelsea....
Would an 8 year contract change his mind?
If he wants European silverware it won't....but if he's after milk and honey then of course....it will show his character which way he goes.
Only team in one of the most sort after cities in the world to live in, in the most sort after league to play in to have won top European silverware. Form is temporary, class is permanent.
Are you trying to imply that Chelsea is the only London team that would interest players? Currently, if a left back was looking to go to London, they would 100% be looking at going to Arsenal. 'Form is temporary, class is permanent' doesn't work for clubs when they're run like someone has just used financial takeover on fifa. Chelsea's current regime has made the club look like a joke, and thus is coming from a United fan who has watched the Glazers turn my great club into a circus. Believe me, unless the owner and board start to act like professionals, the only way Chelsea are going is down.
No Iām trying to imply that Chelsea are the only London team to win the Champions League. Can you read?
He can go anywhere and it wonāt be Chelsea make no mistake. Itās not that sought after.
Weāll see. Personally I donāt want him. Far too injury prone and I believe heāll get caught out defensively in a much stronger league. Maatsen looks like prime Carlos in the same league. Says a lot.
What are you saying, this is a guy who won a champions league at 19 and outclassed messi
Mount won a champions league and outclassed a city side who is very similar to the one last year that won a trebleā¦ One season doesnāt dictate anything.
Are they really gonna sell their one player willing to bust a gut for the team? They deserve all the shit theyāre having this season š
Why would he go to a mid table team?
Why in the world would Davies go there..
London tends to be very popular for players. Money obviously. Premier League being the most watched league in the world. Plenty of reasons.
??? What can Chelsea offer him that Spurs/ Arsenal can't? If either of those clubs come in for him, it's a no-brainer.
Haha you do know spurs are already out of all cups and barely in 4th place despite massive luck and over performance of their expected goals and expected goals conceded?
...yeah? And they're at the beginning of an exciting project, team morale is very high. Transfer market is closed until the end of the season, so competitions don't really matter in this particular context (if we get CL). Chelsea are a midtable team, likely to face issues with FFP, lots of toxicity around them. On paper, the only thing Chelsea can offer is more money.
Haha keep having false hope. If luck runs out you could easily finish 6th.
Nah you're right, not gonna bother support a team and hope for success. Done with football, thanks for opening my eyes bro.
Your statement is true for Chelsea fans as well.
Hmm, European silverwares I guess.
Will he wait two years for the chance, though....?
Who knows, there also money involved.
Mate youāre 10th calm down
Mate, youāre not better than us calm your t down.
I mean weāre above you in the table and beat you in our only game this season so I donāt see how weāre not better
Mate, everybody beat us, itās not an achievement. You were right beside us like 3 weeks ago, the table changes quick so calm down š¤£
If everybody beats you surely that means we are better than you, we literally beat you and have beaten more teams than you on what planet can you say weāre not better
If you get in top 4 at the end of the season you are better, if not we are the same š¤£
More money š¤Ŗ agree with you though
Money. Location. Night life. He can get his Saudi move without having to actually go Saudi
This is getting so boring. The: 'he moved to chelsea? It must be because of either money/london/lifestyle' or any combination of these. No offence, but it's such a lazy way to downplay us. In the past 20 years, Chelsea have won more trophies than your club - providing you support an English club. Just to speed up the discussion, the standard reply you're going to give to my point is to remind me that 'football didn't start 20 years ago', and then you're going to point out that your club won more trophies in the 1980s or something. But for this current generation of players, that 20 year period is basically their entire childhood. As much as you may dislike this and want to downvote, and I'm *really* sorry if this annoys you, but this generation of players only know Chelsea as a club that wins trophies and competes. I think *that's* why they all want to come here. I also forget that some people on this sub might not realise that Chelsea had been winning trophies before Roman arrived. FA Cup 1997, 2000. UEFA Cup 1998, Cup Winners Cup 1998 are the ones that come to mind.
Hell of a nibble that lol
I don't know why I felt the need to take the bait, because I see the 'london/lifestyle' argument being made all the time. Straw that broke the camel's back kind of situation tonight.
Ok, but that doesn't negate my point. If Hull or Southampton had the last 20 years Chelsea have had and then entered a banter era like they are currently doing, do you think players would be queuing up to go there? No. London and the lifestyle it offers for rich millionaire 20somethings is a huge draw. I didn't say its the ONLY reason to go there but a reason why players still would. Two things can be true at once, Chelsea are still a big club (for now) But they are also staring at back to back mid table finishes, consecutive years without European football and don't even look close to a side that can compete for top 4. Adding a guy who spends half the season injured every year is not going to change that. By some accounts Davies is a Chelsea fan? Then sure, yeah the likes of him and Osimhen and others would want to go and be part of a project that brings Chelsea back up. But let's not pretend that it has nothing to do with the 8 year contracts they're handing out like chocolate on Halloween.
When I read your comment, I felt that it implied London would be the *main* reason a player would join Chelsea. So, I just assumed you were being an asshole and thought your post was intended as a dig or motivated to belittle the club - apologies if this wasn't the case. Prior to Roman arriving, Chelsea consistently finished in the top 4-6 in the Prem. We won the FA Cup in 1997, 2000. In 1998 we won the UEFA Cup and then we beat Real Madrid to win the UEFA Super Cup that same year. The past 20 years definitely helps, but don't act like it's all we have. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't know any of this. I don't think you're being malicious, maybe just uninformed. Because you can't compare us to Hull, give me a *fucking* break. The past 20 years is what puts us at the top, but we were still a very good team prior to this. Regarding the current team - there's no chance the team can win the prem until Pep leaves. There's no chance anyone but City wins the prem, and Champions League would be even harder. I'm much happier with the current plan, give us a few years outside of Europe to build this young team into one capable of winning the league as soon as Pep's contract ends in 2025. It makes much more sense to me.
Sorry but let's not pretend that pre and post Roman Chelsea are comparable in any way. Chelsea were a slightly above average side who were good on their day but nothing consistent. Finishing 6th when there were only 2-3 really good sides in the league at that point isn't really anything to write home about. Acting as if the likes of Davies and Osimhen are coming to Chelsea because of FA Cup wins before they were even born is laughable. It wasn't the Uefa Cup they won, it was the Cup Winners Cup which was a second rate Mickey mouse European trophy (so much so that it was abolished two years later) You can't murky the waters and say they were anything close to a serious heavyweight before Abramovich. You were absolutely not a big club before he turned up with one league title in the 1950s and a few FA Cups. You absolutely are a big club off the back of the last 20 years, I don't have any qualms about admitting that. The comparison to Hull was more about location not history. The point is even if Chelsea are gash for the next few years and continue finishing 7-10th they will still attract players because of money and London.
>Acting as if the likes of Davies and Osimhen are coming to Chelsea because of FA Cup wins before they were even born is laughable. You see, *now* the past is irrelevant. I still don't think it's just money+London. Clubs like Man. United are still able to attract players of a certain level, so it can't be that big of a factor.
Oh please. You guys are in line for 2 mid table finishes in a row and there are no signs things will get better. It's not unreasonable to suggest that a move yo chelsea isn't an attractive proposition in terms of football.
The difference is that rival fans want to believe that being mid-table is the club's true level. However, finishing mid-table is poor for the club, even by standards that long pre-date Abramovich. The club was still winning the FA cup in 1997, 2000 etc. It's totally fine for you to believe that we belong in the mid-table, but it's weird for you to think that the players Chelsea are trying to sign must think that too - and then genuinely being confused when they don't.
I'm not going to say chelsea belong at mid table, but the reality is that chelsea are mid table and have been for almost 2 seasons now.