[Football] Chelsea - Spending well beyond FFP limits or astute purchases maxing out within FFP?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊







Nobby

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2007
2,892
prob not. But one day something like the authorities getting a backbone will have to happen…

What’s happening with all the Man City rule breaks on that note? 🤦🏻‍♂️
2,000 lawyers working on it as we speak.
Oh and a couple of them are with the Premier League.
 


Doc Lynam

I hate the Daily Mail
Jun 19, 2011
7,348
They’re rumoured to have connections in Saudi. Given how quickly they offloaded other players there I suspect they will recoup a lot of their money in the fullness of time.
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,713
The Fatherland
Simon Jordan spoke about this the other day. He reckons they’re just about okay at the moment as they are off-loading players as well. Whilst purchases are amortized over the duration of the contract sales are more a big lump e.g. buy 5 players for 1m each on 5 year contracts that’s 1m per year in the accounts. Sell a player for 1m and you’re breaking even.

This makes sense to me although I have not looked at the exact figures in the Chelsea case. That said, they do now seem to be a hostage to fortune.
 
Last edited:




Mo Gosfield

Well-known member
Aug 11, 2010
6,362
I think it’s within FFP because they are loading all liabilities into the future. Dangerous game to play.

I reckon Todd cares little for the Premier League and is just waiting for the European Super League to come along, which will be financed by the Saudis and feature all the original crooks plus clubs from Saudi Arabia and one from Qatar (after all, they didn’t host that World Cup for nothing did they?)
Oh dear god....please let it happen.....then the rest of us pawns, in a game we can never win and will never be allowed to win, can start enjoying our domestic football again and let the greed and corruption tear itself to pieces away from these shores.
 


Mo Gosfield

Well-known member
Aug 11, 2010
6,362
Sky reporting Lavia deal agreed at 58m …..Chelsea look set to sign there 900th player in a year….ok I exaggerate….slightly
Its stopping rivals getting players.
They hijacked the Mudryk deal, when he had agreed to join Arsenal. Clearly influenced Cashseedough some months before ( " I said yes to them in May "......errrr....doesn't that make you in breach of contract? ) and made damn sure they killed off Liverpool and now the same thing with Lavia. Now we learn that they have their sights set on Olise, despite interest from other big clubs.
Its a tawdry, sham of a club, financially bullying their way back up the ladder and sticking two fingers up on the way.
 


Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
12,136
Simon Jordan spoke about this the other day. He reckons they’re just about okay at the moment as they are off-loading players as well. Whilst purchases are amortized over the duration of the contract sales are more a big lump e.g. buy 5 players for 1m each on 5 year contracts that’s 1m per year in the accounts. Sell a player for 1m and you’re breaking even.

This makes sense to me although I have not looked at the exact figures in the Chelsea case. That said, they do now seem to be a hostage to fortune.
Jordan's back of a fag packet amortisation for Todd's regime has them at about £135m per year for the next 7-8 years.
The wage bill must be at least a further £175m, probably more
On top of this there may be existing amortisation costs for some of the players still on their books, from the previous regime.

Chelsea's income was about £400m when they were in the UCL.
I assume that will come down to £300m next season.

They'll be ok this season because they've made £200m profit on sales.
Failing to make UCL this season is not an option for them.
Hence why they are buying up all the talent and blocking Liverpool's main targets.
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,713
The Fatherland
Jordan's back of a fag packet amortisation for Todd's regime has them at about £135m per year for the next 7-8 years.
The wage bill must be at least a further £175m, probably more
On top of this there may be existing amortisation costs for some of the players still on their books, from the previous regime.

Chelsea's income was about £400m when they were in the UCL.
I assume that will come down to £300m next season.

They'll be ok this season because they've made £200m profit on sales.
Failing to make UCL this season is not an option for them.
Hence why they are buying up all the talent and blocking Liverpool's main targets.
Agree, as I say they’re a hostage to fortune. CL will also be tougher with Newcastle in the mix. f*** ‘Em.
 


Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
12,136
Agree, as I say they’re a hostage to fortune. CL will also be tougher with Newcastle in the mix. f*** ‘Em.
Well quite.

Also there are a number of quality teams outside the top 6/7 that will nick points from them.
I think the Todd has a flawed view of the Premier League, based on past performance, rather than the current relative strengths, of the teams in the division.
 


southstandandy

WEST STAND ANDY
Jul 9, 2003
6,048
Aren't they essentially spending money in advance of the next few years transfer budgets by buying players and spreading their costs over a long period of time?

Surely next summer and the ones thereafter they will have less to spend as they will already have used up a large percentage of their budgets this summer (unless they sell a bucket load of players).
 




Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
58,792
hassocks
If true the punishment has to be double or triple relegation. Simple as that. Or there literally is no point.

We've seen with City/Everton/Chelsea there is no point

May as well spend away, you will get a small fine or the charges will just go away.
 


Hamilton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
12,953
Brighton
Agree, as I say they’re a hostage to fortune. CL will also be tougher with Newcastle in the mix. f*** ‘Em.
Let's hope they crash and burn. Let Chelsea become an example of what not to do rather than an example of greed and entitlement rewarded.

If I were a true Chelsea fan, I'd be worried. I could easily see myself in 5 years time (when all those Asian and African fans have started following some other club) rocking up on NSC saying that 'they come in peace and want help getting rid of our corrupt owners before we're relegated and do a Bolton.'
 


Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,450
Oxton, Birkenhead
As ever the fair and reasonable answer is obvious and will never happen.

There should be a UEFA wide salary cap adjusted to your country’s coefficient and based on the median audited revenue of the top division of said country.

Too many vested interests and people shitting themselves over Saudi though.
The issue with that idea for the most successful clubs is that it makes it more difficult for existing elites to be challenged. Chelsea and Man City are effectively ignoring FFP because otherwise they would not have been able to challenge Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, RM who have spent decades outspending everyone else. I honestly don’t think there is an answer to this within existing structures. Blame Jimmy Hill and everyone who came after him. There will never be a level playing field unless tv money is distributed equally throughout the game rather than just to the most successful which just embeds the status quo and encourages the wrong kind of owners.
 




TWOCHOICEStom

Well-known member
Sep 22, 2007
10,912
Brighton
I think it’s within FFP because they are loading all liabilities into the future. Dangerous game to play.

I reckon Todd cares little for the Premier League and is just waiting for the European Super League to come along, which will be financed by the Saudis and feature all the original crooks plus clubs from Saudi Arabia and one from Qatar (after all, they didn’t host that World Cup for nothing did they?)

I can picture it now. Though the next time round I think they'll have got enough influential people on board to drastically change how it's reported in the media.
 


May 1, 2023
66
The Athletic had a fairly balanced article yesterday explaining how FFP applies to Chelsea and coming to the conclusion that they're probably ok for now.

However, it's a high risk strategy and are banking on European qualification, inflation in prices etc to pull it off. Should one 9f those fall through then they're going to be in a pickle quite quickly.

It also raised questions about the speed and effectiveness of FFP. Firstly it's based on accounts which are only ever normally available around Marcj the following season. And for people who have money, what is an appropriate penalty - it's unlikely to be financial so would need to be points deduction or barring from European competition (as I believe the PL need to notiknally nominate the team each year)
 


Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,450
Oxton, Birkenhead
I can picture it now. Though the next time round I think they'll have got enough influential people on board to drastically change how it's reported in the media.
I think opinion within football has hardened against these clubs and a lot of people would now be happy to see them go. This opinion will lead the reporting rather than the other way around. It has to be a full departure from English football though.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,196
Goldstone
I think it’s within FFP because they are loading all liabilities into the future. Dangerous game to play.

I reckon Todd cares little for the Premier League and is just waiting for the European Super League to come along, which will be financed by the Saudis and feature all the original crooks plus clubs from Saudi Arabia and one from Qatar (after all, they didn’t host that World Cup for nothing did they?)
Were that to happen, no club from outside the group should ever play any club in it. So we get the PL, La Liga, etc etc, without a few soulless teams. We'll continue with our existing competitions, including things like the CL, and those clubs won't be involved.

I think they'd fail.
 




Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,196
Goldstone
And for people who have money, what is an appropriate penalty - it's unlikely to be financial so would need to be points deduction or barring from European competition
Obviously. Clubs breaking the rules should be banned for like 5 years. As well as any punishment the PL can also apply.
 


ElectricNaz

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2013
965
Hampshire
They're probably okay - looking at the young talent they have, and amortisation rules, even with the suggested £135m per season they have baked into their accounts for the best part of the next decade, that's effectively only one or two decent players being sold to Saudi every season, to be okay. If not, some lovely commercial deals which aren't at all shady will help bridge any remaining gap.

For context, that is more than offset with the £220m they have brought in this season (minus any write off for Koulibaly & Mendy who are probably the only two with any real "value" left following their initial deals recently).

And, by all accounts, their wage bill has more than likely come down given the focus on lower paid youngsters on longer deals.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top