2 hours ago, Niall1905 said:

Looks like we are one of the only clubs who wouldn't have been compliant had the spending cap been in place last season, which is hardly suprising. 

Saying that though, and without any knowledge or expertise of how it will playout, I wonder if a shift to this cap may help us make up for the mistakes of the last few seasons of FFP mess. 

Us abstaining from the vote would potentially suggest otherwise but interesting either way. Hopefully one of the few decent chelsea focussed journo's puts something together soon on how we can expect it to go.

With our current owners a curb on spending will probably help us to be honest 😉

1 hour ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

Sure, just saying this might be part of the reason why they chose to do it this way.

The transfer ban didn't hurt us too badly a few years either. Without it we may not have given a chance to a number of talented youth players. Even those that were eventually sold, generated some useful income for the club.

1 hour ago, forbzy said:

The transfer ban didn't hurt us too badly a few years either. Without it we may not have given a chance to a number of talented youth players. Even those that were eventually sold, generated some useful income for the club.

Yeah, and I’m concerned that the current model doesn’t allow for academy players to come through. Lets just say for arguments sake that Stewart is the main man behind the signing of Ugochukwu, while Winstanley championed Santos. What are the chances that Kiano Dyer gets a real chance ahead of them, even if he has the bigger talent? Who will push for him? 
Too many egoes, too many young players in each position. And as you say, it might backfire. We got real money from the academy players we blooded under Frank, because they had proved themselves with us. Without that, you’ll get peanuts. 
But we’ll see, it might all work out in the end

The year with transfer ban was actually one of the better season for us, got the top 4 spot on the last day, unleashed the likes of Mount\James etc, and played some good football. The difference was we still had  proven players in the team even without the genius of  Hazard,  young players able to step up, and we didn't have a huge squad to manage. It's pretty clear under the new ownership, players come from academy will be sold for profits to cover expensive imports of foreign youth ( 20M+ youth who couldn't even get a cameo when we are down to bare bones), you wonder why the academy kids will even bother?

1 hour ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

Yeah, and I’m concerned that the current model doesn’t allow for academy players to come through. Lets just say for arguments sake that Stewart is the main man behind the signing of Ugochukwu, while Winstanley championed Santos. What are the chances that Kiano Dyer gets a real chance ahead of them, even if he has the bigger talent? Who will push for him? 
Too many egoes, too many young players in each position. And as you say, it might backfire. We got real money from the academy players we blooded under Frank, because they had proved themselves with us. Without that, you’ll get peanuts. 
But we’ll see, it might all work out in the end

Agreed. It is hard enough to see how the likes of Omari Hutchinson will get a chance. Let alone Tyrique George and Kiano Dyer. But perhaps we will see some more of these players in pre-season. That is a good opportunity for them.

10 hours ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

Yeah, and I’m concerned that the current model doesn’t allow for academy players to come through. Lets just say for arguments sake that Stewart is the main man behind the signing of Ugochukwu, while Winstanley championed Santos. What are the chances that Kiano Dyer gets a real chance ahead of them, even if he has the bigger talent? Who will push for him? 
Too many egoes, too many young players in each position. And as you say, it might backfire. We got real money from the academy players we blooded under Frank, because they had proved themselves with us. Without that, you’ll get peanuts. 
But we’ll see, it might all work out in the end

FFP is moving clubs to cash in on their academy players, its a complete reverse of what all the so called experts told us would happen. They are pure profit and will just be sold continuously now unfortunately, this isnt our American owners doing, this is the ridiculous FFP bollocks.

9 hours ago, icecoolguy22 said:

The year with transfer ban was actually one of the better season for us, got the top 4 spot on the last day, unleashed the likes of Mount\James etc, and played some good football. The difference was we still had  proven players in the team even without the genius of  Hazard,  young players able to step up, and we didn't have a huge squad to manage. It's pretty clear under the new ownership, players come from academy will be sold for profits to cover expensive imports of foreign youth ( 20M+ youth who couldn't even get a cameo when we are down to bare bones), you wonder why the academy kids will even bother?

Yup. Be pissed off if I was one of them... glad we got Palmer in from Man City though.

41 minutes ago, dkw said:

FFP is moving clubs to cash in on their academy players, its a complete reverse of what all the so called experts told us would happen. They are pure profit and will just be sold continuously now unfortunately, this isnt our American owners doing, this is the ridiculous FFP bollocks.

Very interesting perspective and a very valid point. There are two issues here, one is that Clearlake, Boehly, Egbahli et al have been overspending on players that are not ready or are just not the quality required. But it is interesting your point, because without FFP no one would consider the academy products as 'pure' profit and clubs (not only us) would sell whoever did not make the quality cutoff rather than looking first at the 'pure' profit ones.

34 minutes ago, RMH said:

Very interesting perspective and a very valid point. There are two issues here, one is that Clearlake, Boehly, Egbahli et al have been overspending on players that are not ready or are just not the quality required. But it is interesting your point, because without FFP no one would consider the academy products as 'pure' profit and clubs (not only us) would sell whoever did not make the quality cutoff rather than looking first at the 'pure' profit ones.

Our annual amortisation burden is at £205 million. The next two teams down are United at a £152m and then City at a £145m.

So for me its a cop out to blame FFP for our strategy that involves selling of our best club lads. The amortisation burden that is blowing everyone out of there water and will continue to do so for the next 7-8 years is the main reason. The fact that we'll miss out on Champions League income for at least two consecutive seasons obviously just exacerbates the situation but thats also down to the strategy of the owners.

 

1 hour ago, dkw said:

FFP is moving clubs to cash in on their academy players, its a complete reverse of what all the so called experts told us would happen. They are pure profit and will just be sold continuously now unfortunately, this isnt our American owners doing, this is the ridiculous FFP bollocks.

Good point, that is a consequence I think they didn’t see coming. Though, if we want big money for them, we need to give them a pathway into the first team first. For reference, Lewis Hall was sold for about 28 million while Tino Livramento went for about 5 (albeit with percentages on a future transfer) 

For me Livramento is the superior player, but that’s what a year of PL exposure does to your reputation

You can loan them to other PL clubs of course, but as Broja and Santos has proven thats a risky strategy

 

3 hours ago, dkw said:

FFP is moving clubs to cash in on their academy players, its a complete reverse of what all the so called experts told us would happen. They are pure profit and will just be sold continuously now unfortunately, this isnt our American owners doing, this is the ridiculous FFP bollocks.

Latest is we're going to sell Stoll mansions to ourselves 

2 hours ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

Good point, that is a consequence I think they didn’t see coming. Though, if we want big money for them, we need to give them a pathway into the first team first. For reference, Lewis Hall was sold for about 28 million while Tino Livramento went for about 5 (albeit with percentages on a future transfer) 

For me Livramento is the superior player, but that’s what a year of PL exposure does to your reputation

You can loan them to other PL clubs of course, but as Broja and Santos has proven thats a risky strategy

 

What there could be is concessions in FFP for playing academy graduates, legacy players etc. So for every one of them players that play x amount of games/minutes you get space afforded in the FFP or Salary cap for the following season. 

But FFP was never about saving clubs finances, it was entirely about the bigger clubs closing the door to anyone catching them, its about them protecting themselves, same as G14 sh*te was, same as them sorting European competitions out for themselves, same as them stopping crowd money sharing etc. Were seen as the big bad wolves, but Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool have all closed the league pathways over the years constantly. It took us getting a billionaire to catch up to them, then City and now they are shifting the goalposts again to stop all that.

Edited April 30, 20242 yr by dkw

6 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Latest is we're going to sell Stoll mansions to ourselves 

Can we sell Conor Gallagher to ourselves?

I posted this in the Emma Hayes thread and was unaware of it when it came out last year! No smoke without fire and all that!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12726409/amp/Chelsea-owners-want-answers-sporting-director-Paul-Winstanley-Emma-Hayes-opted-leave-club-USA-role-tasked-agreeing-new-contract.html

19 minutes ago, Mod said:

I posted this in the Emma Hayes thread and was unaware of it when it came out last year! No smoke without fire and all that!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12726409/amp/Chelsea-owners-want-answers-sporting-director-Paul-Winstanley-Emma-Hayes-opted-leave-club-USA-role-tasked-agreeing-new-contract.html

I guess Winstanley was too busy signing a job lot of Brazilian teenagers based on Sofascore ratings.

17 hours ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Can we sell Conor Gallagher to ourselves?

We need the company that bought the hotel (Blueco?) to employ Kepa and Lukaku as bar staff, with transfer fees of, say £70m and £97m (to pluck absurd figures out of the air).

1 hour ago, Backbiter said:

We need the company that bought the hotel (Blueco?) to employ Kepa and Lukaku as bar staff, with transfer fees of, say £70m and £97m (to pluck absurd figures out of the air).

Lukaku can clean the f**king bogs!

3 hours ago, Mod said:

I posted this in the Emma Hayes thread and was unaware of it when it came out last year! No smoke without fire and all that!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12726409/amp/Chelsea-owners-want-answers-sporting-director-Paul-Winstanley-Emma-Hayes-opted-leave-club-USA-role-tasked-agreeing-new-contract.html

If this is true then I'm seriously thinking there's intentional sabotage from the two muppets in charge. Anyone know what clubs Stewart and Winstanley supported growing up?  

1 hour ago, yaz said:

If this is true then I'm seriously thinking there's intentional sabotage from the two muppets in charge. Anyone know what clubs Stewart and Winstanley supported growing up?  

It would fit in with the narrative of them completely de-Romanising this club! Emma is far from a 'Yes (wo)man' and would definitely not like all the involvement! You could see she was pissed off straight after the last WSL game last season after doing the double! I reckon they completely sat back not giving a sh*t and Emma got pissed off by it and wanted out!

I think soon a former Manager, a player. or a staff member will speak out about everything! I bet there are some NDA's getting signed left right and centre!

5 hours ago, Mod said:

I posted this in the Emma Hayes thread and was unaware of it when it came out last year! No smoke without fire and all that!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12726409/amp/Chelsea-owners-want-answers-sporting-director-Paul-Winstanley-Emma-Hayes-opted-leave-club-USA-role-tasked-agreeing-new-contract.html

When she announced in November 2023 that she was leaving at the end of this season she mentioned her young son and all the work and travelling that impacts on their lives

Then apparently the real reason was that she was impatient about talks over a new contract ?

 

Then she takes up the job of coach to the American team and suddenly travelling and working  isn't an issue for her relationship with her child anymore !

Nothing adds up does it ? 

Edited May 1, 20242 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

On 29/04/2024 at 18:27, DukesOfHazard said:

Think the idea, idea being the key word, would have been to assemble a squad of highly talented youngsters that have us competing for the next decade, or provide a decent fee for selling on. 
 

What we appear to have is a little worrying. Next season will be quite telling.

Indeed, the idea was to do it like in FIFA career mode at difficulty level "professional", since that's what they are.

Just individually train the players you want to raise certain stats for and they'll automatically get better = profit.

Just saw that Richard Masters ( CEO of the PL) confirmed to Parliament in January that Chelsea are still under investigation for potential rules breaches. ( That's the Abramovich' stuff I think)

17 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

When she announced in November 2023 that she was leaving at the end of this season she mentioned her young son and all the work and travelling that impacts on their lives

Then apparently the real reason was that she was impatient about talks over a new contract ?

 

Then she takes up the job of coach to the American team and suddenly travelling and working  isn't an issue for her relationship with her child anymore !

Nothing adds up does it ? 

Well, it does. The contract thing was always bullsh*t. She has had a dreadful couple of years. Losing her son's twin, and most recently, in October last year, her father, who she relied on very heavily, died. Managing Chelsea is a full-on, high-pressure job given the obvious expectations. I don't know how she coped as she did. Managing a national team simply doesn't have the ongoing demands. She will relocate to the States. She made a completely understandable lifestyle decision. More power to her.

4 hours ago, dermott said:

Well, it does. The contract thing was always bullsh*t. She has had a dreadful couple of years. Losing her son's twin, and most recently, in October last year, her father, who she relied on very heavily, died. Managing Chelsea is a full-on, high-pressure job given the obvious expectations. I don't know how she coped as she did. Managing a national team simply doesn't have the ongoing demands. She will relocate to the States. She made a completely understandable lifestyle decision. More power to her.

All true, what I was trying to say ( and failing) was that I didn't believe her decision was much to do with contract negotiations and Winstanley. My comment was in response to a comment that said it was.

Thanks for your reply mate 👍

Edited May 2, 20242 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

The other day I was chatting to one of the guys I go to the games with and we discussed when season ticket renewals will be sent out. From what I can remember renewal letters and/or emails are normally sent out about early May. Haven't seen anything yet. We agreed that it wouldn't surprise us if renewals weren't sent out until after the last game of the season especially if there is a large increase in season ticket prices. If there is a large increase, sending out renewals after the game against Bournemouth would avoid mass protests by fans. I'm a cynical old bastard and I hope I'm wrong. I guess that time will tell.