1 hour ago, Gonoir Beniashile said:

Wouldn't wipe my arse on the Daily Fascist.

Always open to a better daily with a sports page, any recommendations?

51 minutes ago, strider6004 said:

Always open to a better daily with a sports page, any recommendations?

No, I don't read newspapers these days, tend to get my sports stories from the Internet.

5 hours ago, strider6004 said:

The Mail have an article on our player purchases and sales the last couple of years re FFP say we may get into trouble next season though seem ok at the moment.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12968471/Chelsea-billion-players-Todd-Boehly-two-sacked-managers-broken-Premier-League-financial-rules-Everton-Forest.html

 

I read the article and commented earlier in the day on their site.

There are some facts that are beyond dispute but there are so many omissions that render their basic conclusions as questionable as a minimum.

As I said earlier  in the thread we have no idea what the P&S submissions were in 2019-21 ( averaged) 21/22 and now 22/23. What we do know is that for a variety of reasons be it COVID , sanctions and even financial consequences following the takeover how much had been claimed by way of exceptional items or indeed which players had their  amortisation reduced by way of impairment. We also know that the 18/19 year dropped out of the calculation and that year resulted in a loss of over £110 million.

 

 

20 minutes ago, terraloon said:

I read the article and commented earlier in the day on their site.

There are some facts that are beyond dispute but there are so many omissions that render their basic conclusions as questionable as a minimum.

As I said earlier  in the thread we have no idea what the P&S submissions were in 2019-21 ( averaged) 21/22 and now 22/23. What we do know is that for a variety of reasons be it COVID , sanctions and even financial consequences following the takeover how much had been claimed by way of exceptional items or indeed which players had their  amortisation reduced by way of impairment. We also know that the 18/19 year dropped out of the calculation and that year resulted in a loss of over £110 million.

 

 

That's the thing isn't it ? The only numbers publicly available are what is in the published accounts. I  don't think we know how this relates to the numbers submitted for FFP (with all the exceptional items etc) or what was actually accepted by the PL ?

In the published accounts, we made a profit of £32.5m in 19/20, and then big losses in 20/21 (-£153.4m) and 21/22 (-£121.3m). Last years 3 year rolling total as per accounts was -therefore -£242.2m,  so if that satisfied FFP, then the exceptional items and allowances etc must have been agreed with the PL to be at least £137.2m. I'd imagine similar allowances for the cycle for the next two years until the Covid year falls out, and who knows what will be agreed in respect of the government actions to sanction Roman ... 

Am I being too simplistic here ? You sound like you might be an accountant by profession so please put me straight if this thinking is way off ... 

43 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

That's the thing isn't it ? The only numbers publicly available are what is in the published accounts. I  don't think we know how this relates to the numbers submitted for FFP (with all the exceptional items etc) or what was actually accepted by the PL ?

In the published accounts, we made a profit of £32.5m in 19/20, and then big losses in 20/21 (-£153.4m) and 21/22 (-£121.3m). Last years 3 year rolling total as per accounts was -therefore -£242.2m,  so if that satisfied FFP, then the exceptional items and allowances etc must have been agreed with the PL to be at least £137.2m. I'd imagine similar allowances for the cycle for the next two years until the Covid year falls out, and who knows what will be agreed in respect of the government actions to sanction Roman ... 

Am I being too simplistic here ? You sound like you might be an accountant by profession so please put me straight if this thinking is way off ... 

No you are not . And no I am not ! 

It’s in effect what I have been saying for a while. The exceptions and allowances have to be significant otherwise we would have already been charged the years 19/20&20/21 averaged 21/22 and 22/23  all are far from straight forward and despite the anger some direct at the new owners they clearly have a financial plan and part of that was to dispose of players who may have had a short time left at Chelsea . Players like Jorginho. he was sold for more than his remaining amortised sum and when you add in his wages it was a decent positive in the numbers for a player who was almost certainly not going to get a new deal

FFP is not about fairness, and has obvious loopholes, finally someone figured it out and took advantage of it, glad it's us not Spurs or Arsenal. At the end of the day for most fans, it's about the actions on the field, not accounting😁 Glad we are not in trouble ( yet), getting better results and thus bring more revenues would be the ultimate goal, and why fans care about football in the first place.

8 hours ago, icecoolguy22 said:

FFP is not about fairness, and has obvious loopholes, finally someone figured it out and took advantage of it, glad it's us not Spurs or Arsenal. At the end of the day for most fans, it's about the actions on the field, not accounting😁 Glad we are not in trouble ( yet), getting better results and thus bring more revenues would be the ultimate goal, and why fans care about football in the first place.

It is a massive restriction on how football clubs can operate. In normal corporate world there areno such restrictions. So these restrictions are somewhat weird. Roman Abramovich started something that has evolved to something like the FFP is today. 

FFP is a guideline. When someone continually goes around them they start adding to the restrictions. Us and all big football brands do it, have an army of people to work around FFP to gain advantages over competing clubs. That is how market works.

When we go forward with new American owners like ours I feel the franchise thinking will come to Premier League at some point. Premier League as a league in terms of monetary value is below NBA, MLB and host of American leagues. The potential is massive with football because so many people watch it. 

What amuses me in this FFP bollocks is someone wanting to pump their own money into any club is restricted by all these regulations, but also anyone wanting to buy a club leveraging debt, therefore loading the club with a load of loans they didnt have before is acceptable. How ridiculous is that.

2 hours ago, dkw said:

What amuses me in this FFP bollocks is someone wanting to pump their own money into any club is restricted by all these regulations, but also anyone wanting to buy a club leveraging debt, therefore loading the club with a load of loans they didnt have before is acceptable. How ridiculous is that.

FFP just protects those with inherent wealth and massive income streams from being challenged by anyone else.

If a club gets an owner willing to spend his own money and not saddle the club with the spending and debt, that should be allowed. 

What isn't fair is not allowing a club and fans to not realise their dreams by preventing them from spending a rich benefactor's own wealth on the club.

Can't have them challenging the clubs who will always have the advantage of historical global income, their power is protected by the rules.

 

 

👆for many of the reasons above American Franchise thinking with salary ceilings and floors is a good solution for any league.

⚡Ability⚡ which is what people want to see win (instead of money) is in the forefront on top of that the series itself are usually even throughout the season and the eventual winner is much harder to predict. 

i am 100% sure something like this is eventually coming to Premier League. American influence and the 500 working examples will make that happen.

I am not saying whether it is good or bad but I think it will happen.

N

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

FFP just protects those with inherent wealth and massive income streams from being challenged by anyone else.

If a club gets an owner willing to spend his own money and not saddle the club with the spending and debt, that should be allowed. 

What isn't fair is not allowing a club and fans to not realise their dreams by preventing them from spending a rich benefactor's own wealth on the club.

Can't have them challenging the clubs who will always have the advantage of historical global income, their power is protected by the rules.

Not sure that is correct, you can still have a rich chap that expands the ground and the expenditure is not included in FFP yet should bring in more revenue longer term. 

Surely the global income is as a result of on the pitch success or playing style.

 

Edited January 18, 20242 yr by strider6004

7 hours ago, strider6004 said:

N

Not sure that is correct, you can still have a rich chap that expands the ground and the expenditure is not included in FFP yet should bring in more revenue longer term. 

Surely the global income is as a result of on the pitch success or playing style.

 

Yes you are correct that infrastructure spending doesn't affect FFP.

But it would take us for instance many years to increase capacity or build a new stadium, as it would many clubs. 

Global income is certainly dependent on success , but if clubs are prevented from buying  expensive players to propel them to the elite level and sucess it's very hard.

We would never have realised our wildest dreams if FFP was in place when Abramovitch bought Chelsea.

Thanks for the reply 

 

Tangentially related to the current discussion, this is an interesting analysis by ESPN's Gabriele Marcotti on the new Premier League rights deal.

With failing global economies and the global advertising spend on television decreasing, Marcotti suggests that the Premier League has potentially taken a first, significant backward step and that the era of ludicrous TV deals may be ending sooner rather than later. If we have truly reached 'peak Premier League', then the growth plans of Blueco et al will be well and truly scuppered.

Weirdly, if this is the case we will benefit by this crash coming sooner rather than later. If it is true that Blueco cannot sell within 10 years of acquisition, they would ostensibly motivated to keep improving the asset they hold as much as they can. My biggest concern isn't Blueco per se but the fact that we are owned by a speculating, profit-making entity, which means that they may well sell us for maximum value only to leave the future new owners holding the bag so to speak. If the market crashes after Blueco sell to a new mob we will see all manner of revenue-raising and spending restrictions that would drive the club to ruin.

4 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Tangentially related to the current discussion, this is an interesting analysis by ESPN's Gabriele Marcotti on the new Premier League rights deal.

With failing global economies and the global advertising spend on television decreasing, Marcotti suggests that the Premier League has potentially taken a first, significant backward step and that the era of ludicrous TV deals may be ending sooner rather than later. If we have truly reached 'peak Premier League', then the growth plans of Blueco et al will be well and truly scuppered.

Weirdly, if this is the case we will benefit by this crash coming sooner rather than later. If it is true that Blueco cannot sell within 10 years of acquisition, they would ostensibly motivated to keep improving the asset they hold as much as they can. My biggest concern isn't Blueco per se but the fact that we are owned by a speculating, profit-making entity, which means that they may well sell us for maximum value only to leave the future new owners holding the bag so to speak. If the market crashes after Blueco sell to a new mob we will see all manner of revenue-raising and spending restrictions that would drive the club to ruin.

I think the argument blueco has is that the Dallas cowboys make double the revenue of chelsea. 

This despite having only 15% of the followers on socials of Chelsea and playing only 9 games at home a season. 

They view "soccer" teams being ripe for massive revenue growth. 

That isn't just on TV deals. It's everything. 

8 hours ago, bisright1 said:

I think the argument blueco has is that the Dallas cowboys make double the revenue of chelsea. 

This despite having only 15% of the followers on socials of Chelsea and playing only 9 games at home a season. 

They view "soccer" teams being ripe for massive revenue growth. 

That isn't just on TV deals. It's everything. 

I know nothing about the NFL, but I looked at info after your comment.  No doubt our many American EPL owners see lots of untapped revenue streams, plus a salary cap like the NFL too.

Be interesting to see what happens, but I also noticed that despite their revenue outstripping the rest of the NFL, the Cowboys haven't won anything for ages ?

Our football has never had so money in it anyway, it'll never be enough.

 

 

 

 

Hearing the medical department chief has stepped down ? 
anyone else heard anything 

 

edit , seems like it’s for family reasons 

Edited January 19, 20242 yr by Andy2461
Spelling

Saw it posted here in another thread!

Thought I'd go through the list of all our signings under Boehly (those that have actually played decent minutes)

Ratings consist of performance and the price purchased for i.e Carney wouldn't be a great purchase if he was bought for 50m.

 

Bad Purchases:

Raheem Sterling

Kalidou Koulibaly

Marc Cucurella

Wesley Fofana

Aubameyang

Okay Purchases:

David Datro Fofana (Can easily sell for profit)

Mykhailo Mudryk

Noni Madueke

Nicolas Jackson (As an option off the bench only)

Enzo Fernandez (I believe he'll be a great purchase)

Lesley Ugochukwu

Axel Disasi

Robert Sanchez (Perfect as a no.2)

Moises Caicedo

Great Purchases:

Carney Chukwuemeka

Benoit Badiashile

Malo Gusto

Christopher Nkunku (When fit..)

Djorde Petrovic

Cole Palmer

8 hours ago, I am a CPA said:

Thought I'd go through the list of all our signings under Boehly (those that have actually played decent minutes)

Ratings consist of performance and the price purchased for i.e Carney wouldn't be a great purchase if he was bought for 50m.

 

Bad Purchases:

Raheem Sterling

Kalidou Koulibaly

Marc Cucurella

Wesley Fofana

Aubameyang

Okay Purchases:

David Datro Fofana (Can easily sell for profit)

Mykhailo Mudryk

Noni Madueke

Nicolas Jackson (As an option off the bench only)

Enzo Fernandez (I believe he'll be a great purchase)

Lesley Ugochukwu

Axel Disasi

Robert Sanchez (Perfect as a no.2)

Moises Caicedo

Great Purchases:

Carney Chukwuemeka

Benoit Badiashile

Malo Gusto

Christopher Nkunku (When fit..)

Djorde Petrovic

Cole Palmer

I assume Wesley Fofana is in the bad purchases list because of his injury record. Cannot disagree with that currently, especially at the price. However, if he did put his injuries behind him then he is young enough to yet prove to be a decent purchase.

Quite notable that Lavia didn't make it onto any list, and not surprising given that he has barely featured. Based on your assessment of Fofana I would assume Lavia also falls under Bad purchase?

2 hours ago, forbzy said:

I assume Wesley Fofana is in the bad purchases list because of his injury record. Cannot disagree with that currently, especially at the price. However, if he did put his injuries behind him then he is young enough to yet prove to be a decent purchase.

Quite notable that Lavia didn't make it onto any list, and not surprising given that he has barely featured. Based on your assessment of Fofana I would assume Lavia also falls under Bad purchase?

Wesley Fofano was a standout for Leicester & if he can get past his injuries he is still young enough to be very very good. The talent is obvious but he has been incredibly unlucky !!

11 hours ago, I am a CPA said:

Thought I'd go through the list of all our signings under Boehly (those that have actually played decent minutes)

Ratings consist of performance and the price purchased for i.e Carney wouldn't be a great purchase if he was bought for 50m.

 

Bad Purchases:

Raheem Sterling

Kalidou Koulibaly

Marc Cucurella

Wesley Fofana

Aubameyang

Okay Purchases:

David Datro Fofana (Can easily sell for profit)

Mykhailo Mudryk

Noni Madueke

Nicolas Jackson (As an option off the bench only)

Enzo Fernandez (I believe he'll be a great purchase)

Lesley Ugochukwu

Axel Disasi

Robert Sanchez (Perfect as a no.2)

Moises Caicedo

Great Purchases:

Carney Chukwuemeka

Benoit Badiashile

Malo Gusto

Christopher Nkunku (When fit..)

Djorde Petrovic

Cole Palmer

A few inconsistencies in here imo ... for example Sterling vs Mudryk ... you can't have Mudryk as ok (4 goals in 38 games, cost £63M+Add Ons) but Sterling as bad (16 goals in 62 appearances, cost £47.5M).  One goal for Carney doesn't  make him a great purchase either.  Koulibaly was no worse than any of the other centre backs we have signed, and was actually quite good a lot of the time. 

On 21/01/2024 at 09:02, forbzy said:

I assume Wesley Fofana is in the bad purchases list because of his injury record. Cannot disagree with that currently, especially at the price. However, if he did put his injuries behind him then he is young enough to yet prove to be a decent purchase.

Quite notable that Lavia didn't make it onto any list, and not surprising given that he has barely featured. Based on your assessment of Fofana I would assume Lavia also falls under Bad purchase?

I think Lavia will be a great purchase. Fofana bad purchase because of price + don't think he'll ever be a 70m CB. Lavia will justify his price.

On 21/01/2024 at 12:02, Sexyfootball said:

A few inconsistencies in here imo ... for example Sterling vs Mudryk ... you can't have Mudryk as ok (4 goals in 38 games, cost £63M+Add Ons) but Sterling as bad (16 goals in 62 appearances, cost £47.5M).  One goal for Carney doesn't  make him a great purchase either.  Koulibaly was no worse than any of the other centre backs we have signed, and was actually quite good a lot of the time. 

Sterling bad because he's very hot and cold + no resale value.

Carney at 20m is a bargain IMO.

Koulibaly was pretty bad. Never forget when freaken Leeds ran rings around him.

On 19/01/2024 at 12:14, The Rising Sun said:

I know nothing about the NFL, but I looked at info after your comment.  No doubt our many American EPL owners see lots of untapped revenue streams, plus a salary cap like the NFL too.

Be interesting to see what happens, but I also noticed that despite their revenue outstripping the rest of the NFL, the Cowboys haven't won anything for ages ?

Our football has never had so money in it anyway, it'll never be enough.

 

 

 

 

NFL revenue is insane. So much money for a sport that's only based on one continent. 

 

Edited January 22, 20242 yr by Sconnie Blue

21 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

NFL revenue is insane. So much money for a sport that's only based on one continent. 

 

With only 11 or 12 home games max per season. 

Spurs officially earn more revenue than Chelsea.