[Albion] Chelsea and FFP

[warmleyseagull]

I am probably missing something but how can Chelsea be anywhere near complying with UEFA rules if they spend big in January as reported here: https://www.chelsea-news.co/2022/09...to-continue-into-the-january-transfer-window/.

The squad cost rule (90% of revenue reducing to 70% of revenue to be spent on squad costs, including transfers) comes in for 23/24 but first test comes for period Jan-Dec 23. From https://www.skysports.com/football/...ulations-to-replace-ffp-all-you-need-to-know:

"....in 2023 clubs will be assessed from January to December. They will find out in May 2024 whether they have broken any rules. If they have, their punishment will be applied for the start of the season three months later."

Clearly going balls out now with this in mind (and appointing Potter with aim of promoting from junior ranks rather than signing players) but not sustainable even in Jan.

But I am probably missing something...

 

[Insel affe]

But I am probably missing something...

Yeah, the "Top six rule"

Ignore any rules, we have an academy full of the best young players, poached from any upcoming teams, we have at least 12 Premier League ready players out on loan so we have cover if we get a transfer ban, and an abundance of wealth to mitigate any fine imposed.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Including the cost of replacing Tuchel, how much have Chelsea spent this 'window'?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

should have checked out the article.

According to The Evening Standard, Chelsea spent a whopping £273m in the summer transfer window that ended last Thursday.

273 + 21M - wow

 

[Wozza]

The irony is that Chelsea would hugely benefit from a transfer ban for a couple of seasons (as Lampard did for a while).

Potter would be left to work with what he has and improve the players, with less of the pressure for instant success.

 

[dadams2k11]

That's Chelsea's problem, not ours.

 

[Weststander]

The irony is that Chelsea would hugely benefit from a transfer ban for a couple of seasons (as Lampard did for a while).

Potter would be left to work with what he has and improve the players, with less of the pressure for instant success.

The Chelsea ban was reduced on appeal … no surprise, they lost just one transfer window!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50668975

Just before and after the tiny ban, signing Giroud, Barkley, Palmieri, Kovacic, Higuan and Pulisic £58m,

What a joke.

 

[Swansman]

Permanent transfer ban for every club is the way to go IMO

That day might be quite far away however..

 

[nwgull]

Including the cost of replacing Tuchel, how much have Chelsea spent this 'window'?

Net transfer spend of 200m; Potter release of 20m; and presumably paying off Tuchel's contract to the tune of 30m: 250m!

 

[Jim in the West]

They are already on UEFA's "watch list" (reserved for those who would have broken FFP rules but for Covid-related reliefs - which we all know are rather flexible. See: Everton).

 

[The Wizard]

Bogus sponsorships or just paying the fines.

Financial fair play is bollocks.

 

[Doonhamer7]

On top of transfer fees - I can’t imagine many of the signings were on less than £100k a week

 

[Gwylan]

If they're floating close to FFP limits, how are they going to afford the £75m+ for Caicedo that is being widely touted?

 

[kevo]

It would be nice to know they'd be banned from signing our entire squad in January.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Because although they have spent a lot on players, that cost isn't immediate on their books (and why we won't be spending £100m in January - see war chest thread)

If they sign someone for £60m, and give them a 6 year deal, the cost appears as £10m a season (+ wages) in their accounts (Amortisation)

So if they spent £250m and say they all had 5 year deals, that's only £50m a season they've committed and with their Champions League income, PL income, sponsorship deals, etc... that would be a small percentage of their annual income (c£400m? pa)

 

[Weststander]

If they're floating close to FFP limits, how are they going to afford the £75m+ for Caicedo that is being widely touted?

TalkRadio had an interesting (genuinely ) 30 minute chat with [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION] a couple of Sundays ago, essentially discussing summer 2022 transfer spending, UEFA FFP and EPL financial sustainability rules.

The conclusion I took away was that ultimately clubs when challenged EACH engage several top firms of lawyers using attrition and financial muscle, to get their own way over the EPL and UEFA. Behind the scenes the EPL are negotiating with cheats such as Everton (£100m annual losses from overspending, who are pretending that two years of that was due to behind-closed-doors). It all came across as weak as dishwater.

 

[Weststander]

Because although they have spent a lot on players, that cost isn't immediate on their books (and why we won't be spending £100m in January - see war chest thread)

If they sign someone for £60m, and give them a 6 year deal, the cost appears as £10m a season (+ wages) in their accounts (Amortisation)

So if they spent £250m and say they all had 5 year deals, that's only £50m a season they've committed and with their Champions League income, PL income, sponsorship deals, etc... that would be a small percentage of their annual income (c£400m? pa)

But doing that for 15 or 20 players, means that eventually Citeh, Everton, Chelsea and soon Newcastle, do break the rules they signed up to.

 

[southstandandy]

Man City showed that FFP is just a guidance - if you wish to break it the penalty will only be financial (which can be paid by the directors of the club - not the club themselves). Any potential European ban as was threatened to City was overturned with an expensive lawyer appeal, so effectively if Chelsea want and can afford to spend a billion on squad strengthening, then there's nothing to really stop them.

A relatively small fine as a consequence is not going to put the super rich off from indulging in mass spending if thats what they want.

 

[El Presidente]

TalkRadio had an interesting (genuinely ) 30 minute chat with [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION] a couple of Sundays ago, essentially discussing summer 2022 transfer spending, UEFA FFP and EPL financial sustainability rules.

The conclusion I took away was that ultimately clubs when challenged EACH engage several top firms of lawyers using attrition and financial muscle, to get their own way over the EPL and UEFA. Behind the scenes the EPL are negotiating with cheats such as Everton (£100m annual losses from overspending, who are pretending that two years of that was due to behind-closed-doors). It all came across as weak as dishwater.

I think you spelt 'dull' incorrectly!

 

[Weststander]

I think you spelt 'dull' incorrectly!

I admire your diplomacy in FFP/Financial Sustainability media interviews, when the line of questioning is pointedly towards specific clubs, the usual suspects Everton, Chelsea and City. You never say enough to annoy the clubs themselves.

I’d be blunt and make loads of enemies in the sport

Creep.