57 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

The plan is to NOT have a shirt sponsor.

The plan is working!!

You’re so eccentric, I love it.

Put this gif up just for you to comment you know what about our fans 😉

14 hours ago, evissy said:

If we are able to be the best selling club alongside with being one of the powerhouses of European football I think we've done very well. Not sure if another top club is described like so.

Buying/selling naturally has to be profitable as well.

We have been the "best selling" club in English football for over a decade. Granovskaia made it so.

8 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

It's true ! The clubs making transfer profits are the like of Brighton, Bournemouth, etc etc .

So why is it not a good thing if we did as well? Why can't we be a top dog and still make transfer profit? Because it is not traditionally so? I think we are able to lure the talent at Chelsea better than those said clubs.

I think the idea is both simple and good. I haven't seen the Blueco strategy on paper but it looks like we are doing this on purpose.

I am sure the visits at Brighton gave them these ideas.

Maybe we can be without that ugly sponsor on the front while making profit on sales. 🤔😉🤣🤣🤣

7 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

We have been the "best selling" club in English football for over a decade. Granovskaia made it so.

The difference being where the emphasis was. Back in Granovskaia's days, the emphasis was on winning on the pitch and buying players to do so, while selling surplus. Today, we're all about winning on the accountancy table and getting bargains to flip over for profit, and it's not going very well to be honest.

9 hours ago, C3blue said:

Well we know what a hard on they have for Brighton, of all the clubs to aspire to be like. Even they have a sponsor. It’s poor, we was told CL would see us get the deal we wanted…. Where are they. It’s embarrassing at this point. Put a charity on there or something and get some PR points but do something. Millions wasted.

This is the thing for me. There are so many options we could do in the short term. Get a 6 month deal for cut price while we negotiate. Stick a charity on there for PR. Literally anything, but it doesn’t seem important while we get fined for overspending.

I will give them some credit, they are slowly whittling down the ‘bomb squad’ and are getting decent enough money on the sales so fair play to them….. trying to be positive.

Any money saved/earned has been negated by the lack of FOS. It’s all very messy isn’t it, make a bit here, lose a bit there and still wholes in the first team. Should be a busy week.

22 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

This is the thing for me. There are so many options we could do in the short term. Get a 6 month deal for cut price while we negotiate. Stick a charity on there for PR. Literally anything, but it doesn’t seem important while we get fined for overspending.

As we know a short term deal was agreed last seasons when it be a clear that there wasn’t going to be an agreement which ticked both boxes that appear to be pre requisite namely long term and high value.

There is quite a process involved in putting anything on the front of strip. You have to comply with FA rules and PL and of course UEFA rules who take an eternity to sanction anything. From company values to the sizing of any letters and as we know from the Paramount deal the governing bodies don’t look favourably on a company being a FOS sponsor who is a direct competitor of one of their associate companies.

There isn’t a lot out there about a potential front of a shirt sponsor but there is absolutely no doubt that work is going on . As you possibly remember I thought that there would be an announcement by now I still think that there will be one sooner rather than later.

I can only imagine the deal they finally do will outweigh the lost years of having no sponsor. So I'm expecting a record breaking multi year contract anytime soon. Being World Club Champions should add extra interest.

Or there's another option that we are not aware of which will dwarf any standard sponsorship deal currently in place at other clubs.

I don't doubt this card will be played to maximise FFP / PSR compliance in the fullness of time.

It could even be being set aside should the transfer system change and players wages become the key issue.

Edited August 27, 2025Aug 27 by OneTommyLangley

16 minutes ago, C3blue said:

I will give them some credit, they are slowly whittling down the ‘bomb squad’ and are getting decent enough money on the sales so fair play to them….. trying to be positive.

Any money saved/earned has been negated by the lack of FOS. It’s all very messy isn’t it, make a bit here, lose a bit there and still wholes in the first team. Should be a busy week.

Will be.

Matt Law is suggesting that deals are in process for:

Disassi

Anselmino

Jackson

Nunkuku

Tyrique George ( he wants guarantees re playing time)

Sterling, yes Sterling

Three deals ( probably loans) for the likes of Gilchrist and Fofana

The only player that he isn’t hearing anything about is Chillwell. Now I wonder if the knock on to Colwills injury is making them re think the options at LB

11 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

I can only imagine the deal they finally do will outweigh the lost years of having no sponsor. So I'm expecting a record breaking multi year contract anytime soon. Being World Club Champions should add extra interest.

Or there's another option that we are not aware of which will dwarf any standard sponsorship deal currently in place at other clubs.

Pretty much my take.

We know that there were two offers of £40m Pa on the table last year but we don’t know the length of those deals

I thought Anslemino went to Dortmund on loan?

4 minutes ago, RMH said:

The difference being where the emphasis was. Back in Granovskaia's days, the emphasis was on winning on the pitch and buying players to do so, while selling surplus. Today, we're all about winning on the accountancy table and getting bargains to flip over for profit, and it's not going very well to be honest.

We did a ton of things right under the previous owner (can't name him because people get triggered here) and their strategy of winning was pure and simple.

Selling surplus wasn't something they did well with because the surplus we had was of over the hill category. Morata and Costa sales were fine just for an example but the likes of Lukaku and Kepa will go to history-books. Some of this new regiments early purchases (without SD's) will be on that list as well mind you. Some after that for sure as well. No one has a 100% track record.

Liverpool, Arsenal or Manchester United for example are not doing this to my knowledge. They could, they are not. That is a clear difference in strategy. Maybe they will in this climate at some point.

And to add winning on the pitch to me seems to be the aim with these new owners as well.

22 minutes ago, terraloon said:

As we know a short term deal was agreed last seasons when it be a clear that there wasn’t going to be an agreement which ticked both boxes that appear to be pre requisite namely long term and high value.

There is quite a process involved in putting anything on the front of strip. You have to comply with FA rules and PL and of course UEFA rules who take an eternity to sanction anything. From company values to the sizing of any letters and as we know from the Paramount deal the governing bodies don’t look favourably on a company being a FOS sponsor who is a direct competitor of one of their associate companies.

There isn’t a lot out there about a potential front of a shirt sponsor but there is absolutely no doubt that work is going on . As you possibly remember I thought that there would be an announcement by now I still think that there will be one sooner rather than later.

I'm not bothered about a front shirt sponsor, I enjoy much better the shirt without any ad on it, but in terms of money, the Club is losing millions. However, we were told it would be easy once we were back to the CL; even easier once we won the CWC. And here we are, two games into the new season and still not a peep about a deal. You say that it's a complex process, I agree, and yet all PL teams have one and you'd expect that a competent board would have the done the negotiation in advance so they can get it done before the season kicks off. Even if they do get one in soonish, they look amateurish.

36 minutes ago, terraloon said:

There is quite a process involved in putting anything on the front of strip. You have to comply with FA rules and PL and of course UEFA rules who take an eternity to sanction anything. From company values to the sizing of any letters and as we know from the Paramount deal the governing bodies don’t look favourably on a company being a FOS sponsor who is a direct competitor of one of their associate companies.

I don't think this is the case at all because the rules are well known and most other clubs organise this in a matter of weeks. Governing bodies don't intervene until the sponsor is already decided, although the recent changes to the APT rules mean clubs are entitled to a preliminary assessment from the PL on whether the deal is likely to meet fair market value. Still, I think it's a stretch to blame regulation for the hold up.

I think it's more likely that the club are happy to wait it out, as I understand it FFP/PSR regulations don't care when the money is received so it doesn't matter if the deal is concluded on the first day of the season or the last.

5 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I think it's more likely that the club are happy to wait it out, as I understand it FFP/PSR regulations don't care when the money is received so it doesn't matter if the deal is concluded on the first day of the season or the last.

This, maybe 👍

53 minutes ago, terraloon said:

As we know a short term deal was agreed last seasons when it be a clear that there wasn’t going to be an agreement which ticked both boxes that appear to be pre requisite namely long term and high value.

There is quite a process involved in putting anything on the front of strip. You have to comply with FA rules and PL and of course UEFA rules who take an eternity to sanction anything. From company values to the sizing of any letters and as we know from the Paramount deal the governing bodies don’t look favourably on a company being a FOS sponsor who is a direct competitor of one of their associate companies.

There isn’t a lot out there about a potential front of a shirt sponsor but there is absolutely no doubt that work is going on . As you possibly remember I thought that there would be an announcement by now I still think that there will be one sooner rather than later.

The short term deal was announced 30/04, you mean it took them until the very end of the season for them to realise they weren’t going to get a long term deal? They could have sorted a one year deal last summer to tick us over to negotiate this summer for a long term deal like they did with Infinite Athlete.

We’ve been confidently told that we were waiting as there were multiple deals lined up for after we won European silverware, and the CWC on top of this to sweeten the deal. 3 games into the season now and there aren’t even rumours.

I’m sure if we went to the governing bodies and told them we were putting Great Ormond Street on the front of the shirt free of charge for 3 months, there would be zero push back. We got Damac agreed ready for the CWC for a 6 week sponsorship easy enough.

21 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I don't think this is the case at all because the rules are well known and most other clubs organise this in a matter of weeks. Governing bodies don't intervene until the sponsor is already decided, although the recent changes to the APT rules mean clubs are entitled to a preliminary assessment from the PL on whether the deal is likely to meet fair market value. Still, I think it's a stretch to blame regulation for the hold up.

I think it's more likely that the club are happy to wait it out, as I understand it FFP/PSR regulations don't care when the money is received so it doesn't matter if the deal is concluded on the first day of the season or the last.

Yes I’m sure a sponsor would be more willing to part with millions to get their name on the shirt for a full season rather than for the last few games?? Waiting makes no logical sense.

1 hour ago, C3blue said:

I will give them some credit, they are slowly whittling down the ‘bomb squad’ and are getting decent enough money on the sales so fair play to them….. trying to be positive.

But then we're signing more average players who will be in next season's edition of "Bomb Squad", here on HBO, Friday's at 9PM.

55 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I don't think this is the case at all because the rules are well known and most other clubs organise this in a matter of weeks. Governing bodies don't intervene until the sponsor is already decided, although the recent changes to the APT rules mean clubs are entitled to a preliminary assessment from the PL on whether the deal is likely to meet fair market value. Still, I think it's a stretch to blame regulation for the hold up.

I think it's more likely that the club are happy to wait it out, as I understand it FFP/PSR regulations don't care when the money is received so it doesn't matter if the deal is concluded on the first day of the season or the last.

APT is only one aspect running parallel to that as you say you have FMV particularly when there is a link of any sort between the two parties.

If and it’s a big if the deal is with Riyadh air are indeed the chosen ones the links with PIF are apparent and the deal would be scrutinised before it can be finally agreed. There are set timescales if the agreement is clear cut (10 working days) but if further information needs to be assessed it can take weeks indeed there isn’t any time line. Remember how long it took for the PL to sign off the FMV aspects of the hotel deal.

Of course I am only speculating but I am hoping the deal is so large it will blow many of the current clubs deal away .If that’s correct there will be a need for significant additional information from club / sponsor.

Here’s the PL rules of FMV and UEFA would still have a say

The FMV Rules establish a clear, detailed and transparent process that the Premier League Board is required to follow when conducting FMV assessments of transactions between Clubs and associated parties.

The Rules (Rule A.1.98) state that when undertaking a FMV Assessment, the Board must consider:
- An assessment of the value of the Transaction produced by an independent expert.
- Any relevant information provided by the Club.
- Comparable evidence of the values of similar Transactions as is appropriate, relevant and readily available to it. In practice, this last limb is achieved via the creation of a "Databank" in 2021, into which all Clubs must submit all commercial transactions over £100,000.

The Rules governing the FMV assessment process (E.65 to E.68), also provide the timeframes in which the FMV assessments should be undertaken and the steps Premier League Clubs must take if a transaction is found not to be at FMV. Those Rules provide that the timeframes provided for will not apply where: 
- The Board reasonably requires further information and/or documentation from the Club, or additional analysis to be undertaken to conclude its FMV assessment; or 
- The Board requires more time to conclude the FMV Assessment due to exceptional circumstances.  

If the Premier League Board determines that an APT is not at FMV it has the power to require the club to "restate" or vary the terms of the APT to reflect FMV. In that case, the Clubs is prohibited from concluding the deal above the "restated" value.

The process the Board follows when undertaking FMV Assessments for different types of transactions is set out in detailed protocols contained in the appendices to the Rules:
- Full details of FMV assessment protocols for commercial rights agreements are at Appendix 18 – page 621 of the Premier League Handbook. 
- Full details of FMV assessment protocols for player registrations (being both temporary and permanent transfers) are at Appendix 19 – page 629 of the Premier League Handbook. 
- Full details of FMV assessment protocols for the supply of goods and services are at Appendix 20 – page 635 of the Premier League Handbook

Edited August 27, 2025Aug 27 by terraloon

47 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Yes I’m sure a sponsor would be more willing to part with millions to get their name on the shirt for a full season rather than for the last few games?? Waiting makes no logical sense.

As I have just posted elsewhere any deal has to be run past the PL and whilst most are just agreed by return those with potential links to the owners ( if it’s Riyad Air (PIF) )will go though a whole level of scrutiny before the PL rule on its acceptance

41 minutes ago, terraloon said:

As I have just posted elsewhere any deal has to be run past the PL and whilst most are just agreed by return those with potential links to the owners ( if it’s Riyad Air (PIF) )will go though a whole level of scrutiny before the PL rule on its acceptance

Riyadh Air has been rumoured for over a year now, this is just more excuses for incompetence. Defending the indefensible.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/08/23/chelsea-shirt-sponsor-infinite-athlete-premier-league-40m/

Infinite Athlete, launched only at the start of the month, are understood to have provided the Premier League with details of their funding and revenues in a bid to satisfy fair market value rules and get the go-ahead to display the company’s logo on Chelsea’s shirts.

Other than simply ruling on the value of the deal, the Premier League have requested information over the funding behind Infinite Athlete, which is a private company, and investment links that may involve Chelsea’s co-controlling owners Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali.

Tempus Ex Machina, with whom Chelsea signed a seven-year product partnership in April, acquired Biocore to form Infinite Athlete, whose partners include Silver Lake.

Silver Lake own more than 18 per cent of the City Football Group and are investors in Fanatics, along with Eldridge, which is the company owned by Boehly. Clearlake Capital, who are co-owned by Eghbali, led a $700 million financing round for Fanatics last year.

We managed to get a brand new company to start up and get agreed by the league within a month, but it should take an entire season, summer break and the start of this season to get a sponsor lined up? Surely you lot don't even believe some of the things you say to jump to their defence?

2 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Riyadh Air has been rumoured for over a year now, this is just more excuses for incompetence. Defending the indefensible.

Here’s a question for you.

Have you ever been involved in negotiating a multi million £ deal including penalties, clauses , bonuses , payment structure, tax implications, cooling off periods alongside constraints imposed by governing bodies ?

I certainly haven’t . The closest I got was a non league shirt deal which from initial discussions to implementation of a two year deal took about a month. Getting payment once invoiced was another matter.

Newcastles deal with Selsa took over a year due to its links with Saudi ownership.

1 minute ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/08/23/chelsea-shirt-sponsor-infinite-athlete-premier-league-40m/

Infinite Athlete, launched only at the start of the month, are understood to have provided the Premier League with details of their funding and revenues in a bid to satisfy fair market value rules and get the go-ahead to display the company’s logo on Chelsea’s shirts.

Other than simply ruling on the value of the deal, the Premier League have requested information over the funding behind Infinite Athlete, which is a private company, and investment links that may involve Chelsea’s co-controlling owners Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali.

Tempus Ex Machina, with whom Chelsea signed a seven-year product partnership in April, acquired Biocore to form Infinite Athlete, whose partners include Silver Lake.

Silver Lake own more than 18 per cent of the City Football Group and are investors in Fanatics, along with Eldridge, which is the company owned by Boehly. Clearlake Capital, who are co-owned by Eghbali, led a $700 million financing round for Fanatics last year.

We managed to get a brand new company to start up and get agreed by the league within a month, but it should take an entire season, summer break and the start of this season to get a sponsor lined up? Surely you lot don't even believe some of the things you say to jump to their defence?

That was a one season deal, of average value with little negotiation needed between the parties nor would there have been need to add penalty clauses etc for year two et seq if the sponsorship term

The PL were only ruling on FMV and £40 m would easily have been matched by similar numbers within the PL data bank.

APT aren’t banned they just have to be of FMV .

Edited August 27, 2025Aug 27 by terraloon

3 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Here’s a question for you.

Have you ever been involved in negotiating a multi million £ deal including penalties, clauses , bonuses , payment structure, tax implications, cooling off periods alongside constraints imposed by governing bodies ?

I certainly haven’t . The closest I got was a non league shirt deal which from initial discussions to implementation of a two year deal took about a month. Getting payment once invoiced was another matter.

Newcastles deal with Selsa took over a year due to its links with Saudi ownership.

I'm a senior quantity surveyor that works on multiple government frameworks for a billion pound construction company, so yes. I've negotiated many deals involving relevant construction law, LAD's, payment provisions etc.

Did the non league team have billions of pounds worth of investment and 1000's of people employed by them? I imagine having the best of the best would speed the process up, especially when it is their full time job.

Newcastle's took over a year yet they still had it setup ready for when Fun88 ran out. Its called planning ahead, Clearlake took over in 2022.