[Football] More possible FFP issues for Chelsea?

[MJsGhost]

Wasn't the long term for those players just become really really rich?

Jackpot.

£100k pw for 8 years is over £40m.

That goes a long way, even when you have 10 siblings (or whatever it is) to feed.

 

[Terry Connor]

Indeed. I've got to be honest, but I was disappointed with what I heard from @El Presidente on Talksport Sunday morning, and the sympathy he expressed with the Geordie journalist who wants his murderous owners to be able to spend away and buy the glory. Without these controls what stops every club being bought up by Middle East and American multi billionaires fueling yet more insane spending and further unsustainable inflation? This is what puts clubs at risk. All I can see from the controls coming in are some sensible restriction coming into transfer fees, and more sensible wage structures as FFP finally looks like it has the potential to take hold. We are the epitome of showing there is another way to compete. There definitely seems to be a media agenda to rip up the rule book and take us back to square one. I much prefer a world where a new Ambromovich cant fund that sort of glory with filthy money again, and all the revenue riches are hardly helping the likes of Man Utd.

Yes, that's consistent with what @El Presidente was saying on 5Live early this morning, namely that FFP was preventing anyone challenging the established order and that the EPL were likely to move to the UEFA set of controls which align spending to turnover on a club-by-club basis, thus opening the door to higher spending from the likes of Newcastle. Perhaps a Dullard could helpfully clarify?

 

[Triggaaar]

There were reports around the time of the Potter sacking that when Boehly was told that Chelsea have played in Europe every season since 1998 or whatever it is he took that as a guaranteed entry and revenue and planned accordingly, not something reliant on merit and league performances, and that he was absolutely staggered when he found out.

Mmm, not sure I can believe that. I believe he factored the revenue in, but not that he thought qualification was guaranteed. Just like an American didn't think he was buying Tower Bridge.

 

[Wozza]

Here's a question, maybe not for you @Wozza but you do seem up on this stuff. If revenues are fairly available (?) and costs must be too (eg the cost of potter in and out) isn't it "fairly" straightforward to see if they are miles outside FFP? It's just a question...

Mate, I'm just here to take the piss!

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Here's a question, maybe not for you @Wozza but you do seem up on this stuff. If revenues are fairly available (?) and costs must be too (eg the cost of potter in and out) isn't it "fairly" straightforward to see if they are miles outside FFP? It's just a question...

Haha that Ben Jacobs post!

 

[Colonel Mustard]

He has absolutely trashed his reputation for the moment. Moises has gone from being one of the best DMs in the EPL to a figure of fun and the poster boy for the dysfunction at Chelsea. On the one hand it is funny to see some karma dished out but on the other it is sad to see such a talent fade away.

Moises looks thoroughly miserable and seems to have become a much worse player. I know he was always a little ungainly but at Chelsea he seems to lumber around like a musclebound bodybuilder pumped up with steroids. Seems bereft of confidence too. I think he’s quite an emotional man who isn’t taking trolling very well. As has probably been mentioned, he and Enzo both came off social media last week following excessive criticism.

 

[rippleman]

Moises looks thoroughly miserable and seems to have become a much worse player. I know he was always a little ungainly but at Chelsea he seems to lumber around like a musclebound bodybuilder pumped up with steroids. Seems bereft of confidence too. I think he’s quite an emotional man who isn’t taking trolling very well. As has probably been mentioned, he and Enzo both came off social media last week following excessive criticism.

He could have stayed at, or gone to, a big club but his greed got the better of him. If, despite all the $$$. he is unhappy then all I can say is

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

Moises looks thoroughly miserable and seems to have become a much worse player. I know he was always a little ungainly but at Chelsea he seems to lumber around like a musclebound bodybuilder pumped up with steroids. Seems bereft of confidence too. I think he’s quite an emotional man who isn’t taking trolling very well. As has probably been mentioned, he and Enzo both came off social media last week following excessive criticism.

Agents have totally done for him.

 

[Zeus]

Yes, that's consistent with what @El Presidente was saying on 5Live early this morning, namely that FFP was preventing anyone challenging the established order and that the EPL were likely to move to the UEFA set of controls which align spending to turnover on a club-by-club basis, thus opening the door to higher spending from the likes of Newcastle. Perhaps a Dullard could helpfully clarify?

It's not a good look, especially from a Brighton fan, imo. Towing the line with his journo mates?

 

[Zeus]

Call me a cynic but if Chelsea need to find 100 million before the end of June they will. They didn't struggle to sell players last summer, and that included three rivals bailing them out with big offers.
Wouldn't surprise me if Lukaku to Saudi covers most of it

They may well find it this season, but they can only get away with it so long, and at the loss of the players that really get the club, whilst being stuck with the mercenaries who are so rich on the long contracts they don't really care. They also cant but new players, or move the recent signings on as they will never get what they paid, and they will show as a loss.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

It's not a good look, especially from a Brighton fan, imo. Towing the line with his journo mates?

@El Presidente has always been clear that many of the restrictions brought in particularly in the English Premier League were as a direct response to Leicester winning the League, disrupting the status quo. Newcastle, despite where their riches come from, are seen as another outsider trying to upset the Big Six.

I don't think I'm misrepresenting our resident dullard here.

 

[Zeus]

@El Presidente has always been clear that many of the restrictions brought in particularly in the English Premier League were as a direct response to Leicester winning the League, disrupting the status quo. Newcastle, despite where their riches come from, are seen as another outsider trying to upset the Big Six.

I don't think I'm misrepresenting our resident dullard here.

But those same rules are now stopping Chelsea from buying their way back into the big 6. Those rules didn't stop Newcastle getting top 4, or us 6th (and some bad VAR from top 4). Those rules look like they are going to finally catch up with Man City. If those restrictions protected the status quo Man Utd would win the league every season. And without those rules there would be a never ending race to the top that would decimate all clubs without mega rich owners. The Premier League has never been more competitive imo with the current rules. Yes City are out in front for now but let's see what happens when their FFP time comes.

Journos advocating ditching the system when it is finally showing some teeth are being incredibly irresponsible and its very suspicious.

 

[Acker79]

But those same rules are now stopping Chelsea from buying their way back into the big 6. Those rules didn't stop Newcastle getting top 4, or us 6th. Those rules look like they are going to finally catch up with Man City. If those restrictions protected the status quo Man Utd would win the league every season. And without those rules there would be a never ending race to the top that would decimate all clubs without mega rich owners. The Premier League has never been more competitive imo with the current rules. Yes City are out in front for now but let's see what happens when their FFP time comes.

But those rules aren't doing that by design. The rules allow Chelsea to spend loads of money. Loads more than Newcastle. They just haven't spent well. There's only so much they can do to protect the 'big six' when the 'big six' are constantly shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Zeus]

But those rules aren't doing that by design. The rules allow Chelsea to spend loads of money. Loads more than Newcastle. They just haven't spent well. There's only so much they can do to protect the 'big six' when the 'big six' are constantly shooting themselves in the foot.

By design or not its working for me. It would be horrendous if the Saudis (and other new owners) could buy themselves into Man City territory and the damage that would do to continuing football cost inflation, and clubs are far less able to risk bankruptcy with irresponsible spending. I cant understand any Brighton fan advocating the alternative with how well we've shown you can do if you are smarter.

 

[Driver8]

Yes, that's consistent with what @El Presidente was saying on 5Live early this morning, namely that FFP was preventing anyone challenging the established order and that the EPL were likely to move to the UEFA set of controls which align spending to turnover on a club-by-club basis, thus opening the door to higher spending from the likes of Newcastle. Perhaps a Dullard could helpfully clarify?

Surely clubs with bigger turnover can spend more anyway? It’s the losses that are capped not how much they spend.

 

[highflyer]

I suppose your take on whether the (threatened) tightening up on implementation of FFP rules is the 'right' solution depends on what you think the problem is to start with. If it's just about clubs not getting into debt and not spending more than they can afford then yeah, you'll see the restraints on the likes of Chelsea, Man City and Newcastle (all of which can draw on seemingly limitless supplies of dodgy, dirty lucre) as 'unfair'.

But for most fans i think the problem is as much, or even more, the bloated, excessive, corrupt nature of the game at the top. Which I guess is in itself part of the problem lower down as the incentive to gamble 'your' club's existance in the hope of getting your hands up the bum of the premier league cash cow is presumably part of what drives overspending? It's just another version of the resource curse innit.

All this money swilling around probably feels great to those with their noses in the football industry trough. Hardly suprising that the entrance of ever more stratospherically wealthy owners is seen as a 'good thing'. And hardly suprising that the ethical questions of our cultural heritage - clubs that should belong to 'us' - getting sold off to some of the most corrupt, unpleasant people in the world are skated over as quickly and as lightly as possible.

It's not so good for the average fan though (unless you are a Newcastle fan with a weird sense of entitlement), with match day prices going up and the match day experience going down, as corporate and TV interests take precedence over the rest of us. And not so good for the players either. How can paying a teenager £100,000/week be good for them? I mean, we all know what it would have done to (most of) us at that age.

So yes, Newcastle 'suffering' from the clamp down on FFP is absolutely working for me. I bloody love it. But I can see why others are trying to create a different narrative.

(A caveat to all the above - i dont really understand finance and find it very very boring, so may well be getting it all fundamentally wrong)

 

[dazzer6666]

Surely clubs with bigger turnover can spend more anyway? It’s the losses that are capped not how much they spend.

Yes they can, but Chelsea were already spending a lot. Very high wages across a huge squad………add the amortisation of so many expensive transfers and paying off failed managers and their cronies, then realising the expected income from the CL isn’t coming in and all of a sudden the books don’t balance. Bear in mind even £50m of CL income - which Boehly effectively thought was ‘guaranteed’ - essentially covers £400m of transfer fees (on 8 year contracts)

 

[Creaky]

I can understand why certain nation states might throw cash at a football club for propaganda purposes. I can understand why a club fan might spend a fortune on their club.

What I don't understand is why individuals and consortia are willing to "invest" hundreds of millions of pounds in a venture that is almost certainly never going to offer any sort of comparable financial return.

It just seems that football brings out lunatic behaviour in the best and the worst of us.

 

[um bongo molongo]

This, I'm afraid, remains to be tested. they've made the rght noises. Which is good. But are yet to properly nail a really powerful club - one, say, owned by a petro-state or a well connected American Billionaire.

I'm hearing increasingly sympathetic noises from the media towards the newly rich clubs. I think it was David Orstein (but might be wrong) speaking to a set of punters on BBC the other day and (almost) everyone agreeing how jolly unfair it was that 'ambitious' clubs like Newcastle are being restrained from spending when there is next to no chance of them going bunkrupt Which is, apparently, 'what the FFP rules are there for'. I don't know if this is just certain people understanding where their interests lie (more money in the game = ever higher salaries and trebles all round, ching ching). Or whether there are some more 'direct' conversations going on to ensure that everyone is gradually brought round to expressing the view that restricting Saudi Arabia from spending whatever it wants, to help divert attention from their murdering ways, is somehow 'bad for the game we love'. But I definitely sense a concerted campaign coming to push back and make sure that the likes of Chelsea, Man City and Newcastle are able to get back to their mega-spending ways. And yes, I suspect that will involve a return of the '(Saudi based?) Superleage idea at some stage. When they've lined up their ducks so as not to get ambushed by these annoying 'poor people that actually go to soccer games' again.

Personally I'm not optimistic. They are rich. We are stupid. And money = power = getting what you want in the end.

But by god, I hope I'm wrong!

This feels like a depressingly well thought through and prescient post

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

But those same rules are now stopping Chelsea from buying their way back into the big 6. Those rules didn't stop Newcastle getting top 4, or us 6th (and some bad VAR from top 4). Those rules look like they are going to finally catch up with Man City. If those restrictions protected the status quo Man Utd would win the league every season. And without those rules there would be a never ending race to the top that would decimate all clubs without mega rich owners. The Premier League has never been more competitive imo with the current rules. Yes City are out in front for now but let's see what happens when their FFP time comes.

Journos advocating ditching the system when it is finally showing some teeth are being incredibly irresponsible and its very suspicious.

The only slight tweak I've heard that I agree with was from Simon Jordan, who said there she be an extra x amount for a new owner to be able to spend, which seems like a fair rule to put into place

A new owner should be able to make changes.