[Albion] Where is Moises going? (Chelsea - 14/08/2023)

[peterward]

But surely FFP is assessed later. They can simply sell a player to balance the books. Plus, given the long contracts on old and new (limited to 5 years) signings, I'm sure they're OK.

Not sure if this report is true, its from Liverpool end, but if so, would look like Caicedo deal is maxing out whatever available they have and thus why they are farting about and other shenanigans.

Chelsea risk points deduction this season if they match Liverpool’s Caicedo bid – report

Chelsea may well have won the heart of Moises Caicedo but it seems that they are far from winning the bidding war with Liverpool for his services, leaving them in a very tricky financial position. …

www.empireofthekop.com

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Not sure if this report is true, its from Liverpool end, but if so, would look like Caicedo deal is maxing out whatever available they have and thus why they are farting about and other shenanigans.

Chelsea risk points deduction this season if they match Liverpool’s Caicedo bid – report

Chelsea may well have won the heart of Moises Caicedo but it seems that they are far from winning the bidding war with Liverpool for his services, leaving them in a very tricky financial position. …

www.empireofthekop.com

Thanks. Don't get me wrong I'd love every misfortune to befall Chelsea.

 

[peterward]

if they haven’t got the cash if only they had a defender we reaaaaallyy wanted that they could use as leverage….

Cucurella is coming HOME

Tell you what, we'll give you 1m for the hairbear and a tenner for bald Bruno.

That brings it to just under 114m!

 

[METALMICKY]

Yeah I agree Tony won't be low-balled, but we could be left with the option of having a perfectly acceptable offer being torpedoed, by under-hand dealings.

This could leave us with a very pissed-off player on our hands, with a falling market value. ( a season in the reserves or going on strike won't enhance his value)

This is my real concern and critically we wont have that massive input of cash to quickly boost our squad particularly in the defensive midfielder position

 

[KZNSeagull]

This is my real concern and critically we wont have that massive input of cash to quickly boost our squad particularly in the defensive midfielder position

He wasn't pissed off in January and he wasn't 2 weeks ago when the club said that they had no issues with Caicedo's attitude. I know RDZ says he has forgotten him but that is only because he thinks he is gone. If it turns out Caicedo stays (which I doubt), I am sure he will play to the best of his abilities like he did in January and we no longer have a defensive midfielder hole to fill.

 

[peterward]

"You know Todd, you said no to 40m for Colwill..... wanna reconsider.? Just 75m left to pay, you stay inside FFP and we could do that on more favourable terms!"

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

But surely FFP is assessed later. They can simply sell a player to balance the books. Plus, given the long contracts on old and new (limited to 5 years) signings, I'm sure they're OK.

Yeh. I personally don't think Chelsea care less about FFP. However, I think Boehly is bidding for players with money he doesn't actually have.

I reckon they are having to borrow money to buy players. And borrowing is expensive.

Tony will quite rightly say, match Liverpool's payment terms, or f*** off

 

[A mex eyecan]

"You know Todd, you said no to 40m for Colwill..... wanna reconsider.? Just 75m left to pay, you stay inside FFP and we could do that on more favourable terms!"

or, oi Toddy Son, fancy a hand of poker? Tell you the deal, it’s 115m plus Colwill and you can have him. You’re not that smart really are you

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Yeh. I personally don't think Chelsea care less about FFP. However, I think Boehly is bidding for players with money he doesn't actually have.

I reckon they are having to borrow money to buy players. And borrowing is expensive.

Tony will quite rightly say, match Liverpool's payment terms, or f*** off

Yes Tony is calling his bluff.

Chelsea will suffer the consequences hopefully.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Not sure if this report is true, its from Liverpool end, but if so, would look like Caicedo deal is maxing out whatever available they have and thus why they are farting about and other shenanigans.

Chelsea risk points deduction this season if they match Liverpool’s Caicedo bid – report

Chelsea may well have won the heart of Moises Caicedo but it seems that they are far from winning the bidding war with Liverpool for his services, leaving them in a very tricky financial position. …

www.empireofthekop.com

This is the info that their report is using:

A relatively simple explanation because many have asked: Chelsea need something like £450m profit (could even be more) from 22/23 and 23/24 player trading to balance the allowable trading loss over the last 3 years (conservatively). I reckon they did around £100m player trading profit in 22/23 with around another £75m so far from Mount, Pulisic, PEA, Livermento sell on profit and Ampadu. Amortisation rises when you buy and does not fall if you sell a youth player for a pure profit. So Caciedo, Lavia and Olise will add not only, say, £35m of amortisation in 23/24 but also, say, £25m of wages. That’s more than the likely trading profit of selling Gallagher and Hudson Odoi although assume maybe £12.5m wage saving. But they needed that for the existing deficit before Caciedo etc. This leaves Chalabah and Broja as profit opportunities. Most of the rest are at best neutral in terms of profits - Ziyech could lose quite a lot, Kepa neutral, Cucurella has a book value so high he can’t be sold for profit, Sterling the same. So they are many £10s of millions short of break even under PL P&S in 23/24 even if they managed to just about comply in 22/23 (which I’m skeptical about too).

This goes over my head. Maybe a DULLARD needs to get involved.

 

[Nobby]

Hi I’m Ned Ryerson

 

[Guinness Boy]

But surely FFP is assessed later. They can simply sell a player to balance the books. Plus, given the long contracts on old and new (limited to 5 years) signings, I'm sure they're OK.

It’s assessed over a rolling period of three years isn’t it? Last year’s losses must have been horrendous and apparently lost £121.3 mill the season before that (if I’ve checked it correctly). They’re no longer stacked with sellable players either. The clear out’s happened. They must at least be worried.

As for contract is it the contract or amortisation that’s limited to five years as Fab is suggesting a seven or eight year contract. How is that legal (or, indeed, agreeing it in May)?

I’m no expert though. Paging @El Presidente to give me a schooling.

 

[peterward]

This is the info that their report is using:

A relatively simple explanation because many have asked: Chelsea need something like £450m profit (could even be more) from 22/23 and 23/24 player trading to balance the allowable trading loss over the last 3 years (conservatively). I reckon they did around £100m player trading profit in 22/23 with around another £75m so far from Mount, Pulisic, PEA, Livermento sell on profit and Ampadu. Amortisation rises when you buy and does not fall if you sell a youth player for a pure profit. So Caciedo, Lavia and Olise will add not only, say, £35m of amortisation in 23/24 but also, say, £25m of wages. That’s more than the likely trading profit of selling Gallagher and Hudson Odoi although assume maybe £12.5m wage saving. But they needed that for the existing deficit before Caciedo etc. This leaves Chalabah and Broja as profit opportunities. Most of the rest are at best neutral in terms of profits - Ziyech could lose quite a lot, Kepa neutral, Cucurella has a book value so high he can’t be sold for profit, Sterling the same. So they are many £10s of millions short of break even under PL P&S in 23/24 even if they managed to just about comply in 22/23 (which I’m skeptical about too).

This goes over my head. Maybe a DULLARD needs to get involved.

@El Presidente is possibly the man for whom this witchcraft makes sense.

 

[SeaGullBum]

To go from Wanting £100m to getting over £110m for a kid who's had 1 full season in EPL is outstanding buisness, he'll be missed what a talent, but we'll build again and be even better

 

[Super Steve Earle]

"You know Todd, you said no to 40m for Colwill..... wanna reconsider.? Just 75m left to pay, you stay inside FFP and we could do that on more favourable terms!"

"You know Todd, you said no to 40m for Colwill..... wanna reconsider.? Just 75m left to pay, you stay inside FFP and we could do that on more favourable terms!"

But since Chelsea got so excited about getting Colwill on board, they put his wages out of our reach on a new contract. We'll never get him back now and they can't p/x him.

 

[Triggaaar]

He hasn’t done the deal with Liverpool - we have.

I don't think it works like that. You think a club would be ok paying an extra £20m because they couldn't be bothered to phone the selling club?

 

[SeaGullBum]

I'm a bit sad we've given Chelsea the time of day again. They deserve nothing.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

It’s assessed over a rolling period of three years isn’t it? Last year’s losses must have been horrendous and apparently lost £121.3 mill the season before that (if I’ve checked it correctly). They’re no longer stacked with sellable players either. The clear out’s happened. They must at least be worried.

As for contract is it the contract or amortisation that’s limited to five years as Fab is suggesting a seven or eight year contract. How is that legal (or, indeed, agreeing it in May)?

I’m no expert though. Paging @El Presidente to give me a schooling.

Surely in respect of the contract, it is possible we gave him permission to talk?

 

[The Pilsbury Echo]

Why have Liverpool not pulled out?
Why are trolls on twitter saying we've accepted a bid from Chelsea yet the club have said nothing?
What's going on here?
Maybe he's gonna choose whoever wins today.

Being a Sunday we may have to wait until the midnight hour to find out... MC did say GOD will decide his fate and its a well known fact that the superior one is very busy watching over the flock!

 

[Guinness Boy]

Surely in respect of the contract, it is possible we gave him permission to talk?

Could have and should have - didn’t see it reported at the time but they’re pretty open about it.