7 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631

Crikey, £23m for Broja. Well done, lads.

7 minutes ago, dermott said:

Crikey, £23m for Broja. Well done, lads.

Transfermarkt figures are in Euros but same sentiment applies !

31 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

Just google transfer market, we sold many players.

That's what I was trying to avoid

16 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631

Thanks, I had forgotten most of those players as some never really played for us. But, surely, most should have never been bought. That list of players is shocking in quality.

57 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Transfermarkt figures are in Euros but same sentiment applies !

Im happy if they are in drachma

5 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631

Sheesh, talk about ships passing in the night, this is an entire fleet speeding by. I had to google someone named Angelo.

Utter madness.

7 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

They might be doing what they intended with the signing of players on inflated transfer fees for their "player trading" and "building business value" model, but the contract negotiations on wages are so in favour of the players that it doesn't make any sense that this would be deliberate.

Spending 72% of revenue on wages is a very poor position to be in, and likely to get worse with no CL revenue next year ...

What also is rarely taken into account is the spend on agents fees. We are on another planet to pretty much anyone else. This is why so many of these players are so enthused by our project! Cos their agents are rolling in it. It also makes me think if the inducement goes beyond just agents fees but also commitments on game time, resulting in some of the weird in game team management things we have witnessed.

Chelsea Chronicle.. IF we win the Cup and therefore qualify for the EUFA Europa League

"Given where they are at financially, I think the smart thing to do would be to accept the ban next season, if indeed they win the FA Cup and get into Europe. That way, they could swerve a future Champions League ban,. But that’s looking at it through a clinical lens; clearly that would be a disaster for Chelsea fans and a PR cataclysm for BlueCo.

But if the club sticks to their word and doesn’t go down that route, they’re going to need big player trading profits – and that’s profits on those players’ amortised book values, not the fees they actually receive versus what they paid. If they sold Fernandez for £100m, for example, they’d probably only make £20m profit for UEFA FFP purposes.

“Remember, they have to get their losses of probably £200-300m down to €60m – about £52m – in order to comply with the UEFA settlement. Player sales, as far as I can see, are the only way to do that, unless there is a new loophole which UEFA haven’t thought of. It’s a very, very tall order and one which the FA Cup alone can’t deliver.”

17 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I don't think we should be surprised because it's just another expression of the delusion of modern capitalism. For every entity that thinks growth is king, there is a private equity firm or bank willing to lend with interest. It's just debt bubble on top of debt bubble based on the delusion that growth is infinitely possible and that profiteering can solve all problems into eternity.

In trying to legislate owners such as Abramovich or the Gulf states out of football, governing bodies have simply aided and abetted the debt spiral by limiting the power of actually cash-rich owners while artificially equalising the power of owners that rely on debt-fuelled 'financing'. They pushed out owners putting money into the game in favour of ownership structures that extract money from the game. This is not new nor is it by accident, people such as myself and @dkw have said this will happen virtually the moment Wenger started his hypocritical bleating and when financial controls were being debated decades ago.

I don't even think we've seen the peak of the grift yet. With owners like Boehly, Clearlake, Ratcliffe etc, when it all falls apart there will be inevitable calls for the UK taxpayer to bail the PL out and solve the crisis.

We are simply witnessing the transfer of that wealth from the game itself to the private capital that funds it. This is the same story as what happened to Serie A in the 1990s and La Liga in the 2000s, and now it's the PL's turn.

Cheers Syd, much appreciated reply mate 👍

7 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

What also is rarely taken into account is the spend on agents fees. We are on another planet to pretty much anyone else. This is why so many of these players are so enthused by our project! Cos their agents are rolling in it. It also makes me think if the inducement goes beyond just agents fees but also commitments on game time, resulting in some of the weird in game team management things we have witnessed.

Maybe there is some sketchy stuff about our agent fee, but we are doing so many transaction every season that the number make sense

13 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Mudryk earns less than Garnacho and Gittens according to the usual online sources, and Lavia is one of our lowest paid players, possibly due to his injury problems.

I won't use capology number. We are not beating pool n arse for those two player signature if we paid them low wages.

Edited May 15May 15 by Bob stark

6 hours ago, Bob stark said:

Maybe there is some sketchy stuff about our agent fee, but we are doing so many transaction every season that the number make sense

Really? I saw some Sky Sports or analysis saying that Liverpool spent £450m in 25/26 with agent fees totalling £33.8m whereas we spent £300m yet our agent fees were £65.1m dwarfing all other teams.

7 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Really? I saw some Sky Sports or analysis saying that Liverpool spent £450m in 25/26 with agent fees totalling £33.8m whereas we spent £300m yet our agent fees were £65.1m dwarfing all other teams.

For agent fee, you need to add buying, selling, new contract, loan.

19 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

For agent fee, you need to add buying, selling, new contract, loan.

Look at the table. We were almost double the next highest spenders. No way is this just because we bought truckloads of pre pubescent kids that will never see a first team shirt. If it is, its a further damning indictment of the f*ckwit idiots running this.

2 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

Look at the table. We were almost double the next highest spenders. No way is this just because we bought truckloads of pre pubescent kids that will never see a first team shirt. If it is, its a further damning indictment of the f*ckwit idiots running this.

I am pretty sure our SD probably have some sketch deal with agent but our agent fee will be always be high because we make so many deal.

I am also wont be surprised if we paid a lot of money to estevao agent.

1. Get a competent manager ✅

2. Sack the 5 useless SDs that have overseen the cluster f**k of the last four seasons and get one competent SD. Still to be done.

3. Ditch the youngster with potential herding policy and hire experienced players to build a spine of the team. Still to be done.

4. Stop treating STs and regular match going fans like idiots and stop substituting us with tourists, home and away. Still to be done.

These are some of the few things that needed to change and how they are going. I’m probably missing loads of things here, so complete them or correct me if I’m not being too specific.

On 15/05/2026 at 01:08, SydneyChelsea said:

I don't think we should be surprised because it's just another expression of the delusion of modern capitalism. For every entity that thinks growth is king, there is a private equity firm or bank willing to lend with interest. It's just debt bubble on top of debt bubble based on the delusion that growth is infinitely possible and that profiteering can solve all problems into eternity.

In trying to legislate owners such as Abramovich or the Gulf states out of football, governing bodies have simply aided and abetted the debt spiral by limiting the power of actually cash-rich owners while artificially equalising the power of owners that rely on debt-fuelled 'financing'. They pushed out owners putting money into the game in favour of ownership structures that extract money from the game. This is not new nor is it by accident, people such as myself and @dkw have said this will happen virtually the moment Wenger started his hypocritical bleating and when financial controls were being debated decades ago.

I don't even think we've seen the peak of the grift yet. With owners like Boehly, Clearlake, Ratcliffe etc, when it all falls apart there will be inevitable calls for the UK taxpayer to bail the PL out and solve the crisis.

We are simply witnessing the transfer of that wealth from the game itself to the private capital that funds it. This is the same story as what happened to Serie A in the 1990s and La Liga in the 2000s, and now it's the PL's turn.

Hi Syd. If we are not in any EUFA competitions next season, does that mean we are not under those EUFA sanctions during the season? . The stuff about having to show a player trading profit for example? What dya reckon??

Edited May 17May 17 by The Rising Sun
Information

6 hours ago, RMH said:

1. Get a competent manager ✅

2. Sack the 5 useless SDs that have overseen the cluster f**k of the last four seasons and get one competent SD. Still to be done.

3. Ditch the youngster with potential herding policy and hire experienced players to build a spine of the team. Still to be done.

4. Stop treating STs and regular match going fans like idiots and stop substituting us with tourists, home and away. Still to be done.

These are some of the few things that needed to change and how they are going. I’m probably missing loads of things here, so complete them or correct me if I’m not being too specific.

There’s only one thing that should be on their list;

1. f**k off & die ❌

One bit of positive PR and they call a halt on protests. When they do sh*t like this, it all just looks performative. Either you want BlueCo out or you don't, make your minds up and stop flip flopping.

15 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

One bit of positive PR and they call a halt on protests. When they do sh*t like this, it all just looks performative. Either you want BlueCo out or you don't, make your minds up and stop flip flopping.

Yup, not enough of the fanbase truly want to get rid of BlueCo.

34 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Yup, not enough of the fanbase truly want to get rid of BlueCo.

are there many people on this forum that are actively involved with protests?

1 hour ago, OTL said:

are there many people on this forum that are actively involved with protests?

I dont believe any are.

Part of the problem with this protesting is the fact that whether we like it or not this mob now own the club. They are not a board of directors for a PLC that can be voted out of office. Even if the bad publicity created enough of a stink that they were actually willing to sell up, there is a huge presumption that somebody would be prepared to buy the club from them. Has there been any form of speculation in this area, not from what I've seen. In fact most of the press briefings I have seen has indicated a waning of interest in large investments In sports.

The Alonso appointment was just one small step in the right direction.

The real work has to start now. I don’t think most fans want our club in turmoil just improvement on the pitch.

If they don’t follow through and bring in some ready made signings Alonso wants, clear some dross over the summer people will see this as just another manager with no real change and protests will start to rumble again. Clearlake out was always a stretch for me, I wanted the SD’s crap project gone and a decent manager at the helm with the first team and its success the clubs priority. I know we can’t win every year but as long as they try that’s all we can ask.