23 hours ago, timetowaste said:

Sorry but this shrewd deals thing with Marina just isn't true for the most part and I do get the clamouring for the Roman era because he was a generous owner that loved the club but we made some absolutely atrocious signings for huge money as well as poor business decisions. Not to mention we were £1.5bn in debt when Roman sold us because our business was decisions were poor, sooner or later it was going to come back to bite us and with investigations ongoing it still is biting us 2 and a half years later.

Unfortunately as fans we're just going to have to be patient which isn't easy to do when we're used to winning stuff every season. The new owners have had to rebuild everything from scratch because we haemorrhaged money almost every season so this meant rebuilding behind the scenes as well as getting rid of a lot of dross on big wages.

The new owners didn't HAVE to do anything. £1.5B in debt was written off, they inherited a team completely debt free which is almost unheard of in the premier league. If the financial situation was that bad, we wouldn't be spending 1.5B on signings. 

What dross on big wages did they actually get rid of? Lukaku and Kepa are both still here. Sterling on 300k+, Fofana on 200k+, Chilwell 200k, Reece 250k for a handful of games. These are all contracts handed out by Clearlake. 

Come on, from day one they had to cover the massive overheads on a major premier league club and one that had just lost a number of their top players. 

Just writing off the debt incurred largely by RA buying top drawer players at hugely inflated prices. does not ensure success you still have to get the formula right on the pitch and that has not happened yet.

53 minutes ago, strider6004 said:

Come on, from day one they had to cover the massive overheads on a major premier league club and one that had just lost a number of their top players. 

Just writing off the debt incurred largely by RA buying top drawer players at hugely inflated prices. does not ensure success you still have to get the formula right on the pitch and that has not happened yet.

Yeah i'm sure overpaying for teenagers and failing to get a shirt sponsorship in place by the first match day two years in a row really help with the overheads...

 

1 hour ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

The new owners didn't HAVE to do anything. £1.5B in debt was written off, they inherited a team completely debt free which is almost unheard of in the premier league. If the financial situation was that bad, we wouldn't be spending 1.5B on signings. 

What dross on big wages did they actually get rid of? Lukaku and Kepa are both still here. Sterling on 300k+, Fofana on 200k+, Chilwell 200k, Reece 250k for a handful of games. These are all contracts handed out by Clearlake. 

Depends what you define as big wages. Yes Sterlings wage is madness and from the sums reported Chillwells current wage is akin to the sum he was first signed on but the reality is that both Fofana and Reece were probably the last two players signed for post £200k a week indeed many of the current players are not being paid close to the sum Werner was said to be getting 

But how about Werner, Pulisic, and Havertyz for a start.Those 3 were said to be on a collective £620k a week.

Then I would through in the likes of ( sadly ) CHO and RLC another £300k a week. 

Then let’s look at the likes of Sarr, Drinkwater, Zieych, Rahman, Batsyhauyi, Emerson Bakyoko , Mousanda, that’s what another £700k  a week.

Add to that they made some difficult calls around Dave, Kante  & Alonso said to ba another £600k a week. We can berate all day re these ones

Ironically Lukakus wages were reduced from the sum he was paid when he re signed.

 

 

12 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Depends what you define as big wages. Yes Sterlings wage is madness and from the sums reported Chillwells current wage is akin to the sum he was first signed on but the reality is that both Fofana and Reece were probably the last two players signed for post £200k a week indeed many of the current players are not being paid close to the sum Werner was said to be getting 

But how about Werner, Pulisic, and Havertyz for a start.Those 3 were said to be on a collective £620k a week.

Then I would through in the likes of ( sadly ) CHO and RLC another £300k a week. 

Then let’s look at the likes of Sarr, Drinkwater, Zieych, Rahman, Batsyhauyi, Emerson Bakyoko , Mousanda, that’s what another £700k  a week.

Add to that they made some difficult calls around Dave, Kante  & Alonso said to ba another £600k a week. We can berate all day re these ones

Ironically Lukakus wages were reduced from the sum he was paid when he re signed.

 

 

Pay peanuts, get monkeys. 

The shirt sponsor problem, is that most contracts are a minimum 3 years. Outside of champions league, the money involved is peanuts, but within the CL the amounts rise significantly more. Clearlake want a single year, so that if we get back in the CL, then a much more lucrative contract can be negotiated. But signing a 3 or more year deal, would mean 2 or more years getting very little, until the contract was up for renewal. This is whats causing problems, the sponsors want several years at a very reduced cost to them, Clearlake want the opposite.

Edited August 13, 20241 yr by Ajbod

17 minutes ago, Ajbod said:

The shirt sponsor problem, is that most contracts are a minimum 3 years. Outside of champions league, the money involved is peanuts, but within the CL the amounts rise significantly more. Clearlake want a single year, so that if we get back in the CL, then a much more lucrative contract can be negotiated. But signing a 3 or more year deal, would mean 2 or more years getting very little, until the contract was up for renewal. This is whats causing problems, the sponsors want several years at a very reduced cost to them, Clearlake want the opposite.

You'd think that the self proclaimed experts in business would be able to navigate that though.

Surely that contract could include certain clauses that in the event of achieving CL football, the value of the contract increases. Sure, they would likely need to set this below what they would get for a fresh CL contract for it to be of value to the sponsor, but its got to be better than this seemingly endless cycle of searching for options. 

Its a really bad look. They came in with no experience or knowledge of football so whilst the on the field issues can't be excused, they could be understood. But the off the field, marketing of the club was meant to be their specialty. Its pretty embarrasing being in this position again where we have no sponsor going into the new season.

Edited August 13, 20241 yr by Niall1905

The reality is the owners have implemented a transfer strategy where they are hording players as if they were collectible NFTs on the off chance they increase in value in the future while underselling academy graduates who have dedicated their careers to Chelsea football club in the hope that their gamble pays off in the future. If they were a legitimate business in any other sector apart from football you would have the shareholders ringing the alarm bells. The fans are the shareholders in this particular case and we are ringing the alarm bells. This 'Crypto Bro' strategy is not going to work, we are just becoming a laughing stock and in the next few years we are going to have to experience the financial penalties that follow. Good luck to us. 

2 hours ago, Ajbod said:

The shirt sponsor problem, is that most contracts are a minimum 3 years. Outside of champions league, the money involved is peanuts, but within the CL the amounts rise significantly more. Clearlake want a single year, so that if we get back in the CL, then a much more lucrative contract can be negotiated. But signing a 3 or more year deal, would mean 2 or more years getting very little, until the contract was up for renewal. This is whats causing problems, the sponsors want several years at a very reduced cost to them, Clearlake want the opposite.

Funny they assume we’re getting back in the CL within the next two years. Bit of a moot point looking at it honestly 

Is it possible that we are overspending on players to further inflate the transfer market, thus making Clearlakes prediction of footballs finances continuing to explode come true?

Sounds like the sort of bone head decision they would make

12 minutes ago, Niall1905 said:

Is it possible that we are overspending on players to further inflate the transfer market, thus making Clearlakes prediction of footballs finances continuing to explode come true?

Sounds like the sort of bone head decision they would make

Will not be surprised one bit with their background in PE.

Just the sort of speculative moves those vultures specialise in.

2 hours ago, Ajbod said:

The shirt sponsor problem, is that most contracts are a minimum 3 years. Outside of champions league, the money involved is peanuts, but within the CL the amounts rise significantly more. Clearlake want a single year, so that if we get back in the CL, then a much more lucrative contract can be negotiated. But signing a 3 or more year deal, would mean 2 or more years getting very little, until the contract was up for renewal. This is whats causing problems, the sponsors want several years at a very reduced cost to them, Clearlake want the opposite.

I'm surprised they think we can get into the CL within 3 years, maybe edge europa league but you can't knock their enthusiasm. Maybe they know something we don't!? Is there a rule to actually have a sponsor? I dont know the difference in £££ between a cl sponsor or non cl sponsor but is it that big a difference? Maybe they are figuring out if its cheaper just to wait till next season (when they optimistically think we will be in the cl!) Tbh, I understand what they want but unless we know the exact numbers we just have to hope they have the club's best intentions and interests at heart and are doing the right thing.

On an aesthetics point of view, ain't shirts so much cleaner and nicer without a massive sponsor on the front? I loved last seasons, didn't bother getting the sponsor added. I hope third kit will be out before we get a sponsor. That's just my personal preference btw.

1 hour ago, DidierDrogbalala said:

Was going to annoy some spuds but then I saw us at the top too...lol

 

 

I think the heat is getting to me but I'm very mehhh, and just waiting to see what happens now. I'll start moaning around october/November if I don't see progress on the pitch.

Just read a comment posted on the beeb that got me thinking...

Maybe one of the reasons for doing all this now (whatever the fk it is) because we ain't in Europe atm. Their financial and player rules are stricter right?

CL is not their target atm till they do whatever it is they are doing...maybe they have only factored in Europa or ecl only.

Slightly less stringent rules than the CL?

 

I honestly don't fkn know, but trying to make sense of it all is baffling everyone.

We're just snatching at thoughts/ideas (and some crazy ones too) to make sense of it all.

um hmmm "Maybe one of the reasons for doing all this now (whatever the fk it is) because we ain't in Europe atm. Their financial and player rules are stricter right?

 

We are in Europe at the moment - have 2 qualifiers for the ECL at start of the season, playing just one of those games puts club under UEFA scrutiny for entire 24-25 season, so far I've heard nowt about club withdrawing from the comp?

 

Another point, its amusing how some fans even though their eyes tell them something is up by all of the craziness in the market by the club still come on here and try and justify it as the workings of a well run organization with a cunning plan to win trophies and at the same time justify that stance by being critical of Roman's tenure - Apples to Oranges ! they say "there's one born every minute"  I think that needs revising to every bleedin second 🤣

Stockpiling would make sense if transfer ban is looming. 
 

 

Love this: 

 

23 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Stockpiling would make sense if transfer ban is looming. 
 

 

Saw that someone was speculating that it will be a 4 window ban (2 seasons) and the increased transfer activity is to take that into account. 
 

Personally. I think will be face some sort of transfer ban. PL can’t be seen to be letting us off and punishing Forest etc. 

 

We’ll probably all happy with a transfer ban given the amount of transfers!

11 hours ago, terraloon said:

Depends what you define as big wages. Yes Sterlings wage is madness and from the sums reported Chillwells current wage is akin to the sum he was first signed on but the reality is that both Fofana and Reece were probably the last two players signed for post £200k a week indeed many of the current players are not being paid close to the sum Werner was said to be getting 

But how about Werner, Pulisic, and Havertyz for a start.Those 3 were said to be on a collective £620k a week.

Then I would through in the likes of ( sadly ) CHO and RLC another £300k a week. 

Then let’s look at the likes of Sarr, Drinkwater, Zieych, Rahman, Batsyhauyi, Emerson Bakyoko , Mousanda, that’s what another £700k  a week.

Add to that they made some difficult calls around Dave, Kante  & Alonso said to ba another £600k a week. We can berate all day re these ones

Ironically Lukakus wages were reduced from the sum he was paid when he re signed.

 

 

We're now paying wages to nearly 50 players plus agent fees for the numerous transfers.

Our wage bill went UP in the first season of the new owners, second only to Citeh 

8 hours ago, Ajbod said:

The shirt sponsor problem, is that most contracts are a minimum 3 years. Outside of champions league, the money involved is peanuts, but within the CL the amounts rise significantly more. Clearlake want a single year, so that if we get back in the CL, then a much more lucrative contract can be negotiated. But signing a 3 or more year deal, would mean 2 or more years getting very little, until the contract was up for renewal. This is whats causing problems, the sponsors want several years at a very reduced cost to them, Clearlake want the opposite.

Clearlake want the sponsors to pay CL money to THIS version of Chelsea?

😂

12 hours ago, strider6004 said:

Come on, from day one they had to cover the massive overheads on a major premier league club and one that had just lost a number of their top players. 

Just writing off the debt incurred largely by RA buying top drawer players at hugely inflated prices. does not ensure success you still have to get the formula right on the pitch and that has not happened yet.

It took 20 years of success to amass that debt.

After less than 2 years and BlueCo had a loss of nearly £700m last time I looked, with awful results, high turnover of managers , massive player churn etc etc.

Oh a transfer ban can't come soon enough...

🙏 🙏 🙏 

 

3 hours ago, General said:

um hmmm "Maybe one of the reasons for doing all this now (whatever the fk it is) because we ain't in Europe atm. Their financial and player rules are stricter right?

 

We are in Europe at the moment - have 2 qualifiers for the ECL at start of the season, playing just one of those games puts club under UEFA scrutiny for entire 24-25 season, so far I've heard nowt about club withdrawing from the comp?

 

 

I thought europa and europa conference would be less stringent on the rules...nvm, that theory is out, cheers mate.

9 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Clearlake want the sponsors to pay CL money to THIS version of Chelsea?

😂

So you didnt read anything he wrote then, well done.

9 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

We're now paying wages to nearly 50 players plus agent fees for the numerous transfers.

Our wage bill went UP in the first season of the new owners, second only to Citeh 

If you have a minute or two that you will never go back it’s worth trawling through the accounts that clubs register on companies house. What you will discover is most PL clubs have in excess of a 100 professional players on their books . Another reality check is to look just how many players in excess of the senior squads are registered. 

In relation to the total wage bill ours did indeed hit astronomical numbers but in that number included vast numbers whose wages won’t feature in squad costs. There are literally hundreds of people ( again as shown in the accounts) who work for the club in areas such as commercial, woman’s football, administration , the hotels, catering, grounds maintenance and security.

Ah you will say all clubs will have those sort of costs but actually they don’t. Many clubs outsource things such as stewards, catering and some like Everton for instance don’t have retail in house.

Add to that a couple of other points that being in the 22/23 year there were still costs associated with the sale . I haven’t seen confirmation but sums paid to ex directors who for all intents and purposes were employees received significant sums in respect of their settlement. In addition it’s worth noting that in 22/23 the new owners I read  that the owners made good sums that the club was not able to pay in respect of non playing staff in 21/22 due to sanctions.

It’s worth looking at the estimate provided by Sportsrac in relation to the squad costs

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/chelsea-fc/cap/_/year/2024

Still massive but no where close to the £400 million in the 22/23 accounts

 

Edited August 14, 20241 yr by terraloon