42 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

I get that many here, including myself, dont particularly like Clearlake - but this latest media sh*tstorm is way out of proportion.

ok - so we may have to sell some players to register new ones for the UCL. We are going to do this anyway? How much do we need to sell? £60m? Well, It seems like Madueke, nkunku, Sterling, Felix are all for sale...those are likely to drum up more than £100m alone....without taking into account any other sales that will definitely come.

So in the grand scheme - this is very much irrelevent, and will not impact our operation in any meaningful way.

The fine is more of a problem - but the fact we have to sell to register is meaningless. We were already planning to sell.

I think you are missing the point.

No one is complaining about having to sell players, we do that every year anyway. The issue is we didn't need to spend silly money on the likes of Felix, Diassi, KDH etc in the first place. This isn't even hindsight, everyone at the time knew these were bad transfers.

Edited July 7, 20251 yr by Remodez

1 hour ago, Remodez said:

I think you are missing the point.

No one is complaining about having to sell players, we do that every year anyway. The issue is we didn't need to spend silly money on the likes of Felix, Diassi, KDH etc in the first place. This isn't even hindsight, everyone at the time knew these were bad transfers.

With hindsight of course none of those signings have worked . Most transfers are a gamble some bigger gambles than others . Once it’s clear that the signing hasn’t worked out it’s then how you mitigate the loss.

What I would say that since 2004 we have a terrible track record when it comes to expensive transfer flops so those that are exclusively tag this type of failing as being exclusive to Blue Co aren’t really being objective.

23 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Are we without a shirt sponsor for this competition??

We are . I read that there was some sort of issue if we were to have a sponsor for this tournament and that sponsor wasn’t the same as the one that we do eventually agree to going forward.

From what little I do hear is that it will be a Middle Eastern airline that we go with and that the value of the deal is known ( the claim is it’s €65 million Pa) with a hefty bonus should we win the CWC. Probably just a rumour but it’s said to be Riyad Air

1 hour ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Madueke - Marginal profit

Nkunku - Loss

Sterling - Probably have to pay him to leave

Felix - Heavy loss

Great business

If the players are sold until we know what fees we get then it’s quite difficult, no impossible to talk about profit and loss.

That said we then need to look at what constitutes a profit or indeed a loss.

I understand why some look simply at a transfer in terms of fee paid in the fee achieved in the sale.But the reality is that you have to look at the written down ( amortised value when it comes to to PSR /FFP)

Some of the numbers are provided by reference to transfer market

Madueke he cost €35m he is 2 & 1/2 years into a 6&1/2 year deal. Current accounting value €22 million

Nunkuku he cost €66 million he is 2 years into a 6 year deal . Current accounting value €44 million

Sterling he cost €56.2 m he is 3 years into 5 year deal. Current accounting value €32 million.

Felix he cost €52 million he is 1 years into a 7 year deal . Due to both UEFa and PL rule changes his value is written off over 5 years . His current accounting value is €42 million.

5 minutes ago, terraloon said:

With hindsight of course none of those signings have worked . Most transfers are a gamble some bigger gambles than others . Once it’s clear that the signing hasn’t worked out it’s then how you mitigate the loss.

What I would say that since 2004 we have a terrible track record when it comes to expensive transfer flops so those that are exclusively tag this type of failing as being exclusive to Blue Co aren’t really being objective.

We are . I read that there was some sort of issue if we were to have a sponsor for this tournament and that sponsor wasn’t the same as the one that we do eventually agree to going forward.

From what little I do hear is that it will be a Middle Eastern airline that we go with and that the value of the deal is known ( the claim is it’s €65 million Pa) with a hefty bonus should we win the CWC. Probably just a rumour but it’s said to be Riyad Air

If the players are sold until we know what fees we get then it’s quite difficult, no impossible to talk about profit and loss.

That said we then need to look at what constitutes a profit or indeed a loss.

I understand why some look simply at a transfer in terms of fee paid in the fee achieved in the sale.But the reality is that you have to look at the written down ( amortised value when it comes to to PSR /FFP)

Some of the numbers are provided by reference to transfer market

Madueke he cost €35m he is 2 & 1/2 years into a 6&1/2 year deal. Current accounting value €22 million

Nunkuku he cost €66 million he is 2 years into a 6 year deal . Current accounting value €44 million

Sterling he cost €56.2 m he is 3 years into 5 year deal. Current accounting value €32 million.

Felix he cost €52 million he is 1 years into a 7 year deal . Due to both UEFa and PL rule changes his value is written off over 5 years . His current accounting value is €42 million.

Hi mate, thanks for info. I thought we had agreed a shirt sponsor with that Dubai property group ?

You mentioned amortization, last I read is that it is counted as a cost for PSR purposes and was about £210m a year. Does that mean in effect that we are £210m in debt for PSR even before transfer buying and selling ?

26 minutes ago, terraloon said:

With hindsight of course none of those signings have worked . Most transfers are a gamble some bigger gambles than others . Once it’s clear that the signing hasn’t worked out it’s then how you mitigate the loss.

What I would say that since 2004 we have a terrible track record when it comes to expensive transfer flops so those that are exclusively tag this type of failing as being exclusive to Blue Co aren’t really being objective.

We are . I read that there was some sort of issue if we were to have a sponsor for this tournament and that sponsor wasn’t the same as the one that we do eventually agree to going forward.

From what little I do hear is that it will be a Middle Eastern airline that we go with and that the value of the deal is known ( the claim is it’s €65 million Pa) with a hefty bonus should we win the CWC. Probably just a rumour but it’s said to be Riyad Air

If the players are sold until we know what fees we get then it’s quite difficult, no impossible to talk about profit and loss.

That said we then need to look at what constitutes a profit or indeed a loss.

I understand why some look simply at a transfer in terms of fee paid in the fee achieved in the sale.But the reality is that you have to look at the written down ( amortised value when it comes to to PSR /FFP)

Some of the numbers are provided by reference to transfer market

Madueke he cost €35m he is 2 & 1/2 years into a 6&1/2 year deal. Current accounting value €22 million

Nunkuku he cost €66 million he is 2 years into a 6 year deal . Current accounting value €44 million

Sterling he cost €56.2 m he is 3 years into 5 year deal. Current accounting value €32 million.

Felix he cost €52 million he is 1 years into a 7 year deal . Due to both UEFa and PL rule changes his value is written off over 5 years . His current accounting value is €42 million.

So like i said then.

Madueke profit, the other 3 are going to be losses.

I don't care about amortisation. The book nerds can class it as a win, but paying 66M for a player in their prime to then struggle to get any offers of 30M is a colossal failure. Sterling is going to be a write off and Felix has barely stepped on the pitch for us.

2 hours ago, Remodez said:

I think you are missing the point.

No one is complaining about having to sell players, we do that every year anyway. The issue is we didn't need to spend silly money on the likes of Felix, Diassi, KDH etc in the first place. This isn't even hindsight, everyone at the time knew these were bad transfers.

They weren’t that good.

18 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Hi mate, thanks for info. I thought we had agreed a shirt sponsor with that Dubai property group ?

You mentioned amortization, last I read is that it is counted as a cost for PSR purposes and was about £210m a year. Does that mean in effect that we are £210m in debt for PSR even before transfer buying and selling ?

That sponsorship deal was for the last part of the 24/25 PL &UEFA season. It ended after the Conference final and as I said earlier there was said to be an issue if we continued that sponsorship for the CWC but didn’t have the same sponsor in place for 25/26 season.

The £210 million or whatever the number currently is how much we charge to the basic accounts in respect of historical transfers. It’s not how much we paid out. It’s possible it could be the same as the annual amortised sum but more than likely a bigger sum is paid immediately with smaller annual payments.

Put another way say we buy a player for £50 million on a 5 year deal. After one year his asset value is £40 million , two it’s £30 million , three it’s £20 million , four £10 and at the end of his original 5 year deal he has no book value at all.

If we had sold that player after three years for say £50 million. In cash terms we broke even but in accounting terms as his book value was £20 million we have made a £30million profit. If we sold him for £10 million we would have made a loss of £10 million.

Its not unusual for the buying club to have to pay interest on the unpaid element of the fee and any unpaid part of the fee is identified as a liability in the accounts.

9 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

So like i said then.

Madueke profit, the other 3 are going to be losses.

I don't care about amortisation. The book nerds can class it as a win, but paying 66M for a player in their prime to then struggle to get any offers of 30M is a colossal failure. Sterling is going to be a write off and Felix has barely stepped on the pitch for us.

As I said some will treat it as a loss but the reality is that determining profit and loss and transferring those numbers into PSR and FFP submissions is based on accounting (FRS )protocols. We could get deeper into it in terms of determining the user value of an asset .

If we are purely calculating the sum paid against sum received in respect of a player then many players were a loss.

I know you can’t by any calculation consider the two players you mention as being anything other than loss making but how did you view Dave in that we paid a fee for him and let him go on a fee . The simple view he was a loss but as we know he was incredibly good value .

Edited July 7, 20251 yr by terraloon

I have just read the Times article and it’s actually full of holes and a complete and utter rubbish

The transfer window ends on 1 September which is a day before the 2 September A list submission deadline .

The journalist is saying we can include them on the list we are due to submit on 2/9/25 and count income from their sales will count. But how can that be put on any list if they aren’t our player we have to sell them by no later than1/9

Here’s the

“Fortunately for Chelsea, it appears outgoings do not have to be solely from last season’s List A. Those that were left out of Chelsea’s Club World Cup squad and are due back in training at Cobham from Monday — including João Félix, Raheem Sterling, Ben Chilwell, Renato Veiga and Axel Disasi — can count towards improving their transfer balance. They can be added to List A before the September 2 submission deadline and thus income from their sales will count. It is only if Chelsea’s overall transfer balance is negative after the list is submitted that new players could be prevented from registering.”

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

That sponsorship deal was for the last part of the 24/25 PL &UEFA season. It ended after the Conference final and as I said earlier there was said to be an issue if we continued that sponsorship for the CWC but didn’t have the same sponsor in place for 25/26 season.

The £210 million or whatever the number currently is how much we charge to the basic accounts in respect of historical transfers. It’s not how much we paid out. It’s possible it could be the same as the annual amortised sum but more than likely a bigger sum is paid immediately with smaller annual payments.

Put another way say we buy a player for £50 million on a 5 year deal. After one year his asset value is £40 million , two it’s £30 million , three it’s £20 million , four £10 and at the end of his original 5 year deal he has no book value at all.

If we had sold that player after three years for say £50 million. In cash terms we broke even but in accounting terms as his book value was £20 million we have made a £30million profit. If we sold him for £10 million we would have made a loss of £10 million.

Its not unusual for the buying club to have to pay interest on the unpaid element of the fee and any unpaid part of the fee is identified as a liability in the accounts.

Thanks mate. 👍

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

As I said some will treat it as a loss but the reality is that determining profit and loss and transferring those numbers into PSR and FFP submissions is based on accounting (FRS )protocols. We could get deeper into it in terms of determining the user value of an asset .

If we are purely calculating the sum paid against sum received in respect of a player then many players were a loss.

I know you can’t by any calculation consider the two players you mention as being anything other than loss making but how did you view Dave in that we paid a fee for him and let him go on a fee . The simple view he was a loss but as we know he was incredibly good value .

This graph shows total amortisation cost for the financial year and relates to all the players in the squad who have been signed for transfer fees. It counts as a cost on Premier League profit and sustainability (PSR) accounts.

So, are we in transfer debit by over £200m because of our amortization for Premier League PSR calculations ?

Edited July 7, 20251 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

Wouldn’t be the first time Ziegler posted some fear mongering nonsense.

2 hours ago, terraloon said:

That sponsorship deal was for the last part of the 24/25 PL &UEFA season. It ended after the Conference final and as I said earlier there was said to be an issue if we continued that sponsorship for the CWC but didn’t have the same sponsor in place for 25/26 season.

The £210 million or whatever the number currently is how much we charge to the basic accounts in respect of historical transfers. It’s not how much we paid out. It’s possible it could be the same as the annual amortised sum but more than likely a bigger sum is paid immediately with smaller annual payments.

Put another way say we buy a player for £50 million on a 5 year deal. After one year his asset value is £40 million , two it’s £30 million , three it’s £20 million , four £10 and at the end of his original 5 year deal he has no book value at all.

If we had sold that player after three years for say £50 million. In cash terms we broke even but in accounting terms as his book value was £20 million we have made a £30million profit. If we sold him for £10 million we would have made a loss of £10 million.

Its not unusual for the buying club to have to pay interest on the unpaid element of the fee and any unpaid part of the fee is identified as a liability in the accounts.

I suppose what I'm asking is, as the 200m amortisation amount counts as a cost, (spending) , every year do we start with a loss of £200m before transfers etc etc ,?

Not an accountant, so the jiggery pokery with the figures is always a bit alien to me - but in general, I think there will be an acceptance from the club that there are certain operating costs, and while headlines may scream “loss,” the club likely sees it as part and parcel of managing a big squad - some assets depreciate faster than others, some fail to hold their value, and others over-perform. That’s just the balancing act of football accounting in 2025.

There are also some instances where players have increased in value (despite book value decreasing). The likes of Mads and Chalobah have likely increased in price. Guiu and Cucu. Tosin. Palmer. Jackson. Many of the loan army, including Petrovic and Santos. Delap. Estavao is worth more now than when we agreed to buy him without even joining us. So not all bad news.

4 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

So like i said then.

Madueke profit, the other 3 are going to be losses.

I don't care about amortisation. The book nerds can class it as a win, but paying 66M for a player in their prime to then struggle to get any offers of 30M is a colossal failure. Sterling is going to be a write off and Felix has barely stepped on the pitch for us.

Yes quite happy to blow big money on Sterling and not get a return on him, BUT dont want to spend it on a world class striker (Osimhen) that could win us the PL

7 hours ago, Caps_Lock_King said:

Yes quite happy to blow big money on Sterling and not get a return on him, BUT dont want to spend it on a world class striker (Osimhen) that could win us the PL

Clearly the like of sterling and K2 were huge errors. That first transfer window was a car crash.

But they are not operating that way anymore.... Big money for has beens/washed up never was's is clearly not our model now - so an argument that they are learning and evolving on the job.

12 hours ago, terraloon said:

Its not unusual for the buying club to have to pay interest on the unpaid element of the fee and any unpaid part of the fee is identified as a liability in the accounts.

Especially if you're Man United and consistently owe over £300m in instalments every year 😂

10 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

Not an accountant, so the jiggery pokery with the figures is always a bit alien to me - but in general, I think there will be an acceptance from the club that there are certain operating costs, and while headlines may scream “loss,” the club likely sees it as part and parcel of managing a big squad - some assets depreciate faster than others, some fail to hold their value, and others over-perform. That’s just the balancing act of football accounting in 2025.

There are also some instances where players have increased in value (despite book value decreasing). The likes of Mads and Chalobah have likely increased in price. Guiu and Cucu. Tosin. Palmer. Jackson. Many of the loan army, including Petrovic and Santos. Delap. Estavao is worth more now than when we agreed to buy him without even joining us. So not all bad news.

Are you feeling okay?

2 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Are you feeling okay?

We are trying to sell him… put it in the brochure - he has increased in skill (and price) exponentially since he arrived here….the sky is the limit!

18 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Madueke - Marginal profit

Nkunku - Loss

Sterling - Probably have to pay him to leave

Felix - Heavy loss

Great business

Madueke is a good piece of business in a business/monetary sense. We have gotten good amount of football of Noni and he was on relatively low wages. I don't think we were looking to sell him and he was seen as one of the starters for us. Looks like he just wants to leave. That is on Noni and if we get £50m of a £30m buy it is good business.

Nkunku was a purchase from Boehly/Eghbali before we had the directors in place so I don't consider those buys as part of this SD's era. He was also bought for Pochettinos team and was sadly injured the entire season. If we stuck with Poch he might have had a very different career so far. He was an established player in the early to peak years. These are the most risky buys in terms of business as we painstakingly know from our recent history.

Sterling was also a purchase by the duo of owners. No need to talk about him.

Felix is a dumb buy and we dismissed his lack of brain which is totally on the club and the directors. Good thing is he still carries a relatively good transfer value.

In the world of black and white you seem to live in I think you are wrong on Noni. So I give you 75% to 25%. Not black, probably grey or beige ⚪.

15 hours ago, terraloon said:

As I said some will treat it as a loss but the reality is that determining profit and loss and transferring those numbers into PSR and FFP submissions is based on accounting (FRS )protocols. We could get deeper into it in terms of determining the user value of an asset .

If we are purely calculating the sum paid against sum received in respect of a player then many players were a loss.

I know you can’t by any calculation consider the two players you mention as being anything other than loss making but how did you view Dave in that we paid a fee for him and let him go on a fee . The simple view he was a loss but as we know he was incredibly good value .

Almost a decade of service and trophies won, positive transfer. The other players mentioned have contributed nothing to the club and whilst amortising their value and have just sat picking up a paycheck.

33 minutes ago, evissy said:

Madueke is a good piece of business in a business/monetary sense. We have gotten good amount of football of Noni and he was on relatively low wages. I don't think we were looking to sell him and he was seen as one of the starters for us. Looks like he just wants to leave. That is on Noni and if we get £50m of a £30m buy it is good business.

Nkunku was a purchase from Boehly/Eghbali before we had the directors in place so I don't consider those buys as part of this SD's era. He was also bought for Pochettinos team and was sadly injured the entire season. If we stuck with Poch he might have had a very different career so far. He was an established player in the early to peak years. These are the most risky buys in terms of business as we painstakingly know from our recent history.

Sterling was also a purchase by the duo of owners. No need to talk about him.

Felix is a dumb buy and we dismissed his lack of brain which is totally on the club and the directors. Good thing is he still carries a relatively good transfer value.

In the world of black and white you seem to live in I think you are wrong on Noni. So I give you 75% to 25%. Not black, probably grey or beige ⚪.

In true Orwellian fashion, I guess your world of black and white is superior to UB's !

We all ( well you would think but at times I wonder) enjoyed the RA era but the reality is that some of the transfers during that period seems to have passed some by.

If we want to talk about transfer mistakes or losses how about some of these

Lukaku

Kepa

Batshuayi

Rahman

Bakayoko

Veron

Mutu

Torres

Shevchenko

Drinkwater

SWP

Parker

Bourahrouz

Those names were without any research and yes we’re over a longer period than the current owners but I am pretty sure that others will easily fall into the category of providing terrible value for money

4 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Almost a decade of service and trophies won, positive transfer. The other players mentioned have contributed nothing to the club and whilst amortising their value and have just sat picking up a paycheck.

But on your simplistic linear assessment method he was a transfer fee loss.

He was a great signing and probably one of the very best in the PL era and that only goes to prove a point in that there’s far more to determining the value of a player .

The trick is when you know that a player isn’t going to work is to minimise your losses not just on the fee but do everything you can to get wages off the payroll.

Ironically it seems BlueCo to date have been better at that whereas RAs tenure saw player after player who cost a fortune put out on loan.

Most of the ones I list above and indeed 3 of the four you mentioned have been costly mistakes but the narrative that the situation is unique to the stewardship of BlueCo ignores the millions lost on poor signings over the RA years in an era where our turnover wasn’t even a third of what it is now ( 2003/04 £153.65 million )

3 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

In true Orwellian fashion, I guess your world of black and white is superior to UB's !

As a matter of interest do you disagree with any of the comments in that post ?

11 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

In true Orwellian fashion, I guess your world of black and white is superior to UB's !

Not sure what Orwell's got to do with this... although on the subject (slightly touching it anyway) I listened to Joe Rogans podcast yesterday while driving home at night from brilliant Guns N' Roses gig, he had this AI security expect Roman Yampolskiy on and I listened for 2 hours on the scenarios of AI and people/future. A good listen if that sort of thing interests you.

9 minutes ago, terraloon said:

As a matter of interest do you disagree with any of the comments in that post ?

He said Felix still carries a good value...