[Albion] £115m

[Soton Seagull]

Seems fitting that today is international Lizard day (no really - look it up)

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Definitely not. The reports are they had to the extra £4M because the payment schedule wasn’t as good as Liverpool’s.

Agree but it was stated by a number of reports Liverpool's was a one off payment perhaps accepting 11m less but 15m in add on's might mean Chelsea are having to cough up the majority in one lump. Interested to know if the sell on has to be paid straight away.

 

[The Fits]

If it's 100 with add ons why is this being reported as a record 115 when Macs Is constantly quoted as a bargain 35?
Either they're 100 and 35 plus add ons or 115 and 55...headlines I guess.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I would be very surprised if they did. I reckon they are borrowing money for these signings ... at eye watering interest rates.

This combined with the 8 year deals they are offering players and massive wages, says to me, that they need to be making big big money in 3 or 4 years time.

Big money comes from where? Shirt sales in China? TV rights in India?

I gather that ManUre have been minting it on shirt sales for 20+ years. I know sincere people from Singapore and elsewhere who are lifelong ManUre fans, having never set foot in Blighty, who buy the shirts and watch every game on the tellybox.

I know we are not anywhere near that. FFS if you leave it a week you can't buy a home shirt these days even if you live in Falmer becaause all 5000 in your size are sold out.

So where do Chelsea fit in here? Abramovic was content to throw money at them with no requirement to make money. It seems that Beuaeuhley imagines untold riches of income are around the corner. Is he deluded?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I've heard several times that Chelsea and Hove Albion have paid £100 Million "up front" , to me that would mean all of that paid in one go, with the remaining to be paid when the targets are hit

That would be fantastic if true, but do they really have £100 000 000 ready cash to transfer?

They mean the 100m is guaranteed. They won't be paying us that much money in one go, sadly. Doesn't REALLY matter as all goes into this year's accounts though as I understand it.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Agree but it was stated by a number of reports Liverpool's was a one off payment perhaps accepting 11m less but 15m in add on's might mean Chelsea are having to cough up the majority in one lump. Interested to know if the sell on has to be paid straight away.

Indeed. If so then the deal payment details, if structured over a number of years, might mean not much net cash in this year from the sale.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Big money comes from where? Shirt sales in China? TV rights in India?

I gather that ManUre have been minting it on shirt sales for 20+ years. I know sincere people from Singapore and elsewhere who are lifelong ManUre fans, having never set foot in Blighty, who buy the shirts and watch every game on the tellybox.

I know we are not anywhere near that. FFS if you leave it a week you can't buy a home shirt these days even if you live in Falmer becaause all 5000 in your size are sold out.

So where do Chelsea fit in here? Abramovic was content to throw money at them with no requirement to make money. It seems that Beuaeuhley imagines untold riches of income are around the corner. Is he deluded?

Does anyone in this region purchase genuine merch, or is it all knock offs, from which the club receives nothing?

 

[FatSuperman]

It's much less exciting than that. I read there was a 20% sell on clause due to Independiente which means we get 85 mill. Amortise that over the contract length and Chelsea's FFP exposure is around 10 mill a year. There's no big money button that The Todd has to pay now AFAIK. I assume we won't be getting it over 8 years so our cash flow should be decent to get replacements in but Chelsea were definitely offering less up front than Liverpool according to informed reports.

Those are two different things aren't they?

Chelsea have spent £115m on this player, they have to amortise that over the length of his contract (but for UEFA FFP, it is calculated over 5 years).

But that isn't the same as cash flow - the amount they pay us / Independiente is solely based on the agreement we've struck isn't it? Which I doubt we'll ever know for sure - the finances next year will give us some strong clues. I'm very certain that we wouldn't have accepted a drop feed of money over 8 years though.

 

[el punal]

So which stand are we renaming? I mean, an investment of nearly a quarter of a billion must get you something? Maybe the junior seagulls can become the Todd Squad.

It will be the soon-to-be-built outside toilet block named after him. For the reason that if it’s do with Brighton we take the piss and he then shits himself.

 

[Springal]

Those are two different things aren't they?

Chelsea have spent £115m on this player, they have to amortise that over the length of his contract (but for UEFA FFP, it is calculated over 5 years).

Irrelevant as they aren’t in any UEFA competitions this season, and players they sign this season won’t count towards next (if they qualify)

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

It's much less exciting than that. I read there was a 20% sell on clause due to Independiente which means we get 85 mill. Amortise that over the contract length and Chelsea's FFP exposure is around 10 mill a year. There's no big money button that The Todd has to pay now AFAIK. I assume we won't be getting it over 8 years so our cash flow should be decent to get replacements in but Chelsea were definitely offering less up front than Liverpool according to informed reports.

The amount we have to pay Caicedos former club makes no difference to Chelsea and their accounts.

They still have to pay £100m or £115m for the player so the effect on their accounts and the amount the have to amortise is still the same. We have to show the money we’ve paid Independiente on our accounts.

How and when it’s paid to us doesn’t effect our ability to sign a replacement either as any deal we make for an incoming player is likely to be spread over a number of years as nearly all transfer fees are paid in this way.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Does anyone in this region purchase genuine merch, or is it all knock offs, from which the club receives nothing?

It seems it is eye watering, and that Chelsea do have a foot in this market. However.....2 million shirts sold at £50 a pop is only £100 million. That's one Caicedo (missing an ear and 7 fingers). Perhaps @El Presidente can add some more flesh to this (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1118294/football-shirt-sales-by-club/):

 

[The Fits]

I'm absolutely amazed that Bayern sell the most shirts.

 

[7dialssouthpaw]

Good news for Independiente del Valle as well. It only seems right that some of the money sloshing around filters back to the clubs where players like Moises start their careers.

... and from our point of view positive, since they may look kindly on favouring us when looking to place any new talent. A golden reach-around.

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

 

[dazzer6666]

The amount we have to pay Caicedos former club makes no difference to Chelsea and their accounts.

They still have to pay £100m or £115m for the player so the effect on their accounts and the amount the have to amortise is still the same. We have to show the money we’ve paid Independiente on our accounts.

How and when it’s paid to us doesn’t effect our ability to sign a replacement either as any deal we make for an incoming player is likely to be spread over a number of years as nearly all transfer fees are paid in this way.

Agreed - or ours - we’ll either have all the cash, or it’ll be in the debtors column in the accounts (as it’ll be in the creditors column in theirs). Effect on the BS is the same.

 

[Javeaseagull]

We wouldn’t want all the money in one tax year anyway would we? Think what you would lose to tax. Spurs and Barcelona went on a splurge with the Bale and Neymar money and that went well didn’t it!

 

[southstandandy]

Call the Police. Chelsea have been mugged!

 

[dazzer6666]

It will be the soon-to-be-built outside toilet block named after him. For the reason that if it’s do with Brighton we take the piss and he then shits himself.

The Boehly Bowls ?

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I was just wondering about this. I’ve always assumed that a sell-on clause gives the original club a %age of the profit of a future sale, so Albion would get a cut in this case if Chelsea sell MC for more that £115m. Is that the case, or might a sell-on clause give a cut of *any* sale?

Profit, I think.