terraloon

Confirmed Felix has left

There are but they genuinely believe he is the new coming.

He does but they are mad exposing him to the wider football world at this point but more dangerously for the player himself he is far too young in terms of physical development to even be exposed to the demands of senior football. Add to the fact that he is too young to be on either a professional or scholarship contract means he can’t train freely, still has to be in full time education etc

No doubt the figures have been arrived at using some sort of publication but I simply can’t reconcile some of these numbers. For instance if these are 23/24 numbers Chelsea’s total wage bill, and that would include all employees , players and coaching staff etc in total came to £296.5 million. Not £338 million. I get your point re Arsenal it’s extremely interesting how their wage bill is getting bigger, significantly year on year. It will depend how their income streams have grown because they are by my guesstimate getting close to the 70% squad cost. One little fact for you is that Oxlaide Chamberlain is still their highest ever fee received when he went to Liverpool and he generated just slightly not that more than Hall did when we sold him to Newcastle

We know that add ons do get paid indeed in the clubs latest accounts , just like most of our accounts the following statement appears “ The club realised contingent fees in relation to a number of previous transfers” Without access to the full accounting records it’s impossible to work out in respect of whom and how much is received. This is just me guessing but contingent fees in respect of academy/ younger players would probably be heavily weighted toward sell on % . Players like Cassadei there would without doubt be a combination of transfer% and performance sums both club and players. For instance €x when he makes a full international performance. Other than supposition , guesswork and leaks in the press, which I would caution relying on , there really isn’t any guru we can trust however sometimes there are claims on certain sites to suggest that they are ITK For instance there clearly was a sizeable sum paid following Livermentos transfer from Southampton to Newcastle . At the time of his transfer to Southampton it was said the fee was circa €7 million with add ons . Those add ons would clearly have been realised and whilst I don’t trust Transfermarket if you look today at the fee has been uplifted to €26 million. In effect €19 million additional income received. We have a significant number of academy players who were sold for small fees , like CHO, like Guehi and he’s Hutchinson who if sold will bring additional income . It’s just incredibly difficult to get a handle on the numbers. Turning to Felix there clearly will be some pretty easy add ons. I would guess, and that’s all it is, that the weight is put toward the clubs success in the next two years as opposed to his personal contribution but quite probably a sum would be payable if he sees out his two years which would almost certainly mean, unless there is a club option, that there wouldn’t be any sell on paid. As I have said before all clubs make mistakes when it comes to transfers in. It’s far from easy predicting how a player will adjust to a new culture adapt, how he will be impacted by injuries, loss of form etc etc. The real skill is trying to mitigate any loss if the player bombs and whilst we almost certainly won’t get to know the numbers re Felix follow how his new club do over the next 2 years particularly in terms of winning anything in Saudi and just as important how they do in any continental tournaments and if he signs a contract extension that probably will tick the box re another add on.

The maximum time his fee could be amortised over was 5 years so using your numbers that was £9 million. In effect to cover the balance of his fee we needed to recover £36-£5 million ( loan fee) so £31 million to in effect balance the books. I would imagine the club had already expected a £9 million 25/26 charge but will simply shift that sum to impairment. Where the number perhaps balance out is if the add ONS which seem sizeable kick in. The numbers at the end of the day seem far too good to be true https://tenor.com/en-GB/view/ateam-plan-together-i-love-it-when-hannibal-gif-19272497

Think you are right . It seems he will be able to cycle to his new club. That’s if the rumours are correct !

UEFA said they focused on certain transfers , it is assumed when Villa sold Kellyman to us and we sold Mattensen to Villa those two transfers would be adjusted . But we have absolutely no idea how ours and Villas FFP submissions were impacted or indeed if say in the case of Kellyman if UEFa was only worth £10 million did they amend both the buying and selling clubs submissions? Eddie Howe said something today which I thought was relevant when he made the point that a significant amount goes on behind closed doors so Joe Public isn’t anywhere close to knowing all the facts. Hence when you say no other club was interested not sure that can be said with certainty. If we rely on Transfermarket they say he, Felix, cost €52 million ( that I would guess included add ons that almost certainly weren’t met) Meanwhile Sky say he cost £36.7 million with£3.3 million in add ons. For ease and for illustration I will use Skys Felix signed a 7 year deal and we received £4.3 million fee in respect of his AC loan. If the fee is indeed €30m or £26.2m add the loan fee was £4.3 = £ 30.5. Put to one side his wage then we would in cash. re transfer terms Chelsea would be about £6 million down which, is very very close to his book value which if you use his amortised sum which is £5.2 million pa. He should never have been signed but he was! In terms of damage limitation the smart bit will to minimise the financial damage and most won’t be able to get past the s loss which will be at least £10ish million. With so much additional sums to be available as ad£ ons I guess some will be easy to obtain Not the best signing ever that’s for sure.

Do t think you can still get that in the UK. Worked a treat on my two ! And they were 20+25 at the time !

Most of what you say I’d agree with but your second paragraph isn't fully correct. Yes it has been found in his system that’s correct but he hasn’t been banned he has at this time been suspended but at this time the case against him ( the charges ) haven’t been proven. Of course it is likely he will but we have no idea what his argument around mitigation will be.

Could get all political now but …

Vergiss den Gendanken

From my limited experience in football administration( I had an unpaid post at a non league club) I can honestly say that the suggestion in FIFPROs narrative that 94 % of cases currently being dealt with by FIFA re termination of contracts are complaints from players, without context that ratio isn’t really that informative .My point here that worldwide there are tens of thousands of players there may be less than a hundred cases. The actual numbers would be far more helpful. Are we talking about a lot of cases or very few? I only ever witnessed in 5 years two players having their contracts torn up by a club and both on an appeal at the FA led to reinstatement. Already in the FIFA regulations significant aspects are already in place to placate the EU. For instance freedom of movement allows EU players to move from country to country within the EU at 16 . Worldwide it is 18. It would be really amusing if significant changes only became appropriate in a negative way to countries under the jurisdiction of the European courts.! I agree with you that one possible route is a Spanish/ Portuguese obligation for a buyout clause to be included in a mutually agreed contract but the problem with that is in a way it could damage players at lower level of football. Players I believe need to be careful what they wish for. There is another case gaining traction in that most players have always been treated as short term / temporary employees. In effect at the end of their contracts save a couple of weeks pay the club and the player shook hands and that was it. I worked in the Civil Service where we relied quite heavily on short term employees but if they were in post after 2 years they had to become permanent employees with all the rights and benefits that entailed The case in question is a player that had a contract for 1 /2 years kept signing new ones . After 10 or so years the club didn’t extend . Now the player is claiming he was sacked . The club I believe tried to get around that by claiming he was made redundant but that claim was quickly withdrawn.

We all still meet in the Goose , well we do at the moment and like your circle it’s about the only time we all see each other after the game we disperse to points east ,west etc but one thing that really struck a chord was your comment about banter. Going back to the late 90s we were all so much younger so much more unguarded what we said and about who. I not talking about racial matters I am talking the club, the game, other clubs and so on . Now topics include pensions, prostates , funerals oh and occasionally the game. Really looking forward to Aug 17

My Grandson went on line to try and buy a ticket for the Palace Game . As we know there have been changes to the portal and when people say there isn’t the appetite to justify a 60k stadium bear in mind that today he was 124000+ waiting in the Queue Ok it’s the first game of the season but that queue size is mind boggling

I like the cut of your jib but wasn’t he on just about the longest of all contracts given out to date. Wasn’t it 9 1/2 years of which 2 1/2 gone so just about 25% of his fee amortised. So what’s that around €80 million to go. He has improved a little but his development isn’t anywhere close to that of Caicedo. If an offer of around €130 million came in I would take it in a heartbeat.

You clearly don’t understand and that’s the problem. You said this “So the new owners forced out the upper management straight away when it was unneeded, you're agreeing with me?” If you can’t work out that from it not being needed to it happening something significant happened . As I keep pointing out there would be an assessment made by others around guilt by association. But what we do know is that matters were reported to the FA, PL and UEFA regarding incomplete information being send under RAs tenure . Tuchal Lots of rumours out there Neil Bath . Not sure but odd seeing as he had just been promoted Jason & Son . This may help but then again may not be relevant

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to test the resolve or approach that HMG would have taken . The irony is that the license still recognised the directors as being “ in charge” so had the club not been able to pays its liabilities because of the sanctions they would have to acted to either appoint administrators or an insolvency practitioner.

None of us know what changed because the plans were very much that both Buck and Marina would stay around We can only speculate at to was it unneeded or where there no other options? The only thing I can remember is the club self reported matters to UEFA, The PL &The FA immediately following the takeover? Both were directors . Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck is to step down from his role on 30 June, with co-owner Todd Boehly set to succeed him. American Buck, 76, who had been chairman since Roman Abramovich became owner in 2003, was set to continue in the role after the takeover of the club by a Boehly-led consortium last month. A change of direction means he will now support the club as a "senior adviser". "Now is the right time to step down and let new ownership build on the strong foundations we have in place," he said. "The owners have a compelling vision for Chelsea's future, and I look forward to helping them achieve it in this new role alongside our incredible staff, players, coaches and supporters."

Petr Cech comments “With the club under new ownership, I feel now is the right time for me to step aside” "I am pleased that the club is now in an excellent position with the new owners and I am confident of its future success both on and off the pitch." Neither Buck or Marina ended association with CFC immediately on takeover but as I pointed out it was inevitable that their resignations wouldn’t be too long coming and I would suggest that they were given little alternative but to walk away. When RA took over from Ken Bates in 2003 the club were a game away from administration, Ken Bates has always denied that but the EuroBond needed repaying that’s a fact.In addition the loan from MH was called in. Of course when RA came in from the perspective Chelsea supporters as a saviour and that indeed what he was but let’s not kid ourselves that the press, the owners of other clubs or indeed the supporters of other clubs welcomed him with open arms.Nor did certain sections of the press. As I pointed out since day 1 there were certain journalists who went out of their way to create negativity around Chelsea and in particular RA. I don’t know if this post is aimed at me , guess it is, No where have I ever said that the club is in better hands than it was under RA but the reality is that RA through his nationality became the biggest threat to the very survival of Chelsea. That’s why I believe people need to gain perspective because quite simply once Russian invaded Ukraine the pressure on RA , which started going back to the issues around his visa, was only going to end up one way. I genuinely wonder if people grasp how vulnerable the club was at that time . For instance had the government insisted that the £1.5 billion loan RA had in CFC been treated as an asset it’s not beyond comprehension that the debt could have called in Of course I would prefer that he were still running the club or indeed a n other was running the club as he did but the reality is the RA set in train a process to sell the club and the chosen group were Blue Co. US ownership now dominates the PL clubs that’s a fact. I doubt that there is one who is involved through benevolence it’s simply not how the work nor do they need involvement in sport to gain soft or even hard political power. RA was unique it at some point he was going to cease to be the owner the worse part of it was that it was rushed , forced and transition was never going to be easy.

It is indeed so point me in the direction where he said “ press” in that post.

When I say duress it’s exactly because of the sanctions not because of how things were under RA. As to what would have been the consequences of doing nothing for a couple of years that becomes subjective but they were always in a hurry. Maybe it’s just the way they operate but had they just let things roll on we simply have no idea as to what would have happened Just as paying for the club it would have been obvious to the Rayne group and indeed RA where funds would come from. If they didn’t realise that then certainly Rayne should be out of business by now. In time much of the debt will be converted to equity there is absolutely no way that Chelsea FC will ever generate surplus cash to pay down the debt. Are the club under duress ? BlueCo have an appreciating asset in their hands, Under RA the asset value grew from circa £150 million to £2.5 billion in what 20 years.

Where does he say that the press were on RA from day one ? Again something you have made up. Most I agree share your view that doesn’t mean it is right not does it mean it’s reality and that’s the point. You have a view that you aren’t even prepared to accept may just differ to others and in particular yours. You clearly can’t remember the attempt by RA to put the club under the stewardship of trustees prior to the sanctions . As to why Buck, Marina and others resigned they you clearly don’t see accusations or claims that guilt by association would inevitably have followed. Irrespective if you had ever had any involvement with any business or organisation that brings in new owners or the very senior of managers then you surely realise that change is inevitable but and here’s the point even when RA arrived he left a couple of the senior heiracy in post but very quickly such as Ken Bates become a major obstacle . As an aside I certainly don’t disagree with you on every thread the tiresome bit is the way that in every response you make to any one whose views don’t align with yours is the way that you immediately become aggressive.

When they took over the club really was under threat. It was operating under a license that would not have been renewed post 1/6 of that year. There wasn’t any money in bank accounts that had all been frozen indeed RA had to inject capital past his sanction date. As for it not being under duress I think that is where so many haven’t worked through the consequences because it really was under threat and as for assets the club had effectively become an asset of HM Government who because of the anti RA rhetoric would have had no issues about allowing the club to be would up after all none of the proceeds of sale or indeed distribution from insolvency would have ended up in the public purse.

Sorry but what he said isn’t waffle its a view that has merit albeit many that disagree won’t have smelt the coffee ! 1) If you had been keeping your eye on many press articles going back over the years you would have seen an agenda from journalist such as Matthew Syed https://www.sportbible.com/football/journalists-damning-rant-about-roman-abramovich-in-2013-20220311 Or what about this type of article https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/10/football-ignored-the-truth-about-roman-abramovichs-oligarch-money-for-too-long Or maybe the agenda that was spouted by Chris Bryant behind the protection of parliamentary immunity? 2) There is a book that has just been published called Sanctioned This book details the seizure and sale . It seems that had the sale not completed on the day it did the club was going into administration something that wouldn’t have afforded the opportunity to arrange a pre packed deal and almost certainly would have led to expulsion from the PL and quite possibly entry to the EFL would have been denied. In effect that would more than likely led to full blow Compulsory Winding Up. The Rayne group weren’t given any additional time whatsoever to extend the special license and BlueCo had no choice but to hit the ground running and as we know wing it. There simply wasn’t the opportunity to appoint senior staff . Bank accounts were frozen, season planning had to be halted in March, there were no lines of credit, strategic individuals at Chelsea such as director Eugene Tenenbaum was himself sanctioned a month after RA and by association it meant that other powerful individuals such as David Davidovich were likewise under sanctions or those that remained in post such as Marina and Buck in particular could not act on RAs instructions or indeed could they be associated with. Ironically Marina and Buck stuck around for a while indeed the likes of Buck was still director until 30/6/ a month after takeover the same date all the other members of the consortium were appointed onto the board. Bohley had been appointed on 1/6 The first window that Bohley operated as SD he did indeed make the deals( who else could ?)