19 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Is this correct.... FIFA rules ?? Either way , we need to drop our asking price for Jacko surely ?

Put him up for sale at £5 , Levy will jump at it , he loves a bargain !

"FIFA rules state that one team can only loan six players abroad at any one time, and the Blues have already used five slots and are still trying to get rid of a whole host of players including Christopher Nkunku, Raheem Sterling, Ben Chilwell and Axel Disasi, so they may need to keep their last slot free."

Yep they changed the rules circa two years or so ago. The number of international loans reduced from 8 to 7 to 6 which is the number we are all now having to work to.

There aren’t the same restrictions around domestic loans.

4 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Yep they changed the rules circa two years or so ago. The number of international loans reduced from 8 to 7 to 6 which is the number we are all now having to work to.

There aren’t the same restrictions around domestic loans.

Thanks for info mate. 👍

9 hours ago, evissy said:

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.

Yes , we are being run perfectly in a financial way aren't we ?? Except for being fined for breaking earnings rules and another fine witheld but ready in case we fail to comply with the rules.

The deal would take Chelsea's income from player sales this summer to a league-high £273.4m, which almost balances out the £277m spent on incoming transfers.

Uefa have told Chelsea they must record a positive transfer balance this window in order to be allowed to register their new signings for this season's Champions League.

It follows them having been fined £26.7m for a breach of Uefa's football earning rules and having had a squad cost ratio - the proportion of their income paid out in wages - above 80%.

Edited August 27, 2025Aug 27 by The Rising Sun
Information

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

It might be "a quite a process" involved in putting anything on the front of strip. But every other club gets it done every season. Just as we used to get it done every season .

Some of the lesser value FOS sponsors will inevitably go through with little to no scrutiny from a FMV perspective there are plenty of other clubs that will have deals that match or better .

37 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

What do you mean 'here we go again'? You can't reply to someone on a thread then kick up a fuss when they reply to you lmao

So why did you bring their deal up to justify it taking so long for Clearlake to strike a deal, if its not relevant to our situation?

I haven't said they haven't been in talks for 15 months, i'm sure they have been. Reports in the media seem to suggest that too. I question their competence to get a deal over the line. This seems like the Jackson saga, where we set an asking price of 80M. Obviously no one is paying that, so rather than selling for 50M and making a tidy profit, we're sat with him on the books for another year. With Jackson we can loan him to recoup some of the loss, i'm questioning why we aren't securing short term deals to offset the loss in this scenario. An entire season with no sponsor last year is a colossal failure. They managed to drag one in for the CWC so once again there is no excuse for the season.

I think looking at the fact no other club in world football has failed to secure a front of shirt sponsor for two years running (3 if you include the dodgy IA deal), would seem to suggest the issue is with us.. Not the huge global corporations that easily agree deals with every other club... I'm sure you're right though, lets ignore the common denominator and blame others, we can do no wrong!

My comment about here we ago again is yet again you are responding to words that I didn’t use.

The comment about Newcastle was simply to point out that some deals , particularly those that have to go through greater investigation ( I am guessing that Riyad Air would be very much in the mix) take far longer for a variety of reasons .

Most deals are agreed in good time certainly the 10 working days the rules dictate . However every so often deals require and consequently go through far more scrutiny.

Can you not recall how City complained and won a case about the time taken by the PL to issue final determinations re the FMV of their Etihad renewal ?

City submitted the details of the deal on 7/6/23. Had the deal passed the basic valuations the deal had to be rubber stamped on or by 21/6/23. It wasn’t so from that point on there aren’t any stipulated time lines

As the PL didn’t pass the deal they requested further information from City and Etihad.

The PL submitted to the IC that the information was required due to the size and value of the transaction. The final decision on the matter wasn’t made by the PL till 1/3/24. Some 8 months after details of the sponsorship was submitted

The PL tried defending the delay for a variety of reasons one of which was that the Independent Assessors were short staffed

The IC stated that the delay was partially within the rules but none the less unacceptable and in the commission’s opinion the delay was not justified by circa 3 months

We have no idea where we are at this moment in time. But to make sweeping judgments when we aren’t in possession of anywhere close to all the facts is flawed

Edited August 27, 2025Aug 27 by terraloon

9 hours ago, evissy said:

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.

DID YOU KNOW?

UEFA’s statement outlines a four-year monitoring period during which both Chelsea and Aston Villa will be assessed for compliance. For the 2025/26 and 2026/27 seasons, the terms apply unconditionally and the clubs must meet all agreed requirements regardless of their financial performance.

Should either Chelsea or Aston Villa post a financial shortfall in the 2026 fiscal year, the terms of the sanctions would extend into the 2027/28 campaign. Moreover, if the clubs again fail to meet UEFA's financial benchmarks by 2027, the restrictions will carry forward into the 2028/29 season as well.

2 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

DID YOU KNOW?

UEFA’s statement outlines a four-year monitoring period during which both Chelsea and Aston Villa will be assessed for compliance. For the 2025/26 and 2026/27 seasons, the terms apply unconditionally and the clubs must meet all agreed requirements regardless of their financial performance.

Should either Chelsea or Aston Villa post a financial shortfall in the 2026 fiscal year, the terms of the sanctions would extend into the 2027/28 campaign. Moreover, if the clubs again fail to meet UEFA's financial benchmarks by 2027, the restrictions will carry forward into the 2028/29 season as well.

Which reminds me...

Will we ever get a verdict on the Citeh charges ??

34 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Yes , we are being run perfectly in a financial way aren't we ?? Except for being fined for breaking earnings rules and another fine witheld but ready in case we fail to comply with the rules.

The deal would take Chelsea's income from player sales this summer to a league-high £273.4m, which almost balances out the £277m spent on incoming transfers.

Uefa have told Chelsea they must record a positive transfer balance this window in order to be allowed to register their new signings for this season's Champions League.

It follows them having been fined £26.7m for a breach of Uefa's football earning rules and having had a squad cost ratio - the proportion of their income paid out in wages - above 80%.

UEFA haven’t told Chelsea they have to have a positive transfer balance to enable new signings to be registered

What Chelsea have been told is that if they add a new player to the A list ( still not sold on or convinced which A List but others seem to be of the view that it could well be the Feb 25 list) we can only do so by transferring a player off that list so as not to have UEFA squad costs going forward greater than attributed to that original list .

There are now around 7 players that appeared on that A list now unavailable, one because their contract needed , one banned, a few transferred out and at least one now on loan.

There is absolutely no way, if we don’t have a positive transfer balance, that we would be going into the 25/26 CL campaign with around 12 players on our A list.

18 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Which reminds me...

Will we ever get a verdict on the Citeh charges ??

What I find interesting is that the delay is being interpreted by City supporters as a soft message as to their innocence but personally I wonder if it is because the decisions are far from clear cut.

I would also point out that the first IC announcement won’t include any mention of sanction.

58 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Yes , we are being run perfectly in a financial way aren't we ?? Except for being fined for breaking earnings rules and another fine witheld but ready in case we fail to comply with the rules.

The deal would take Chelsea's income from player sales this summer to a league-high £273.4m, which almost balances out the £277m spent on incoming transfers.

Uefa have told Chelsea they must record a positive transfer balance this window in order to be allowed to register their new signings for this season's Champions League.

It follows them having been fined £26.7m for a breach of Uefa's football earning rules and having had a squad cost ratio - the proportion of their income paid out in wages - above 80%.

Do player loan sales values assist outgoing fees v incoming fees? And do player sell on clause fees also assist ?

7 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

Do player loan sales values assist outgoing fees v incoming fees? And do player sell on clause fees also assist ?

Transfer fees paid and or received in themselves aren’t actually what’s taken into account when it comes to squad costs.

Squad costs are amortisation + impairment ( see below) + agent fees+ wages these are not allowed to exceed 70%of allowable income.

1) Fees paid( Amortisation) How much on a player by player basis is calculated on the fee divided by the number of years of their contracts.

So a player signed on a 5 year deal on a £30 million fee means a sum of £6 million Pa is added to the players squad costs. There is also something called impairment which could also be added but that mainly comes about when the directors re value the players book value.

By that each year of a 5 year deal the players book value reduces by the amortisation sum. So after one year it’s £24 million, two £18 million etc

2) Loan income received is added to overall income.

3) Add ons received again will be added to the overall income.

4) Transfer profit isn’t the fee paid or indeed the transfer fee received it’s the balance of their book value ( see 1) as the starting point and if the fee is greater it’s a profit if it’s less then you’ve made an accounting loss

Edited August 27, 2025Aug 27 by terraloon

3 hours ago, terraloon said:

Some of the lesser value FOS sponsors will inevitably go through with little to no scrutiny from a FMV perspective there are plenty of other clubs that will have deals that match or better .

My comment about here we ago again is yet again you are responding to words that I didn’t use.

The comment about Newcastle was simply to point out that some deals , particularly those that have to go through greater investigation ( I am guessing that Riyad Air would be very much in the mix) take far longer for a variety of reasons .

Most deals are agreed in good time certainly the 10 working days the rules dictate . However every so often deals require and consequently go through far more scrutiny.

Can you not recall how City complained and won a case about the time taken by the PL to issue final determinations re the FMV of their Etihad renewal ?

City submitted the details of the deal on 7/6/23. Had the deal passed the basic valuations the deal had to be rubber stamped on or by 21/6/23. It wasn’t so from that point on there aren’t any stipulated time lines

As the PL didn’t pass the deal they requested further information from City and Etihad.

The PL submitted to the IC that the information was required due to the size and value of the transaction. The final decision on the matter wasn’t made by the PL till 1/3/24. Some 8 months after details of the sponsorship was submitted

The PL tried defending the delay for a variety of reasons one of which was that the Independent Assessors were short staffed

The IC stated that the delay was partially within the rules but none the less unacceptable and in the commission’s opinion the delay was not justified by circa 3 months

We have no idea where we are at this moment in time. But to make sweeping judgments when we aren’t in possession of anywhere close to all the facts is flawed

I quoted your posts for you to see what you put.

Congratulations on completely ignoring everything I wrote on the previous post, almost as good as Evissy at dodging questions!

I haven’t made sweeping statements, I’ve made statements based on the facts at hand. The fact being that since 2022 Clearlake have failed to start the season with a shirt sponsor for 3 consecutive years. No other club in world football has done that. You made an assumption that it must be the fault of the suppliers, or the PL, or our kit manufacturer. You’ve referenced City and Newcastle, both of which had their shirt sponsor ready for game week one. Why, based on this information, do you think the blame doesn’t lie with the owners/directors?

12 hours 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.

Hence why it's taking so long - they need to find a company dumb enough to pay 5 years of sponsorship for 4

3 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Hence why it's taking so long - they need to find a company dumb enough to pay 5 years of sponsorship for 4

I think they are looking for a ten year deal starting at 100 million per year and rising during the term. They probably see 40 million per year as peanuts.

Top deals are around 60-70 mill per year , these might look modest in 2035

Edited August 27, 2025Aug 27 by OneTommyLangley

53 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I quoted your posts for you to see what you put.

Congratulations on completely ignoring everything I wrote on the previous post, almost as good as Evissy at dodging questions!

I haven’t made sweeping statements, I’ve made statements based on the facts at hand. The fact being that since 2022 Clearlake have failed to start the season with a shirt sponsor for 3 consecutive years. No other club in world football has done that. You made an assumption that it must be the fault of the suppliers, or the PL, or our kit manufacturer. You’ve referenced City and Newcastle, both of which had their shirt sponsor ready for game week one. Why, based on this information, do you think the blame doesn’t lie with the owners/directors?

The difference between us is that I can see why deals aren’t just agreed on the nod you on the other hand want to blame the owners for everything.As we know all too well you just can’t accept their business approach and you no doubt will say I can see no wrong with Clearlake which believe me is not the case

I examples primarily Newcastle to point out that deals don’t all come within a couple of weeks and the Man City was clear evidence where the PL delayed Man Cities FOS renewal by an excessive period. They did indeed have a FOS sponsorship for week one but not under the increased sum being assessed

I thank everyone involved for not letting Jim Ratcliffe from buying this club.

44 minutes ago, Deino said:

I thank everyone involved for not letting Jim Ratcliffe from buying this club.

I used to think he would be good for us, not ever again.

Also we should be so happy with our owners, we got lucky we have owners that care. We could have leeches like the cancers at Old Trafford!

I think no matter what anyone thinks about Clearlake, we are all very grateful we are not owned by the fraudulent leeches that are Ratcliffe and the Glazers.

9 hours ago, terraloon said:

The difference between us is that I can see why deals aren’t just agreed on the nod you on the other hand want to blame the owners for everything.As we know all too well you just can’t accept their business approach and you no doubt will say I can see no wrong with Clearlake which believe me is not the case

I examples primarily Newcastle to point out that deals don’t all come within a couple of weeks and the Man City was clear evidence where the PL delayed Man Cities FOS renewal by an excessive period. They did indeed have a FOS sponsorship for week one but not under the increased sum being assessed

Come on mate, the fact that we've gone three seasons without a sponsor in the front of the shirt while every other club manages to do it, is surely indefensible. When are you going to agree that, in this case, they're looking very useless? Come on, you can't surely lay the blame on anyone but the board in this case.

10 hours ago, OneTommyLangley said:

I think they are looking for a ten year deal starting at 100 million per year and rising during the term. They probably see 40 million per year as peanuts.

Top deals are around 60-70 mill per year , these might look modest in 2035

Manchester City have extended their kit partnership with Puma for at least another 10 years, with the contract understood to be worth a minimum of £1bn, making it the largest deal in the Premier League.

City initially signed a £65m-a-year deal with the German kit manufacturer in 2019 but the parties have agreed an extension until at least 2035, worth a record £100m a year to the club.

That figure surpasses the £90m deal signed by rivals Manchester United with Adidas in 2023, while champions Liverpool will also be with the same manufacturer from this season after agreeing a reported, external £60m a season.

9 hours ago, terraloon said:

The difference between us is that I can see why deals aren’t just agreed on the nod you on the other hand want to blame the owners for everything.As we know all too well you just can’t accept their business approach and you no doubt will say I can see no wrong with Clearlake which believe me is not the case

I examples primarily Newcastle to point out that deals don’t all come within a couple of weeks and the Man City was clear evidence where the PL delayed Man Cities FOS renewal by an excessive period. They did indeed have a FOS sponsorship for week one but not under the increased sum being assessed

But you can't see that we're the only club in world football that has struggled to get a legitimate deal over the line for 3 consecutive seasons?

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

2 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

Manchester City have extended their kit partnership with Puma for at least another 10 years, with the contract understood to be worth a minimum of £1bn, making it the largest deal in the Premier League.

City initially signed a £65m-a-year deal with the German kit manufacturer in 2019 but the parties have agreed an extension until at least 2035, worth a record £100m a year to the club.

That figure surpasses the £90m deal signed by rivals Manchester United with Adidas in 2023, while champions Liverpool will also be with the same manufacturer from this season after agreeing a reported, external £60m a season.

These are all manufacturing deals, not FOS sponsorship deals.

We're tied in with Nike until 2031 for £60M per year, similar to Liverpool.

3 minutes ago, RMH said:

Come on mate, the fact that we've gone three seasons without a sponsor in the front of the shirt while every other club manages to do it, is surely indefensible. When are you going to agree that, in this case, they're looking very useless? Come on, you can't surely lay the blame on anyone but the board in this case.

We haven’t gone three years without a FOS sponsor buy I agree you point that we have clearly missed out on income in years one and two of their tenure which would have certainly helped so that can only be down to a very conscious choice and yes on the face of it not a great one by the board.

Again it would have been expected that we had started the season with a brand new squeaky sponsor but we haven’t. My point is re year three (25/26) all the industry experts have suggested that a deal at greater value is the aim. Could the board have agreed a deal earlier but at less value ? Possibly but we simply don’t know where things are at nor do we have a clue how the PL are viewing matters and that’s the point I have been trying to get over.

12 minutes ago, RMH said:

Come on mate, the fact that we've gone three seasons without a sponsor in the front of the shirt while every other club manages to do it, is surely indefensible. When are you going to agree that, in this case, they're looking very useless? Come on, you can't surely lay the blame on anyone but the board in this case.

Its insane, then they pull the holier than thou "I'm impartial, i can admit when the owners are wrong" while defending the indefensible. 3 years of abrupt failure, never before seen in the history of the sport. Must be someone else's fault though, can't be ours.

2 minutes ago, terraloon said:

We haven’t gone three years without a FOS sponsor buy I agree you point that we have clearly missed out on income in years one and two of their tenure which would have certainly helped so that can only be down to a very conscious choice and yes on the face of it not a great one by the board.

Again it would have been expected that we had started the season with a brand new squeaky sponsor but we haven’t. My point is re year three (25/26) all the industry experts have suggested that a deal at greater value is the aim. Could the board have agreed a deal earlier but at less value ? Possibly but we simply don’t know where things are at nor do we have a clue how the PL are viewing matters and that’s the point I have been trying to get over.

That excuse is fine for this year (for now), what's the excuse for last year?

That was going to be my third option...

1. Hanging out for a whopping all conquering deal

2. Theres something significant we dont know

3.....but alas is looking like they are fcukwits without a plan and they are dithering