4 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

I won't be too smug but I bet the ones in here that claimed that our new owners are basically like the Glazers are feeling pretty stupid.

Well our owners are investors .

And investors want a return on that investment , Clearlake aren't taking their investors money and giving it away to us as a charitable gift.

We won't get shafted like UTD did though

Unless our owners sell the club to them !

😝😝😝

Now the Lavia deal is agreed, this weekend we could field a midfield trio worth over quarter of a billion pounds…… wow.

No wonder the Spuds and Dippers are in a complete meltdown.

 

 

 

I get joy when we are the villains of football again!!

Although I don't agree with some of the decisions he made, he certainly did an entertaining job trolling the so called big teams in England and Europe.

Footballers are people too, it's laughable that the pundits criticizing them for picking a more comfortable work environment to work. It's an easy call for most people pick between London and Liverpool

13 minutes ago, El regreso said:

I get joy when we are the villains of football again!!

Boehly is a big fan of Machiavelli, i'm sure of it

 

2 hours ago, timetowaste said:

I won't be too smug but I bet the ones in here that claimed that our new owners are basically like the Glazers are feeling pretty stupid.

Well hey being inferred as stupid for the second time today lol.

@dkwI can always count on you as one of the most blunt people about, call me stupid so I can make it a hat trick 🤣

Amazing to think such an amount of money can be spent in just 3 windows, and qe come away from that, so far, without a top class keeper or striker.

Can Jackson become that top class striker, could Washington, Could Broja?

Could Sanchez be that keeper, could Slonina, could Cummings?

Or do we have spend more to cover the key positions?

39 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Amazing to think such an amount of money can be spent in just 3 windows, and qe come away from that, so far, without a top class keeper or striker.

Can Jackson become that top class striker, could Washington, Could Broja?

Could Sanchez be that keeper, could Slonina, could Cummings?

Or do we have spend more to cover the key positions?

But to put that in perspective, how top class GKs or strikers have been signed by any club these last three windows?

City signed Haaland and Bayern just signed Kane, both of whom we were never realistically in the running for. Granted, Barcelona signed Lewandowski when we should have made a bigger play for him, but there have been slim pickings for strikers over the last two years. Nkunku is the only other goalscorer that gets on the same lists as the above guy and we signed him. 

The only option is to take a punt on a young striker like Sesko, Vlahovic, Hojlund or Jackson, which we did. 

7 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Well hey being inferred as stupid for the second time today lol.

@dkwI can always count on you as one of the most blunt people about, call me stupid so I can make it a hat trick 🤣

You aint stupid my friend, your just a little hard of thinking.....

Are you not the least bit worried? Genuine question.

The US has not been affected by the same recession as over here but if it were to happen and a number of big wealthy players could go down the drain... you could find yourself in an awful situation not dissimilar to plenty of the clubs that had Chinese investment a few years ago.

Maybe Boehly & co are "too big too fail", I don't know the details, but I'd certainly be a little bit nervous if someone not really that attached to the club bought it and spent a sh*tload of money and signed players on 8-9 year contracts that may be impossible to get rid off if they don't work out.

5 minutes ago, SwedishEntity said:

Are you not the least bit worried? Genuine question.

The US has not been affected by the same recession as over here but if it were to happen and a number of big wealthy players could go down the drain... you could find yourself in an awful situation not dissimilar to plenty of the clubs that had Chinese investment a few years ago.

Maybe Boehly & co are "too big too fail", I don't know the details, but I'd certainly be a little bit nervous if someone not really that attached to the club bought it and spent a sh*tload of money and signed players on 8-9 year contracts that may be impossible to get rid off if they don't work out.

Worried about the US economy affecting Clearlakes ability to run Chelsea? No. I don't think that's a threat. We also lived through Roman having the club forcibly taken off him. We aren't Brighton. If our owners f**k off, some other billionaire will want us as their plaything.

In terms of costs, I think the general fan is just too attached to transfer spending numbers.

Wages have been brought down, longer contracts and lower wages mean poor performing players will be easier to exit. 

Longer contracts also mean greater control on the asset. Let's say Caicedo becomes a global star, as important as Kante. In 3 years time, he is still completely locked in to Chelsea. We can demand a 150m+ fee for him. With a 5 year contract, then we're at the beck and call of Madrid. It goes both ways. 

Important to note that we've essentially exited every single transfer pre Boehly bar Chilwell. So that means what is for many clubs a 5-8 year cycle for buying players, has been crammed into 18 months. That means it's going to seem like we've spent a tonne of money, but when that gets spread over a 5 year window, it'll balance out. 

I expect that over the next 3-4 years Chelsea will have very balanced transfer windows,  where we make an FFP profit every year. We're making a significant FFP profit this summer and we now have our defence and midfield sorted for the next 3+ seasons. 

 

14 minutes ago, SwedishEntity said:

Are you not the least bit worried? Genuine question.
 

No, now kindly piss off.

17 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Worried about the US economy affecting Clearlakes ability to run Chelsea? No. I don't think that's a threat. We also lived through Roman having the club forcibly taken off him. We aren't Brighton. If our owners f**k off, some other billionaire will want us as their plaything.

In terms of costs, I think the general fan is just too attached to transfer spending numbers.

Wages have been brought down, longer contracts and lower wages mean poor performing players will be easier to exit. 

Longer contracts also mean greater control on the asset. Let's say Caicedo becomes a global star, as important as Kante. In 3 years time, he is still completely locked in to Chelsea. We can demand a 150m+ fee for him. With a 5 year contract, then we're at the beck and call of Madrid. It goes both ways. 

Important to note that we've essentially exited every single transfer pre Boehly bar Chilwell. So that means what is for many clubs a 5-8 year cycle for buying players, has been crammed into 18 months. That means it's going to seem like we've spent a tonne of money, but when that gets spread over a 5 year window, it'll balance out. 

I expect that over the next 3-4 years Chelsea will have very balanced transfer windows,  where we make an FFP profit every year. We're making a significant FFP profit this summer and we now have our defence and midfield sorted for the next 3+ seasons. 

 

I'm sure a lot of big clubs are following this development and thinking about if this is the way to go or not.

On one hand: if the football economy takes a big hit, lets say the TV deals have reached their top, it gets a bit messy having very well-paid players on long contracts. But if the growth continues, you might have the cheapest top team squad in five years or so.

And yes, it is to some extent greater control of the asset, but in the odd cases it will almost certainly mean you have players that will be difficult to get rid off (even if their slightly lower wages makes it easier to get them out). Imagine Winston Bogarde lurking in the shadows of Stamford Bridge and Cobham for an additional four years...

Slightly OT but related: I remember a story told by Bogardes teammate in Milan, Andreas Andersson -

"Bogarde was an utter egotist and extreme in every conceivable way. That man could never be wrong, he never made a bad pass and lacked any form of self-criticism. Moreover, he saw himself as God's gift to humanity.
During pre-season training, we almost always trained two sessions a day, occasionally running a one-kilometre loop in various smaller groups. The guidelines for the groups were clear. There should be a high tempo while the groups should always be kept together. Jesper (Blomqvist) was in Bogarde's group and Bogarde wanted to show everyone what a physical specimen he was, so he always ran a bit ahead of everyone else in his group. When the group caught up in order to fulfil the coaches' directive to have a cohesive group, Bogarde just increased his speed so much that there was again a significant gap to the others in the group.
Afterwards, Jesper tried to ironise and joke in a way that could not be misunderstood. Jesper smiled, laughed and disguised his voice in a joking manner and said to Bogarde that "Wow, what a big, strong and fit guy you are, running so fast that none of the rest of us have a chance to keep up". Bogarde didn't realise that everyone was making fun of him but just stretched, puffed up his chest and said with his superior attitude - "It is normal. It is always like this."
Nobody could take him seriously. The worst part was that there was almost no irony in Bogarde. He was always deadly serious in emphasising his own personality and excellence. If Bogarde missed a pass in the passing drill, it was always someone else in the group's fault. Bogarde saw himself as a sun without a hint of blemish. Something went wrong somewhere in his childhood."

Point is that of course you have greater control - in some senses - over your asset, but you may also be stuck with one or two f**ktards annoying the sh*t out of the rest of the group. Its a bit of a gamble.

Edited August 16, 20232 yr by SwedishEntity

Little did I believe 12 months ago this squad needed a billion pound overhaul. Personally I find it difficult to justify the outlay considering its all Monopoly money now washing the game. All Prep clubs owne are going through this, so no real criticism of this on Chelsea as far as im concerned. The money isn't really real or in a bank account. But we live in a day and age of credit and more credit. 

Just for a little perspective before we sign two more players, were about 166 on this list of country GDP's. https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/ Other Premiership clubs will probably be ahead of us, City being a prime example. 

Anyhow, Im going to try and forget about the money and signings and hope we make top four this season given the outgoings. Would be criminal not to. 

 

I had my doubt I called him Ted Lasso  but he has shown now he wants to build a team "no one wants to play"

So I hold my hands up I was wrong sand I hope they continue to prove me wrong.

Long may opposition and pundits cry!!

20 minutes ago, olderschoolcfc said:

Little did I believe 12 months ago this squad needed a billion pound overhaul. Personally I find it difficult to justify the outlay considering its all Monopoly money now washing the game. All Prep clubs owne are going through this, so no real criticism of this on Chelsea as far as im concerned. The money isn't really real or in a bank account. But we live in a day and age of credit and more credit. 

Just for a little perspective before we sign two more players, were about 166 on this list of country GDP's. https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/ Other Premiership clubs will probably be ahead of us, City being a prime example. 

Anyhow, Im going to try and forget about the money and signings and hope we make top four this season given the outgoings. Would be criminal not to. 

 

we are still only 4th in net spend in the last 10 yrs. Behind United, Man City and Arsenal. We are the only club who have sold for over a billion.

59 minutes ago, azpi28 said:

we are still only 4th in net spend in the last 10 yrs. Behind United, Man City and Arsenal. We are the only club who have sold for over a billion.

I hear top four in this league of spending guarantees qualification for the Super league to come.. 😉 Look, its not really a criticism, everyone is at it. City went out and spent 250 million on a back four not so long ago. I think the spending in the game is unhinged really. Think our owner may have got lucky on the lot. https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/mega-millions-jackpot-what-will-1-billion-buy-these-days/GLM55NDXRRBCZCLOFUOAQCHAYQ/

 

Am I the only one who absolutely enjoys having the 19 other PL teams fans and pundits hate us!! 🤣🤣🤣

You know when Chelsea are a threat  when everyone and their grandma are complaining about us!!!🤣🤣

” they are spending too much money”

”where is the money coming from “

”how can they meet FFP”

”why isn’t the PL doing something about this”

blah blah blah blah blah blah !!!🤣🤣🤣

Just go and read one page of the other forums it’s hilarious!!!🤣 

Edited August 16, 20232 yr by El regreso

5 minutes ago, El regreso said:

Am I the only one who absolutely enjoys having the 19 other PL teams fans and pundits hate us!! 🤣🤣🤣

You know when Chelsea are a threat  when everyone and their grandma are complaining about us!!!🤣🤣

” they are spending too much money”

”where is the money coming from “

”how can they meet FFP”

”why isn’t the PL doing something about this”

blah blah blah blah blah blah !!!🤣🤣🤣

Just got read other forums it’s hilarious!!!🤣 

think we need to reserve judgement and see how we get on tbh. I certainly don't give a hoot about what other fans say. I do want this to work out as our spending should reduce dramatically after the outlay. 

Anyhow. 

It's now down to Poch to sort it all out. 

5 hours ago, dkw said:

You aint stupid my friend, your just a little hard of thinking.....

Fulfilled my request while showing you can also not be completely blunt, Mohammed Kudus to you my friend.

4 hours ago, dkw said:

No, now kindly piss off.

And normal service is resumed lol.

4 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Worried about the US economy affecting Clearlakes ability to run Chelsea? No. I don't think that's a threat. We also lived through Roman having the club forcibly taken off him. We aren't Brighton. If our owners f**k off, some other billionaire will want us as their plaything.

In terms of costs, I think the general fan is just too attached to transfer spending numbers.

Wages have been brought down, longer contracts and lower wages mean poor performing players will be easier to exit. 

Longer contracts also mean greater control on the asset. Let's say Caicedo becomes a global star, as important as Kante. In 3 years time, he is still completely locked in to Chelsea. We can demand a 150m+ fee for him. With a 5 year contract, then we're at the beck and call of Madrid. It goes both ways. 

Important to note that we've essentially exited every single transfer pre Boehly bar Chilwell. So that means what is for many clubs a 5-8 year cycle for buying players, has been crammed into 18 months. That means it's going to seem like we've spent a tonne of money, but when that gets spread over a 5 year window, it'll balance out. 

I expect that over the next 3-4 years Chelsea will have very balanced transfer windows,  where we make an FFP profit every year. We're making a significant FFP profit this summer and we now have our defence and midfield sorted for the next 3+ seasons. 

 

There's that FFP accountant (who used to work for City mind you) who is stating that Boehly/Clearlake have full intention in breaking FFP and taking the fine. 

Two things wrong with that. 

1. If we were so bent on breaking FFP, we wouldn't have had that massive clear-out in June/July. 

2. This bloke isn't considering the pre-existing amortization we have now gotten rid of. (Transfers pre-Boehly + last summer). 

 

His suggestion is based on the fact we are adding onto the pre-existing amortization with these new signings, and as you have perfectly laid out, only Chilwell really remains. We've reduced the wage bill + replaced the amortization. Hardly adding on to it. 

 

2 hours ago, El regreso said:

Am I the only one who absolutely enjoys having the 19 other PL teams fans and pundits hate us!! 🤣🤣🤣

You know when Chelsea are a threat  when everyone and their grandma are complaining about us!!!🤣🤣

” they are spending too much money”

”where is the money coming from “

”how can they meet FFP”

”why isn’t the PL doing something about this”

blah blah blah blah blah blah !!!🤣🤣🤣

Just go and read one page of the other forums it’s hilarious!!!🤣 

Its made even more enjoyable knowing they were all so excited when roman had to sell, thinking we were going to an owner who wouldnt spend money and we would drift down the league.

Instead our new owner is spending even more money, and taking the piss out of the FA at the same time with all his lovely loopholes.

19 minutes ago, dkw said:

Its made even more enjoyable knowing they were all so excited when roman had to sell, thinking we were going to an owner who wouldnt spend money and we would drift down the league.

Instead our new owner is spending even more money, and taking the piss out of the FA at the same time with all his lovely loopholes.

never forget how the rival fans were mocking us 

and look at them now: crying, delusional, hanging on to FFP guidelines they don't even understand!

 

Edited August 16, 20232 yr by azpi28

There is a lot of information and numbers in this post so buckle in.

First thing to put out there is that relying on Transfermarket , Sky or the likes to truly know what transfer fees both incoming and of course outgoing is just plain flawed.

They will get it right some times for instance when a buyout or release clause are triggered but other than that far too often t get it wrong.

It would be churlish to suggest we aren’t spending decent money but let’s just draw breath for a second and reflect on what we actually know as being fact and what are just wild speculation 

So to the two transfer windows associated with  22/23 season 

We registered 16 players according to Transfermarket at a cost of €611 million . It’s a sexy number and gets a lot of hearts fluttering Just for clarity Alexa tells me that €611 million =  £522 million 

Chelseas accounts for 21/22 would only reflect audited numbers up to 30/6/22 so that means none of the transfer activity in the first two transfer windows following Bohleys takeover has yet shown up in accounts . Here , despite what I sad re the sums paid I do rely on Transfermarket which records those being registered as new players for us in the 22/23 season.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631/saison_id/2022

Can we pick up anything from what Chelsea have put in the public domain?

The answer is a definite yes but  we need to go back to the 21/22 accounts and look at the notes that were attached post end of year to them  which following audit were signed offin October 22 but not lodged with Companies House till April 23

As I said earlier Transfermarket confirmed we registered 16 new players  in 22/23.

Now read this little snippet that was hidden in those 21/22 accounts

”Events after the reporting date

Since the year end the Group has acquired the registration of 16 football players and restructured the first team management at an initial cost of £368.6m and disposed of the registration of 16 players at profit of £22.2m.”

So 16 players that’s the number which we know we  additionally registered in the two windows

How we validate the fact that it covers two windows is twofold 1) Even if you take Transfermarket fee figures as being correct the 6 Summer signings Fofana £70 mill, Cucerella £60 mill, Sterling £47 mill, Koulibaly £35 million, Chuckwenka £15 million and the £3 mill loan fee paid for Zaharia totalled £230mill way short of the £368 million and 2) If it covered just one window we know it’s some 10 players short of the 16 mentioned in the accounts. 

Now let’s explore matters further to start with  you need to be mindful that the £368 million is the fees agreed  and not how much we have paid to date .
 

You can’t work out how much of the fees were paid upfront and we won’t get to know the sort of numbers that could be added to the fees by way of add ons till the next lot of accounts are filed nor is it really possible to work out the sums due to be amortised but we know the real big value signings such as Forfana, Fernandez and Mudryk were signed on real long deals meaning their fees (both for the UEFA version and indeed the PL versions of FFP will be amortised ( depreciated) over 7-8 years. 

I am not able to fully track the 22/23 departures to make it tally because some of the players that left were never registered although we owned their contracts. But what is great news is that the players that left in 22/23 windows generated a profit of £22 million because when you consider how little we got for say Werner any profit is welcomed and it significantly reduced e amortisation charge going forward

So to this window 

By my reckoning at this point in time there are just four players on Chelsea books that a paid a fee was paid for before Bohley shipped up.
 

They are Lukaku, Kepa, Ziyech & Chillwell. I have heard mention that Sarr should be included as well but he signed on a free for compensation based on FIFAs regulations which won’t have been vast and any signing on fee is consolidated into his wages which if anywhere close to the numbers being reported are extortionate.

So let’s then look at those 4 players .

Lukaku yep needs to be got rid of and using the highest quoted figure in terms of the fee we paid for him we write his fee off at £20 million per annum ( £60 million left to  be amortised)

Kepa arrived for a £70 million fee with some £20 million yet  to be amortised at the rate of £10 million this season and £10 next.

Ziyech arrived 3 years ago for £35 million . His fee would normally be amortised at the rate of £7 million in years 23/24&24/25

Chillwell signed for around £45 million and was halfway through his 5 year deal when he signed the extension so his fee will be amortised at around £5 million pa.

So that’s £20+£10+£7+ £ 5 . =£ 42 million each year 

But in 20/21  21/22 Chelsea impaired £17.9 & £ 76.7 million  .For those that don’t know what that means it is the club taking a view as to a players value and if it less than the balance of their fees showing up in  the books you can adjust or in accounting terms impair figures down.

Now we have absolutely no idea which players had their book value reduced but I think it’s highly likely that the book value of  Lukaku, Ziyech and Kepa definitely were reduced.

So the £42 million I mentioned above probably is a gross exaggeration of the sums that we need to show in the accounts . Hopefully in 22/23it won’t be even half that sum  and if they depart in this window it will be minimal .

It then becomes easier to understand the historical numbers as we are only talking about Chillwell and for him we are talking about £5 million

So back to the 16 player incomings in 22/23 and of course that £368 million showing in the accounts. 
 

To work out the sum being reported in respect of amortisation you need to know how much was paid for each player and the length of contract. 

The contract lengths are out there but transfer fees aren’t so we can only guess as to the sum that will  be in the accounts. My guess and it’s only that is that in 22/23 will be less than the £160 million shown  in 21/22 and I don’t think it will be far away from the £160 mentioned previously for 23/24

Thoughts anyone ?