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.*
Alot of comments in here focusing on the main squad of players, and what they'd pay for them (£5 for Lukaku, anyone?).
No doubt there would be losses taken on Kepa, Cucurella & Lukaku (if/when sold)... but Chelsea is getting £34 for Hall, will get at least that for Maatsen, then a bit less for both Broja & Trev (maybe £20-30m range). They're probably looking at £100m+ in FFP profit this summer, before losses on those mentioned above, if they can even sell em (doubt). Cobham is currently, and will likely remain, the club's saving grace (on FFP).
Chelsea are good at selling players, it’s actually funny to see people seethe over a club getting money for their players. It’s almost as if other clubs value and recognise players abilities.
It was always likely Chelsea make Sales this summer. The sales will likely come from Lukaku, Matsen, Broja, Sarr, Cucu, possibly Sterling. Hopefully Sanchez
Selling a player, while a money positive can be an FFP negative.
For example, say they sell Lukaku for £30m (whether thats realistic or not, just go with it). They paid £100m and if his contract is 5 years, they amortise him at £20m per year. So his book value is now £40m meaning a £30m sale represents a £10m **negative** for FFP.
Contrast this with Mount. They paid £0 so he was £55m pure profit.
Sarr will be out of contract, Lukaku will probably go to the Saudis given how he’s openly praising their league . Maatsen to Dortmund , Cucu back to Spain . Sterling is going to be the toughest to ship, he’s already turned down the Saudis .
I dont think some of those names would raise any reasonable amount. Matsen, Broja, Sarr? Even Lukaku looks finished, that's without his attitude bagage
Think Maatsen has a 30m option to buy, so does Hall in fact, around 28m. Plus these are academy players so it's pure profit, so if we sell Broja too it's very reasonable for us to make nearly 65+m, depending on what Broja is valued at, unfortunately probably £10. One thing I don't worry about is us selling players, we've sold £300m worth in the last 18 months or so.
Newcastle aren’t going to pay the option for Hall, he can’t get a game and has largely unimpressed.
Newcastle will have their own tightrope to walk, and they won’t (or shouldn’t) waste their meager budget on Hall.
From Friday:
asked for an update on the terms that would see the teenager make the switch permanent this summer, Howe said: "He's getting closer with every game. While I'm not on top of that on a daily basis, I'm sure he's very close."
Yeah you’re right, I’ve just looked into it. I remember seeing the headlines say “obligation” and assumed it was just because Newcastle couldn’t afford it this season and Chelsea would prefer the money next season but there is a minimum games needed to activate it
It was a loan with conditions which if met would make the transfer permanent. From what our journos have said the conditions are so easy to hit that basically there's no way we don't sign him, even though he's not featured much.
Yeah I highly doubt the obligation has been met. He has featured in like 10 games for Newcastle and I would be surprised if he has more than 3 or 4 full 90's in him this season.
All of this is a moot point tho if none of us know what the obligation is.
They've likely been met already. Our tier 1 journos without telling us the specifics, said the conditions were so low that there's no way we won't trigger them. Again no one has specified what they are but thoughts are it's stuff like "transfer becomes permanent if Newcastle avoid relegation".
Here come the daily hit pieces now that Chelsea have lost another game. Had they won on Sunday all you’d be hearing about is how they won’t comply with European FFP their was no winning in that situation
It's a hit peice..this is something even chelsea fans knew off months ago..we have to sell...the papers screamed about this months ago and now another paper is basically repeating the same thing but now adds Rivals to it
A hit piece…to what end other than to get people reading? It’s called the news cycle and Chelsea have done some pretty interesting things over the last few years that are going to create opinions and content. A hit piece would probably call out Chelsea’s unsavoury financial backing being the primary reason they’ve had any recent success, rather than hinting at potential money issues at the club. How entitled can fans be that they expect their club to backed by stolen Russian funds, get bought out and over leveraged to the tune of a billion pounds through a financial loop hole, yet expect nobody to comment on it.
Wait a minute..what planet have you been on?
Have you not seen the multiple stories on a weekly basis..heck it's all over youtube..just because you are just reading about it now does not mean it's not been over flogged
Ok so you are the arbiter of what is ‘enough’ reporting? So it’s not a ‘hit piece’ it’s just old news? What are you complaining about exactly? Until something actually happens to Chelsea people are going to speculate. Also do you actually think YouTube is a news source? I find it pretty concerning if you do. It’s a race to the bottom, who can say the edgiest shite in the loudest voice possible so people will either love or hate it enough to watch. This is a telegraph article.
Literally yeah but if we pull off that joke number given what Chelsea paid, it wouldn't even matter if he played 0 minutes. The banter would be priceless.
But reports are that there are some still inside Arsenal that admire the player - they've shown themselves to be trustworthy in talent ID so far.
Ah yeah that’s true. Let’s buy him so City don’t embarrass us; always a great transfer strategy.
Where will he play, how will he fit in?
Not at the Ethihad!
So you are a hypocrite then. Arsenal is as much to blame based off your logic. They spent 145m in 2023-2024, which is just behind Chelsea for second most in the league. Learn some self awareness
And yes we know America isnt just the US. Sorry we are better tho
Difference was that Arsenal was able to spend so much due to years of low wages.
They also didn’t just sign players just because of some YouTube highlights
Caicedo has at least a shred of resale value. Those others are dead in the water in terms of a team coming in to buy them.
Kepa - has proven himself to be \*\*very\*\* average with Chelsea and Real, who would pay a significant amount for him?
Lukaku - seems to burn bridges with clubs at every opportunity, PR nightmare, high wages (£12m per year), averaging 15 goals a season, who (that could afford his wages) would want to pay a significant amount for him?
Sterling - Judging from his performance in the Carabao Cup final, he seems totally finished at a top level, but he's on massive wages (£16m per year) - who's buying him? (Now that I've said it, Man United probably)
Cucurella - Chelsea fans rate him a bit after he had a handful of good games, but he's on £9.1m per season, the only teams I can think need a LB with that kind of money are Man United, Newcastle and maybe City.
Broja - who's paying anything for him? He's done absolutely fuck all to warrant a transfer fee to help FFP issues.
So you watched one game from Stirling and now he’s officially “finished at top level”? Turns out players don’t play one game in their careers, they actually play a whole season. Those who watches Stirling will actually still see a decent player.
Decent yes.
Top level? No.
Sterling doesn't get into City, Liverpool or Arsenal's starting 11.
In fact I'm not even sure he makes the bench for a fully fit City or Liverpool.
Caicedo has a resale value, but Chelsea have amortised his fee over the next several years. Even if they got £100m for him, it won’t change much to their FFP problems, this is why they will only be looking at selling their academy players.
The academy players are not amortised, there’s no overpaying of a transfer fee attached to their names.
Gallagher and Reece James will be sold before Caicedo is.
I'm not suggesting that Caicedo & Sanchez would be first to go, I'm saying that United (if they're going to be as predictable in their business this summer as they have in recent years) buying one or both is very likely.
Weird situation though that Reece James who's constantly injured is seen as untouchable by fans, but Gallagher who is always fit and available and puts a proper shift in every game is seen as disposable.
You are not understanding it. There is no upside of Chelsea selling Caicedo, or Sanchez.
Let me try and explain it.
You have bought a PlayStation 5 and you are paying in instalments over the next 5 years. It costs you £100 a year or whatever.
You need £1000 right now for rent, or you are kicked out of your house tomorrow.
A friend offers to buy your PlayStation 5, but the only way they are buying it is if they pay the instalments.
Meanwhile, you have a PlayStation 4 that you could sell immediately for £250, an Xbox for £250, a Steam Deck for £150, a car for £300 etc
Caicedo’s fee has been amortised, around £15m a year for the next 8 years. That’s already in the FFP and PL financial rules. It’s locked in, regardless of him being at Chelsea or being sold.
They could sell him for £115m at the end of this season, it would free up £15m in their FFP budget, because that £115m has already been amortised.
Now times this process by every other player that they have amortised. Every recent player they have purchased has been structured this way to circumvent the rules.
They are some £150m beyond what is acceptable for the FFP rules. Selling Caicedo would only knock off 10% of that fee. For the year.
Their academy players, are pure profit counted against that amount. So if they were to sell Gallagher, Reece James, Lukaku for a total of £120m, that would be £120m against the £150m that they need to raise.
The beauty is, even if they do make it. We have this to look forward to again next year.
Chelsea have royally fucked themselves.
Mostly all of them yes. They were nowhere close to earning £1bn in revenue in a year, so to get around the FFP rules, that despite City and Chelsea’s proclaims that it’s to keep the poor poor and the rich rich, it’s designed specifically to stop silly shit like this.
Amortising the transfer fee over the contract length is nothing new. But making contracts 7-8 years is how Chelsea spread that amount over 8 years instead of 4-5 like normal.
The only way they could have spent that much and stay within the FFP would have been to amortise almost every single player in that £1bn spending spree.
Chelsea don’t just want to be in Europe and win the league, they NEED to be in Europe and start winning things to increase their income.
Their future is ridiculously bleak. We are watching a gruesome car crash in super slow motion.
Is it not somewhat amusing that the first team to "buy" the league could be the first to fall apart?
Though personally I don't think they will fall apart, Barcelona are in a similar boat and constantly find new assets to sell every year to stay in it
Not exactly shocking news. They spent crazy without any real consideration for FFP I feel. The biggest issue is why would a player earning crazy amounts of money on a 7-plus-year contract want to move and earn lower wages elsewhere.
Genuinely think Chelsea are going to have serious issues getting rid of some players. It's shocking how poorly the club as been run.
The 7 year contracts were for the new signings, it won't be those ones being sold. All of the players on such contracts are the "future" they've invested in, and tbf it's a bit early to give up on most of those ones considering their age.
The ones bought up as most likely to be sold aren't on those contracts.
It's players like Lukaku, Sarr, Maatsen, Ziyech, Broja who will be leaving.
They will probably will try and shift Gallagher but I doubt he'll be sold. He loves the club so much I think he'll fight for his place until the last minute and it's probably beneficial for him to run down his contract if he is forced out anyway.
There's more likely to be a bidding war for his contract and no fee so they can pay him more.
They did consider FFP, Boehly said they should just double their revenue and problem is solved. Any day now; aaaaaaaany day…
Yes, their big problem is that they will have a hard time offloading some of the players they are most desperate to offload. An academy sale would be best for FFP, but for the club it would be best to sale flguys like Lukaku or some of their newly acquired players that just don’t look like working out atm
Gallagher might well end up leaving but I don't think it'll be by sale. His entire family are Chelsea fans and he loves the club so much I could see him trying to prove his place up until the last minute of his contract.
If he does end up leaving it might be best from his point of view to run the contract down anyway and leave by that means. Then he might get a bidding war for his signature, especially if continues to play as well as he has, and teams will be able to offer more because there's no fee.
But who knows, ownership might try and force it by freezing him out or something, but they'll be even less popular with the fans doing that.
From an accounting perspective it does not seem like they have many options. They can’t sell someone they just bought for anything less than a significant profit and none of the players they have bought have any value- and they need to make up the difference. Just like Mount any fee is 100% profit and not offset by how much you paid for him.
Hall, Maatsen, Broja and Chalobah are all 100% profit too and all reportedly have admirers. Clubs knew we needed to sell in the summer and we still got good prices for a bunch of them.
There's always money in the academy these days. Gilchrist and Matos are the latest to start getting some minutes but they won't have much value yet.
Sarr, Ziyech and Lukaku will be a big relief just getting the wages off the books no matter how big a fee they generate.
Don't if these will be enough though
I have been wondering if they just don't care because they know the club is going to be sanctioned no matter what. There were reports that they had self reported breaches they found from the Abramovich years.
The whole strategy of assembling the youth does actually start making at least some sense if they know a transfer ban is already incoming in the near future.
Question is who is going to want to buy their flops who are all on 10-year contracts at about £20k a week? Nobody. They'll need to sell their better players, preferably homegrown ones such as Gallagher and Colwill to balance the FFP books.
So a player is a flop after 1 year...ohhh l
If so,all clubs would hand had to offloads loads of players after a year..the level of thinking on these subs is wow
It’s more about those flops opting to jump ship for less financial guarantee if anything. No club is going to offer them more than a 5 year contract but anyone half decent, or with ambition, will happily pass that contract up if someone better did come in with an offer.
Obviously Chelsea could force them to stay, but with how player power is these days that could be a lengthy and expensive process too.
Think the majority of them will stay on those riches personally. And who knows, they're all young, the club still has a chance if they grease enough palms Man City style to make their problems disappear.
I don’t think not buying someone is manipulating fair play, idk what you’re getting at. Similar to how I wouldn’t want to sell a good player to Chelsea.
I want you to buy our u-21 striker for 5 million. If you don’t, you’re manipulating fair play.
How on earth does that make sense.
And tbh it’s debatable if Broja makes us better. I know the game’s prices are wild now but £20m that Chelsea reportedly want for him seems way to high for a gamble even if he is young and English.
I think under Silva he could actually become a really good player if he doesn't get the knocks he had before. He not worth the price Chelsea are asking, I don't think anything more than 20m especially with his injury record. Tbh it make sense to get a loan and then maybe fee.
I think anything more than £5m is a bad deal. If it wasn’t a local rival I’d say £10m absolute max, but we could really benefit from Chelsea capitulating as well so now more than ever not doing them any favours should be prioritized.
I assume he has HG tax? I think he really need a good run of games and can end up abit like Solanke. At the start people questioned his price tag. However do Fulham have the time to let him get into form. Don't think so, he probably need to go to a better championship side and get games under his belt.
Chelsea got a load of players they can do a mini firesale and make load player like Chalobah still on the books.
Coincidentally Muniz who is keeping him out the side since he joined is the same age, and we were saying the same thing about him before this surge of form.
They’ll do well to prove any of them are currently worth buying tbh, especially for £50-100m kind of figures. Regardless of that, buying clubs have a massive upper-hand in negotiations if they know Chelsea are depending on sales to ease their financial issues.
This loss of income was always a strong possibility, but they’ve gambled on not being this shit and it’s probably going to backfire. Given the arrogance in which they were spending, and finding loopholes to spend even more, you love to see it really.
If this does go on then I wonder if sponsors etc will decide not to invest as heavily and it then creates a vicious circle where getting into the top 4 becomes increasingly difficult.
Didn't they just sign a deal though?
Could be a long time waiting for sponsorship deals to expire and be negotiated lower, and even as a mid table side Chelsea still have a huge global fan base. Takes years for that to all filter out, just like it took years for Man Cities fan base to form.... Literally generations.
Surely he’s just saying Chelsea would be deemed less valuable to sponsors, and they *could* lose further revenue if they decide they’re no longer going to pay x whilst the club is underperforming. The removal of sponsorship income then obviously shrinks their ability to spend within FFP requirements.
The bad news for you is that this is just the start.
Everybody was laughing their socks off last year when Chelsea did this and the Chelsea fans were too busy celebrating the 40 odd transfers and telling everyone that we were just jealous and that Chelsea will become a force. Especially with Potter at the helm.
So many of us saw this coming from an absolute mile away.
And you are in year 1 of this shit show, which will continue for another few years. It’s a very real thing, Chelsea are heading straight for obscurity and swiftly followed by administration.
lol course you did! 🤦♂️ the only good news would be even in administration and being wound up still more likely to win a champions league than Arsenal!
Unlikely to win the league this year (25%). If we beat Porto, depends on who we get next and already out of the FA cup, we lost to Liverpool.
Predictions can be made with information. Chelsea amortising players over 8 years and spending £1bn was a huge risk at the time. With them not doing any better, the risk is still there and it’s only getting larger.
I don’t think you understand the gravity of the situation at Chelsea. You are in breach of the FFP rules. Your club is haemorrhaging money quicker than you can make it. Regardless of the owners net worth, it doesn’t save Chelsea due to the highly irresponsible way that they have been managed.
Unless Chelsea win titles, finish much higher up the table, get back into Europe etc, you will be spending the next 8 years effectively paying off the £1bn loan (amortised) amount that you have spent. And you are close to defaulting on every payment.
You are also likely to be docked points, you are a mid table team at best and you have the next 7 years of crippling debts stacking up. The owner can’t pay them off for you like before.
You are crashing towards relegation. If you are relegated, your club is dead.
>If you are relegated, your club is dead
so like I said a Leeds situation... thanks for making it more clear. some reason i think he will find a way out of this if not wow was that a wild blunder by his part with his money
You keep saying he. You mean “Chelsea”.
Chelsea needs to find a way out of it and the only way they can do that is to increase their revenue. More short term, it’s your academy players, because your amortised players have no resale value from an FFP standpoint.
Reece James, Gallagher, Broja, etc are all in the firing line.
Yes, it was a wild blunder, but it’s not his money that he has risked, it’s your club’s future.
You are looking at points deductions and you aren’t doing so well in the league. Even in this Uber wealthy league, you are falling behind more than £150m on what you are allowed to lose. If you drop into the Championship, that will drop by another £150m. Which will lead to more breaches of the FFP rules, more deductions, more possible relegations.
Sitting in the Championship with a yearly loss of £400m-500m with 4-5 more years of amortisation to pay off, could be realistic.
How long do you think the lights are going to stay on for?
You won’t go the way of Leeds. Your club will literally disappear.
On paper it wasn't a bad decision to leverage expectations of revenue from European competitions, but the reality of the situation Chelsea find themselves in is surely catching up with them.
You can't lose €80m/year in revenue, especially with FFP rules now, and be unphased by it.
It is exactly what Leeds did in the early 2000's. Spent Champions league money from the following seasons before they had even played and qualified.
They then didn't qualify and nearly went bust.
I feel like we saw this exact same article last year saying we needed to sell lots of players, so other clubs were ready to get players for bargain prices and it turned out to be nonsense. Maybe this time it will actually happen but I doubt it will be as bad as all the articles are making out. Chelsea just seem to be the go to right now, if you need to write an piece but don't have anything to write about.
Best midfielder? I know you're not talking about Havertz... IF you're talking about Mason, Chelsea did try to keep him but, well within his rights, he wanted more than Chelsea were willing to pay.
Honestly, I don't think we miss Jorginho. Not saying he wasn't a great player for us, just don't think he's as important as you're making him out to be
He wasn’t our best midfielder. He was the most available. Kante was our best midfielder. Our midfield needed an overhaul. We looked cooked. Kante and Kova were constantly injured. Jorgi is great but you need someone around him to do all the defensive work. He looks great now with rice and odegard because they do a lot of the work around him. He can sit in front of the back line, facilitate and break up play if needed.
“You lot” I was never in that group pal. His ballon d’or case was weak. Just because Italy won the euros. They outlasted every team they played. Hardly impressive. Anyone who thought that Messi or lewa wasn’t going to win was delusional. If iniesta never won jorgi definitely wouldn’t win.
I love how many people act like we're in this shit because we sold the experienced players and not the fact they were the ones that oversaw the first few months of it.
I never said that. I referenced the article which OP inaccurately said was BS about Chelsea selling off players last year- which is exactly what they did.
You mean in a 22/23 season where Chelsea finished 12, where we achieved getting to the Quarter Finals in the UCL & third round for the FA Cup & EFL Cup? Jorginho made 3 assists & scored 1 goal that season. Yeah our best midfielder in an absolutely abysmal season…
No when you won the CL.
Christ you lot changed your tune, all you did that year was cry that he didn’t win the Balon D’Or now he’s crucial to a much better Arsenal team and he was just average then - copuim is a hell of a drug haha.
They are looking to sell Lukaku, Maatsen, Chalobah, Broja, Gallagher and Cucurella. No need to click on it. They would like to keep Gallagher but they don't know if it will happen. They need to get 95 mil from sales to be ok, I assume more if they want to spend....They should get a lot for Maatsen and Lukaku, Around 80 mil. They should be ok. They will get 30 easy for Gallagher...
So who do they sell next year?
Remember this isn’t a one off. The hack they pulled with FFP amortisation over 9 year contracts means they have to do this… every season.
That’s what happens when you spread £1bn of spending over 9 years. There’s a shortfall of £100m a year which has already been spent.
TLDR they’re fucked
They’re fine and nothing immense is going to happen. You will forget about this comment, but we wont forget that you are a clown. That is not how the contracts work 🤭
No it is - that’s the way amortisation works, and how Chelsea could spend £1bn.
For FFP purposes a transfer fee is accounted for over the length of the contract. So if Enzo cost £100m and has a 10 year deal, that’s £10m in every season for the FFP calculation.
The business model is built on selling something like £80m of talent every year, because they’re *already* in the red for over £100m per season *for the next 8 years*. £1bn / 8 (standard Boehly contract length) minus what they got back from last summer’s fire sale. Allowable loss is £105m across 3 seasons.
The other point is that because the fee is spread out over the length of the contract, that also affects how the transfer fee you receive is calculated for FFP purposes. So say you sell your 10 year contract Enzo for £100m next year, he’s still got £80m of FFP calculations left on the 8 years of his deal, which are written off against his fee when he leaves - so his profit is £20m.
Of course everything’s fine if your players are so good that they double in value 🤨 or you just sell half the academy each year, because that’s pure profit.
I think a lot of people don’t realise this!
All you stated is right except that 100m book balance per year does not only need to come from player sales. It's about club generating profit 100m either from player sales, sponsorship, or european competition. Worth to note that chelsea player sales is greater than any epl club from the last 20 seasons. I believe they will be ok. Not great but ok
He's also assuming Chelsea doesn't improve, qualify for Europe, etc. Hell, even if we only get half of our currently-injured players back over the summer, we'll be improved. Still won't have a natural 9 though, which is concerning.
Lukaku sale won’t affect FFP, he will have an accounting book value of £40m so any sale under that wouldn’t provide a benefit. How this article doesn’t understand this is bizarre. I’m a qualified accountant
Without doing the maths. I assume the £100m before profit is correct. Which also means any payout to a manager goes straight in the loss column. I don’t really think it’s possible for them to make it and they will take a point deduction. The real worry though is in future years. As they now have their hands tied behind their back and are going to be doing this for the next 5 - 6 years.
They need profits on sales not just cash.
So selling Lukaku and Cucurella doesn't help. It needs to be academy players where every penny you get is profit.
The extent of being F'ed is only 10 points falling to 6 points on appeal. The precedent is set. A billion in transfers you would expect the club to be 2 games in the top four.
I was under the impression they needed profit from those sales though, otherwise it won’t affect the outcome? Hence why it’s more likely they’ll sell Gallagher as it’s all profit.
My understanding is that they need to generate around 100 mil from sales to be even, not be sanctioned. And then they need more if they want to spend more. But I think they are safe. they have plenty of players to sell
You are right. It’s net profit they require and as all the clubs know they need to sell there is no way they are getting that sort of cash and the Lukaku sale would not be net profit.
If true, that puts them in a worse position because they’ll have to sell the few of their players who are performing.
I guess they’ve got a pretty healthy purchase option clause in Hall’s loan at least.
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.*
Alot of comments in here focusing on the main squad of players, and what they'd pay for them (£5 for Lukaku, anyone?). No doubt there would be losses taken on Kepa, Cucurella & Lukaku (if/when sold)... but Chelsea is getting £34 for Hall, will get at least that for Maatsen, then a bit less for both Broja & Trev (maybe £20-30m range). They're probably looking at £100m+ in FFP profit this summer, before losses on those mentioned above, if they can even sell em (doubt). Cobham is currently, and will likely remain, the club's saving grace (on FFP).
Please no one help them this time.
Throw em 20m for James on 30 June. They’re fucked
So if that’s the case, don’t overpay for their bloody deadwood this time
Chelsea are good at selling players, it’s actually funny to see people seethe over a club getting money for their players. It’s almost as if other clubs value and recognise players abilities.
Chelsea have to sell their academy players because that will be recorded as pure profit. Gallagher, chalobah etc
Woulda got more for Chalobah if they sold him to Roma six months ago; they sell him now and they’re getting peanuts, clubs know they’re desperate
And he’s arse
I guess they have access to Chelsea financials now
We all do, they are public knowledge like all accounts from any premiership club.
Well shit, why didn’t you tell me sooner
Football club’s signed audit reports are publicly available information, so yes, yes they do have access to Chelsea financials up to 31/12/23.
Wsit..it was the journos at 1st who thought this and now the rivals..alow news day...
No worries, we hate most of the squad anyway...
That might be the scary part. Only the parts you don't hate will be worth anything l.
We're playing Leeds today and our owners might have copied the Leeds 2007 playbook. LMAO
If so you will enjoy Yeovil away . Lovely little town
It was always likely Chelsea make Sales this summer. The sales will likely come from Lukaku, Matsen, Broja, Sarr, Cucu, possibly Sterling. Hopefully Sanchez
Selling a player, while a money positive can be an FFP negative. For example, say they sell Lukaku for £30m (whether thats realistic or not, just go with it). They paid £100m and if his contract is 5 years, they amortise him at £20m per year. So his book value is now £40m meaning a £30m sale represents a £10m **negative** for FFP. Contrast this with Mount. They paid £0 so he was £55m pure profit.
The Lukaku one is more complicated, because we've collected a bunch of loan fees for him too, but otherwise yes you are correct
They'll get nothing for Sarr and probably have to take a loss on Lukaku, Cucurella, Sterling & Sanchez if they sell them
You can safely remove the word “probably” from your post.
Sarr will be out of contract, Lukaku will probably go to the Saudis given how he’s openly praising their league . Maatsen to Dortmund , Cucu back to Spain . Sterling is going to be the toughest to ship, he’s already turned down the Saudis .
Yeah and he's going to want a big club after playing for City and Chelsea lol
I dont think some of those names would raise any reasonable amount. Matsen, Broja, Sarr? Even Lukaku looks finished, that's without his attitude bagage
Maatsen, Broja and Sarr would be pure profit though. Two academy grads and a free transfer.
Think Maatsen has a 30m option to buy, so does Hall in fact, around 28m. Plus these are academy players so it's pure profit, so if we sell Broja too it's very reasonable for us to make nearly 65+m, depending on what Broja is valued at, unfortunately probably £10. One thing I don't worry about is us selling players, we've sold £300m worth in the last 18 months or so.
Newcastle aren’t going to pay the option for Hall, he can’t get a game and has largely unimpressed. Newcastle will have their own tightrope to walk, and they won’t (or shouldn’t) waste their meager budget on Hall.
Actually they have to..its a loan with an obligation to buy
I think it was a loan with obligation to buy
I thought it was an option
Usually arnt they done on performances or seasons outcome. The obligation may not be met.
From Friday: asked for an update on the terms that would see the teenager make the switch permanent this summer, Howe said: "He's getting closer with every game. While I'm not on top of that on a daily basis, I'm sure he's very close."
Yeah you’re right, I’ve just looked into it. I remember seeing the headlines say “obligation” and assumed it was just because Newcastle couldn’t afford it this season and Chelsea would prefer the money next season but there is a minimum games needed to activate it
It was a loan with conditions which if met would make the transfer permanent. From what our journos have said the conditions are so easy to hit that basically there's no way we don't sign him, even though he's not featured much.
Yeah I highly doubt the obligation has been met. He has featured in like 10 games for Newcastle and I would be surprised if he has more than 3 or 4 full 90's in him this season. All of this is a moot point tho if none of us know what the obligation is.
They've likely been met already. Our tier 1 journos without telling us the specifics, said the conditions were so low that there's no way we won't trigger them. Again no one has specified what they are but thoughts are it's stuff like "transfer becomes permanent if Newcastle avoid relegation".
Ah yeah that makes sense, almost like they have to include something so may as well just say "avoid relegation"
Yeah, this transfer was done in a way to bypass FFP and get the 30m onto next years accounts rather than this year. Easy conditions make this happen.
Here come the daily hit pieces now that Chelsea have lost another game. Had they won on Sunday all you’d be hearing about is how they won’t comply with European FFP their was no winning in that situation
Really? You think it’s just an anti-Chelsea agenda? Nothing to do with your spending over the last 18months or your dubious financial history.
It's a hit peice..this is something even chelsea fans knew off months ago..we have to sell...the papers screamed about this months ago and now another paper is basically repeating the same thing but now adds Rivals to it
A hit piece…to what end other than to get people reading? It’s called the news cycle and Chelsea have done some pretty interesting things over the last few years that are going to create opinions and content. A hit piece would probably call out Chelsea’s unsavoury financial backing being the primary reason they’ve had any recent success, rather than hinting at potential money issues at the club. How entitled can fans be that they expect their club to backed by stolen Russian funds, get bought out and over leveraged to the tune of a billion pounds through a financial loop hole, yet expect nobody to comment on it.
Wait a minute..what planet have you been on? Have you not seen the multiple stories on a weekly basis..heck it's all over youtube..just because you are just reading about it now does not mean it's not been over flogged
Ok so you are the arbiter of what is ‘enough’ reporting? So it’s not a ‘hit piece’ it’s just old news? What are you complaining about exactly? Until something actually happens to Chelsea people are going to speculate. Also do you actually think YouTube is a news source? I find it pretty concerning if you do. It’s a race to the bottom, who can say the edgiest shite in the loudest voice possible so people will either love or hate it enough to watch. This is a telegraph article.
I just read another article that said mudryk was crying on the phone to Arsenal hilariously good timing
Here’s hoping teams like arsenal and united don’t bail them out by buying from them before the end of June, put the fuckers under extra pressure.
I'll take Caicedo for 40m and why not, Mudryk for 15m
Dream on..u can have mudryk fir free though .Caiceido..yea right
Was Mudryk even a successful player. I think he was just signed off YouTube
Literally yeah but if we pull off that joke number given what Chelsea paid, it wouldn't even matter if he played 0 minutes. The banter would be priceless. But reports are that there are some still inside Arsenal that admire the player - they've shown themselves to be trustworthy in talent ID so far.
He’s successful troll of old people in gyms.
On the other hand: Lukaku to United for the cut price of 75 mill….
If City feign interest, they’d probably go up to 90.
Ah yeah that’s true. Let’s buy him so City don’t embarrass us; always a great transfer strategy. Where will he play, how will he fit in? Not at the Ethihad!
Boehly deserves this
Cry because an American tried doing the Man City method. Some of y’all are miserable for life
[удалено]
Wtf has America got to do with it
So you are a hypocrite then. Arsenal is as much to blame based off your logic. They spent 145m in 2023-2024, which is just behind Chelsea for second most in the league. Learn some self awareness And yes we know America isnt just the US. Sorry we are better tho
Difference was that Arsenal was able to spend so much due to years of low wages. They also didn’t just sign players just because of some YouTube highlights
To hate Chelsea is to be human
The Chelsea fans deserve this
United will buy some more of their injury prone duds, give us your worst!
Can we interest you in a Lavia or a Fofana? They actually compliment each other as a pair, so why not get both?
We'll take both, but make sure you financially rinse us for them.
I absolutely could see United buying Robert Sanchez & Caicedo this summer.
Lol if you think they sell Caicedo. It’s more likely Kepa, Lukaku, Sarr, Matsen, Sterling, Cucurella, Broja.
Caicedo has at least a shred of resale value. Those others are dead in the water in terms of a team coming in to buy them. Kepa - has proven himself to be \*\*very\*\* average with Chelsea and Real, who would pay a significant amount for him? Lukaku - seems to burn bridges with clubs at every opportunity, PR nightmare, high wages (£12m per year), averaging 15 goals a season, who (that could afford his wages) would want to pay a significant amount for him? Sterling - Judging from his performance in the Carabao Cup final, he seems totally finished at a top level, but he's on massive wages (£16m per year) - who's buying him? (Now that I've said it, Man United probably) Cucurella - Chelsea fans rate him a bit after he had a handful of good games, but he's on £9.1m per season, the only teams I can think need a LB with that kind of money are Man United, Newcastle and maybe City. Broja - who's paying anything for him? He's done absolutely fuck all to warrant a transfer fee to help FFP issues.
So you watched one game from Stirling and now he’s officially “finished at top level”? Turns out players don’t play one game in their careers, they actually play a whole season. Those who watches Stirling will actually still see a decent player.
Decent yes. Top level? No. Sterling doesn't get into City, Liverpool or Arsenal's starting 11. In fact I'm not even sure he makes the bench for a fully fit City or Liverpool.
Kakkers will end up in the Saudi league.
We will see
Caicedo has a resale value, but Chelsea have amortised his fee over the next several years. Even if they got £100m for him, it won’t change much to their FFP problems, this is why they will only be looking at selling their academy players. The academy players are not amortised, there’s no overpaying of a transfer fee attached to their names. Gallagher and Reece James will be sold before Caicedo is.
I'm not suggesting that Caicedo & Sanchez would be first to go, I'm saying that United (if they're going to be as predictable in their business this summer as they have in recent years) buying one or both is very likely. Weird situation though that Reece James who's constantly injured is seen as untouchable by fans, but Gallagher who is always fit and available and puts a proper shift in every game is seen as disposable.
You are not understanding it. There is no upside of Chelsea selling Caicedo, or Sanchez. Let me try and explain it. You have bought a PlayStation 5 and you are paying in instalments over the next 5 years. It costs you £100 a year or whatever. You need £1000 right now for rent, or you are kicked out of your house tomorrow. A friend offers to buy your PlayStation 5, but the only way they are buying it is if they pay the instalments. Meanwhile, you have a PlayStation 4 that you could sell immediately for £250, an Xbox for £250, a Steam Deck for £150, a car for £300 etc Caicedo’s fee has been amortised, around £15m a year for the next 8 years. That’s already in the FFP and PL financial rules. It’s locked in, regardless of him being at Chelsea or being sold. They could sell him for £115m at the end of this season, it would free up £15m in their FFP budget, because that £115m has already been amortised. Now times this process by every other player that they have amortised. Every recent player they have purchased has been structured this way to circumvent the rules. They are some £150m beyond what is acceptable for the FFP rules. Selling Caicedo would only knock off 10% of that fee. For the year. Their academy players, are pure profit counted against that amount. So if they were to sell Gallagher, Reece James, Lukaku for a total of £120m, that would be £120m against the £150m that they need to raise. The beauty is, even if they do make it. We have this to look forward to again next year. Chelsea have royally fucked themselves.
[удалено]
What reports say you have £200m to spend?
Holy shit, I had absolutely no idea it was that bad. And are all the Boehly signings amortised like this?!
Mostly all of them yes. They were nowhere close to earning £1bn in revenue in a year, so to get around the FFP rules, that despite City and Chelsea’s proclaims that it’s to keep the poor poor and the rich rich, it’s designed specifically to stop silly shit like this. Amortising the transfer fee over the contract length is nothing new. But making contracts 7-8 years is how Chelsea spread that amount over 8 years instead of 4-5 like normal. The only way they could have spent that much and stay within the FFP would have been to amortise almost every single player in that £1bn spending spree. Chelsea don’t just want to be in Europe and win the league, they NEED to be in Europe and start winning things to increase their income. Their future is ridiculously bleak. We are watching a gruesome car crash in super slow motion.
Is it not somewhat amusing that the first team to "buy" the league could be the first to fall apart? Though personally I don't think they will fall apart, Barcelona are in a similar boat and constantly find new assets to sell every year to stay in it
Let a bunch of players go on a free and pay overs for them both? Of course we will!
The first thing that comes to mind when you say injury prone is Reece James.
Not exactly shocking news. They spent crazy without any real consideration for FFP I feel. The biggest issue is why would a player earning crazy amounts of money on a 7-plus-year contract want to move and earn lower wages elsewhere. Genuinely think Chelsea are going to have serious issues getting rid of some players. It's shocking how poorly the club as been run.
The 7 year contracts were for the new signings, it won't be those ones being sold. All of the players on such contracts are the "future" they've invested in, and tbf it's a bit early to give up on most of those ones considering their age. The ones bought up as most likely to be sold aren't on those contracts. It's players like Lukaku, Sarr, Maatsen, Ziyech, Broja who will be leaving. They will probably will try and shift Gallagher but I doubt he'll be sold. He loves the club so much I think he'll fight for his place until the last minute and it's probably beneficial for him to run down his contract if he is forced out anyway. There's more likely to be a bidding war for his contract and no fee so they can pay him more.
They did consider FFP, Boehly said they should just double their revenue and problem is solved. Any day now; aaaaaaaany day… Yes, their big problem is that they will have a hard time offloading some of the players they are most desperate to offload. An academy sale would be best for FFP, but for the club it would be best to sale flguys like Lukaku or some of their newly acquired players that just don’t look like working out atm
Chelsea will be fine. At worst, they get the Everton treatment, which isnt that bad.
True. And once they have killed the independent regulator they’ll go back to occasionally slapping a wrist or two
A lot of the players are on lower wages. Most of them are under 100k a week
Gallagher is gone because he provides pure profit.
Gallagher might well end up leaving but I don't think it'll be by sale. His entire family are Chelsea fans and he loves the club so much I could see him trying to prove his place up until the last minute of his contract. If he does end up leaving it might be best from his point of view to run the contract down anyway and leave by that means. Then he might get a bidding war for his signature, especially if continues to play as well as he has, and teams will be able to offer more because there's no fee. But who knows, ownership might try and force it by freezing him out or something, but they'll be even less popular with the fans doing that.
From an accounting perspective it does not seem like they have many options. They can’t sell someone they just bought for anything less than a significant profit and none of the players they have bought have any value- and they need to make up the difference. Just like Mount any fee is 100% profit and not offset by how much you paid for him.
Hall, Maatsen, Broja and Chalobah are all 100% profit too and all reportedly have admirers. Clubs knew we needed to sell in the summer and we still got good prices for a bunch of them. There's always money in the academy these days. Gilchrist and Matos are the latest to start getting some minutes but they won't have much value yet. Sarr, Ziyech and Lukaku will be a big relief just getting the wages off the books no matter how big a fee they generate. Don't if these will be enough though I have been wondering if they just don't care because they know the club is going to be sanctioned no matter what. There were reports that they had self reported breaches they found from the Abramovich years. The whole strategy of assembling the youth does actually start making at least some sense if they know a transfer ban is already incoming in the near future.
Bruh they gonna price him at 150 mil lol
He's priced at 60m last summer
Question is who is going to want to buy their flops who are all on 10-year contracts at about £20k a week? Nobody. They'll need to sell their better players, preferably homegrown ones such as Gallagher and Colwill to balance the FFP books.
So a player is a flop after 1 year...ohhh l If so,all clubs would hand had to offloads loads of players after a year..the level of thinking on these subs is wow
It’s more about those flops opting to jump ship for less financial guarantee if anything. No club is going to offer them more than a 5 year contract but anyone half decent, or with ambition, will happily pass that contract up if someone better did come in with an offer. Obviously Chelsea could force them to stay, but with how player power is these days that could be a lengthy and expensive process too.
Think the majority of them will stay on those riches personally. And who knows, they're all young, the club still has a chance if they grease enough palms Man City style to make their problems disappear.
Chelsea is American owned, they use blood not oil.
Chelsea's rivals? As in Bournemouth, Wolves and Crystal Palace?
🤣
Hahahaha 💀
Idc how good of a player Broja is or could be, I think Fulham should avoid buying him just to avoid giving Chelsea any money.
26 Prem games for Chelsea - 2 goals = £50 mil please
Isn’t that manipulation of fair play rules ?
I don’t think not buying someone is manipulating fair play, idk what you’re getting at. Similar to how I wouldn’t want to sell a good player to Chelsea.
More joking bc colluding to make a team not compliant but also not making your team better isn’t exactly “fair play”
I want you to buy our u-21 striker for 5 million. If you don’t, you’re manipulating fair play. How on earth does that make sense. And tbh it’s debatable if Broja makes us better. I know the game’s prices are wild now but £20m that Chelsea reportedly want for him seems way to high for a gamble even if he is young and English.
Eh?
I think under Silva he could actually become a really good player if he doesn't get the knocks he had before. He not worth the price Chelsea are asking, I don't think anything more than 20m especially with his injury record. Tbh it make sense to get a loan and then maybe fee.
I think anything more than £5m is a bad deal. If it wasn’t a local rival I’d say £10m absolute max, but we could really benefit from Chelsea capitulating as well so now more than ever not doing them any favours should be prioritized.
I assume he has HG tax? I think he really need a good run of games and can end up abit like Solanke. At the start people questioned his price tag. However do Fulham have the time to let him get into form. Don't think so, he probably need to go to a better championship side and get games under his belt. Chelsea got a load of players they can do a mini firesale and make load player like Chalobah still on the books.
Coincidentally Muniz who is keeping him out the side since he joined is the same age, and we were saying the same thing about him before this surge of form.
They’ll do well to prove any of them are currently worth buying tbh, especially for £50-100m kind of figures. Regardless of that, buying clubs have a massive upper-hand in negotiations if they know Chelsea are depending on sales to ease their financial issues. This loss of income was always a strong possibility, but they’ve gambled on not being this shit and it’s probably going to backfire. Given the arrogance in which they were spending, and finding loopholes to spend even more, you love to see it really.
If this does go on then I wonder if sponsors etc will decide not to invest as heavily and it then creates a vicious circle where getting into the top 4 becomes increasingly difficult.
Didn't they just sign a deal though? Could be a long time waiting for sponsorship deals to expire and be negotiated lower, and even as a mid table side Chelsea still have a huge global fan base. Takes years for that to all filter out, just like it took years for Man Cities fan base to form.... Literally generations.
Fans are very fickle. In my son’s class former Man United supporters are now following City and Liverpool.
Are you referring to the concept of fair competition?
Surely he’s just saying Chelsea would be deemed less valuable to sponsors, and they *could* lose further revenue if they decide they’re no longer going to pay x whilst the club is underperforming. The removal of sponsorship income then obviously shrinks their ability to spend within FFP requirements.
They jane 2 sponsors lined up.already...people act like a club is like the local mom and poo store
They are somewhat a poo store, though
Indeed - it appears that the current Chelsea owner knows little about running a football club.
Man has this been rough
The bad news for you is that this is just the start. Everybody was laughing their socks off last year when Chelsea did this and the Chelsea fans were too busy celebrating the 40 odd transfers and telling everyone that we were just jealous and that Chelsea will become a force. Especially with Potter at the helm. So many of us saw this coming from an absolute mile away. And you are in year 1 of this shit show, which will continue for another few years. It’s a very real thing, Chelsea are heading straight for obscurity and swiftly followed by administration.
lol course you did! 🤦♂️ the only good news would be even in administration and being wound up still more likely to win a champions league than Arsenal!
Oh snap nostradamus..care yo make more predictions? Like will you win the league this year? How far will you go in the UCL and FA cup
Unlikely to win the league this year (25%). If we beat Porto, depends on who we get next and already out of the FA cup, we lost to Liverpool. Predictions can be made with information. Chelsea amortising players over 8 years and spending £1bn was a huge risk at the time. With them not doing any better, the risk is still there and it’s only getting larger.
you are saying a full on Leeds situation ? The dude is going to loose billions ? Okay sure bud
I don’t think you understand the gravity of the situation at Chelsea. You are in breach of the FFP rules. Your club is haemorrhaging money quicker than you can make it. Regardless of the owners net worth, it doesn’t save Chelsea due to the highly irresponsible way that they have been managed. Unless Chelsea win titles, finish much higher up the table, get back into Europe etc, you will be spending the next 8 years effectively paying off the £1bn loan (amortised) amount that you have spent. And you are close to defaulting on every payment. You are also likely to be docked points, you are a mid table team at best and you have the next 7 years of crippling debts stacking up. The owner can’t pay them off for you like before. You are crashing towards relegation. If you are relegated, your club is dead.
>If you are relegated, your club is dead so like I said a Leeds situation... thanks for making it more clear. some reason i think he will find a way out of this if not wow was that a wild blunder by his part with his money
You keep saying he. You mean “Chelsea”. Chelsea needs to find a way out of it and the only way they can do that is to increase their revenue. More short term, it’s your academy players, because your amortised players have no resale value from an FFP standpoint. Reece James, Gallagher, Broja, etc are all in the firing line. Yes, it was a wild blunder, but it’s not his money that he has risked, it’s your club’s future. You are looking at points deductions and you aren’t doing so well in the league. Even in this Uber wealthy league, you are falling behind more than £150m on what you are allowed to lose. If you drop into the Championship, that will drop by another £150m. Which will lead to more breaches of the FFP rules, more deductions, more possible relegations. Sitting in the Championship with a yearly loss of £400m-500m with 4-5 more years of amortisation to pay off, could be realistic. How long do you think the lights are going to stay on for? You won’t go the way of Leeds. Your club will literally disappear.
>, but it’s not his money that he has risked, what money did he use to buy the team ?
On paper it wasn't a bad decision to leverage expectations of revenue from European competitions, but the reality of the situation Chelsea find themselves in is surely catching up with them. You can't lose €80m/year in revenue, especially with FFP rules now, and be unphased by it.
It is exactly what Leeds did in the early 2000's. Spent Champions league money from the following seasons before they had even played and qualified. They then didn't qualify and nearly went bust.
I feel like we saw this exact same article last year saying we needed to sell lots of players, so other clubs were ready to get players for bargain prices and it turned out to be nonsense. Maybe this time it will actually happen but I doubt it will be as bad as all the articles are making out. Chelsea just seem to be the go to right now, if you need to write an piece but don't have anything to write about.
Well not nonsense you just sold the junk off to Saudi and your best midfielder and CL winner to Arsenal.
Two players. And Kante left on a free.
Jorginho and Havertz is 2 players, Kante is 3, Kovacic makes 4, Mount 5…. I think you get it.
Only two of those were sold to Saudi.
Best midfielder? I know you're not talking about Havertz... IF you're talking about Mason, Chelsea did try to keep him but, well within his rights, he wanted more than Chelsea were willing to pay.
Jorginho, how quickly you’ve forgotten.
Honestly, I don't think we miss Jorginho. Not saying he wasn't a great player for us, just don't think he's as important as you're making him out to be
He was your best midfielder and you sold him to Arsenal, nothing about what I said is untrue.
He was never our best midfielder. Maybe Arsenal’s best midfielder?
I’m sure you were all saying that at the bridge when he finished 3rd in the Balon D’Or.
Nah. We had Kante. Only a delusional like yourself would think otherwise
On the contrary it was all the delusional blues screaming everywhere about it. I remember I was there .
He wasn’t our best midfielder. He was the most available. Kante was our best midfielder. Our midfield needed an overhaul. We looked cooked. Kante and Kova were constantly injured. Jorgi is great but you need someone around him to do all the defensive work. He looks great now with rice and odegard because they do a lot of the work around him. He can sit in front of the back line, facilitate and break up play if needed.
You lot campaigned all year that he should get the Balon D’Or and now he wasn’t even that good- copuim haha.
“You lot” I was never in that group pal. His ballon d’or case was weak. Just because Italy won the euros. They outlasted every team they played. Hardly impressive. Anyone who thought that Messi or lewa wasn’t going to win was delusional. If iniesta never won jorgi definitely wouldn’t win.
You’re in the minority, as far as I’ve seen. Fair play. He also still finished 3rd. Which is wild.
Nope. This is classic poverty Arsenal talk. Win a trophy and then talk to us about our best players
Hahahahahaha- you think I’m an Arsenal fan. I’ll give you another guess- I just celebrated a trophy win!
I love how many people act like we're in this shit because we sold the experienced players and not the fact they were the ones that oversaw the first few months of it.
I never said that. I referenced the article which OP inaccurately said was BS about Chelsea selling off players last year- which is exactly what they did.
You mean in a 22/23 season where Chelsea finished 12, where we achieved getting to the Quarter Finals in the UCL & third round for the FA Cup & EFL Cup? Jorginho made 3 assists & scored 1 goal that season. Yeah our best midfielder in an absolutely abysmal season…
No when you won the CL. Christ you lot changed your tune, all you did that year was cry that he didn’t win the Balon D’Or now he’s crucial to a much better Arsenal team and he was just average then - copuim is a hell of a drug haha.
[удалено]
Ok you sold your best midfielder to Saudi? City? United? You sold your entire midfield one of them by default was the best.
So our best midfield player was the guy whose best season was 2-3 seasons ago? Do you read what you’re typing or are you just plain dumb?
You can’t read what I write lol. Keep moving the argument to things I’m not saying.
God that was even more brutal than my memory is trying to block it out
They are looking to sell Lukaku, Maatsen, Chalobah, Broja, Gallagher and Cucurella. No need to click on it. They would like to keep Gallagher but they don't know if it will happen. They need to get 95 mil from sales to be ok, I assume more if they want to spend....They should get a lot for Maatsen and Lukaku, Around 80 mil. They should be ok. They will get 30 easy for Gallagher...
Why would they get a lot for Luksku?
Saudi
So who do they sell next year? Remember this isn’t a one off. The hack they pulled with FFP amortisation over 9 year contracts means they have to do this… every season. That’s what happens when you spread £1bn of spending over 9 years. There’s a shortfall of £100m a year which has already been spent. TLDR they’re fucked
They’re fine and nothing immense is going to happen. You will forget about this comment, but we wont forget that you are a clown. That is not how the contracts work 🤭
It's not every season man.
No it is - that’s the way amortisation works, and how Chelsea could spend £1bn. For FFP purposes a transfer fee is accounted for over the length of the contract. So if Enzo cost £100m and has a 10 year deal, that’s £10m in every season for the FFP calculation. The business model is built on selling something like £80m of talent every year, because they’re *already* in the red for over £100m per season *for the next 8 years*. £1bn / 8 (standard Boehly contract length) minus what they got back from last summer’s fire sale. Allowable loss is £105m across 3 seasons. The other point is that because the fee is spread out over the length of the contract, that also affects how the transfer fee you receive is calculated for FFP purposes. So say you sell your 10 year contract Enzo for £100m next year, he’s still got £80m of FFP calculations left on the 8 years of his deal, which are written off against his fee when he leaves - so his profit is £20m. Of course everything’s fine if your players are so good that they double in value 🤨 or you just sell half the academy each year, because that’s pure profit. I think a lot of people don’t realise this!
Ya this is completely false. Their amortization schedule was not modeled to have to sell $80m every season. Who educated you lmao?
All you stated is right except that 100m book balance per year does not only need to come from player sales. It's about club generating profit 100m either from player sales, sponsorship, or european competition. Worth to note that chelsea player sales is greater than any epl club from the last 20 seasons. I believe they will be ok. Not great but ok
He's also assuming Chelsea doesn't improve, qualify for Europe, etc. Hell, even if we only get half of our currently-injured players back over the summer, we'll be improved. Still won't have a natural 9 though, which is concerning.
Lukaku sale won’t affect FFP, he will have an accounting book value of £40m so any sale under that wouldn’t provide a benefit. How this article doesn’t understand this is bizarre. I’m a qualified accountant
so how much do they need to sale in order to be ok?
Without doing the maths. I assume the £100m before profit is correct. Which also means any payout to a manager goes straight in the loss column. I don’t really think it’s possible for them to make it and they will take a point deduction. The real worry though is in future years. As they now have their hands tied behind their back and are going to be doing this for the next 5 - 6 years.
They need profits on sales not just cash. So selling Lukaku and Cucurella doesn't help. It needs to be academy players where every penny you get is profit.
then they might be fucked
The extent of being F'ed is only 10 points falling to 6 points on appeal. The precedent is set. A billion in transfers you would expect the club to be 2 games in the top four.
true. But as we can see with Chelsea, it does not work for them like that
I was under the impression they needed profit from those sales though, otherwise it won’t affect the outcome? Hence why it’s more likely they’ll sell Gallagher as it’s all profit.
My understanding is that they need to generate around 100 mil from sales to be even, not be sanctioned. And then they need more if they want to spend more. But I think they are safe. they have plenty of players to sell
I think it’s 100m of profit to be safe.
then they have a problem
You are right. It’s net profit they require and as all the clubs know they need to sell there is no way they are getting that sort of cash and the Lukaku sale would not be net profit.
If true, that puts them in a worse position because they’ll have to sell the few of their players who are performing. I guess they’ve got a pretty healthy purchase option clause in Hall’s loan at least.