8 hours ago, OriginalS said:

I am quite sure our owners are keeping a close eye on how the charges against Everton pan out.

They were charged for a £375m loss over a three year period which included the Covid years obviously. We have obviously had the sanctions on top of that for about 3 months which the club cleverly refered to in the financial statement. But by purely looking at the numbers and making a rough estimate for the year ending on the 31st one could easily see us surpassing £400 million lost over the three year period and that would almost certainly lead to a charge and all the disruption that brings.

For 21/22 for example we had a operations loss of 242.4 million. We offset almost half that with 123.2 profit on player trading to get us down to the 121.4 million loss.

For the year 22/23 we will almost certainly have a significant net loss on player trading unless we do a massive firesale before June ends but it certainly looks like clubs have sniffed that out. For 22/23 there's also extraordinary expenses of course like Tuchel compensation, significant Potter + Winstanley compensation to Brighton, Potter compensation for the sack, about £30 million less in prize money and more.

Bottom line is that we are a bit up against it. Adhering by UEFA's rules will obviously be even harder as their rules are stricter but with no European Football money for the next financial year we are in for a struggle with UEFA as well if we manage to qualify with Pochettino.

Isn't the 22/23 season part of the next 3 year cycle?

 

12 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Isn't the 22/23 season part of the next 3 year cycle?

 

The monotoring period is a rolling three year period so the next one will be (20/21, 21/22, 22/23).
Net covid impact of 20/21 is estimated to be around £70 million as some revenue was deferred 19/20.

We were actually slightly over the limit for the last monitoring period as well but the club wouldn't have that many issues with explaining that one. The main problem with the upcoming one is that we'll absolutely slam into a brick wall and while we do have some arguments on our side I am not convinced they will be enough to escape a charge.

 

 

 

 

As far as i'm aware, it's a rolling cycle, the oldest year drops out and the newest one comes into the calculation. It's not a clean slate. it will take 2 more years to shift 22/23 off the books.

On 13/06/2023 at 08:53, OriginalS said:

The monotoring period is a rolling three year period so the next one will be (20/21, 21/22, 22/23).
Net covid impact of 20/21 is estimated to be around £70 million as some revenue was deferred 19/20.

We were actually slightly over the limit for the last monitoring period as well but the club wouldn't have that many issues with explaining that one. The main problem with the upcoming one is that we'll absolutely slam into a brick wall and while we do have some arguments on our side I am not convinced they will be enough to escape a charge.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for info mate 

Apparently it is no longer about getting valued money wise but now a lack of trust in his career moving forward here.

4 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Apparently it is no longer about getting valued money wise but now a lack of trust in his career moving forward here.

So I fully expect his wage at United to be the most we offered him then which was 200kpw. 

Talk sport just now said Chelsea have categorically rejected a £40 million offer from Utd.

 

3 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Talk sport just now said Chelsea have categorically rejected a £40 million offer from Utd.

 

40mill lol what a pi$$ take. Shows how much United value you Mase.

Is there a case for allowing Mount to run down his contract? Say, we can make up FFP money from sales of other players, then what’s to stop us keeping Mount at the club for another season? He’s on a modest wage, and he could help us qualify for the Champions League next season which would be worth the loss we’d take in letting him go on a free. Further, he might not want to leave after a season under Pochettino and it would allow us to build up trust with him. Wishful thinking perhaps, but is it really that far fetched? 

Let's say we offload Mount and Havertz for a combined 100M plus to solve the FFP puzzle. What we got left in the team? Only James\Chiwell\Silva left from that CL winning team 2 seasons ago, and we know none of the 3 will last the whole season without a couple of hiccups. How are we going to replace those we let go? It appears Boehly's way is sign a bunch of 21 year old on 8 year contract, and hoping a gem or 2 out of them. Once you become a selling club ( forced or not), it will take years to come back, just look at Arsenal. Soon a lot more players will  wants out, because better pay and greener grass elsewhere

1 hour ago, Dr. Socrates said:

Is there a case for allowing Mount to run down his contract? Say, we can make up FFP money from sales of other players, then what’s to stop us keeping Mount at the club for another season? He’s on a modest wage, and he could help us qualify for the Champions League next season which would be worth the loss we’d take in letting him go on a free. Further, he might not want to leave after a season under Pochettino and it would allow us to build up trust with him. Wishful thinking perhaps, but is it really that far fetched? 

Not worth it. The last thing you want is to leave an unhappy player on the team, especially under a new manager. If he wants to leave we should let him go. 

The mount saga is insulting to be honest.. at 40 mil Utd are laughing at our face.. and then arsenal trying to buy Havertz and we being open to it is crazy. There is a business and then there are some principles that a club needs to be built around. 

I still believe we should never sell our top players to our direct rivals the sh*tshow we put since Boehly and team took over shows  is reflected in how much respect we have in the market where everyone from a brighton to an arsenal are treating us as a rag doll.

As for mount yeah he feels he doesnt want to stay at chelsea despite all the love he got from fans and the club then its his call.. as long as he is respectful about it i have no illfeelings.. but i think he may pull off a courtois to force a move..

Typical low ball first offer, United know this too. Pipe dream to think we are getting 70m though. 
 

He’ll go for 50m maybe 55m at a push. He doesn’t want to be here and he has a year left on his contract. We have to get rid with our current financial situation with huge outgoings the last year. 

4 hours ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

Not worth it. The last thing you want is to leave an unhappy player on the team, especially under a new manager. If he wants to leave we should let him go. 

But he loves Chelsea and the fans 😉

14 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Apparently it is no longer about getting valued money wise but now a lack of trust in his career moving forward here.

Not buying that excuses, does he actually have a starting spot at Utd? Utd do pay silly wages and he is looking after himself, can’t knock him for that. The whole “trust” & “guarantees” are just excuses. 

 

14 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

So I fully expect his wage at United to be the most we offered him then which was 200kpw. 

Sancho is on £350k/w, Antony on £200k/w, Rashford is demanding to be made their highest paid player, I reckon Utd have offered him £250k/w. They wouldn’t be so confident about him not signing a new contract even though we have attempted to resume talks, unless they have offered him some ridiculous wages.

Kovacic & Havertz are also in the boat, they both want the £200k/w+ contract. Havertz performances over the last 3yrs doesn’t warrant those kind of wages. Kudos to him if Arsenal are willing to pay him that.

35 minutes ago, ducavis said:

 

 

Sancho is on £350k/w,

And they're going to try to offload him. Good luck.

I’ve already resigned to him leaving, to the point where it would feel wrong if he stayed. I think it’s clear he wants to go and who wants to keep a player that wants out?

It’s sad how things have panned out but it is what it is.

8 hours ago, icecoolguy22 said:

Let's say we offload Mount and Havertz for a combined 100M plus to solve the FFP puzzle. What we got left in the team? Only James\Chiwell\Silva left from that CL winning team 2 seasons ago, and we know none of the 3 will last the whole season without a couple of hiccups. How are we going to replace those we let go? It appears Boehly's way is sign a bunch of 21 year old on 8 year contract, and hoping a gem or 2 out of them. Once you become a selling club ( forced or not), it will take years to come back, just look at Arsenal. Soon a lot more players will  wants out, because better pay and greener grass elsewhere

We've been selling at the right price to rivals for the better part of a decade.

It only becomes an issue if our bonafide world class players start jumping ship. Currently we have two of them and both are signed up to long term deals.

8 hours ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

Not worth it. The last thing you want is to leave an unhappy player on the team, especially under a new manager. If he wants to leave we should let him go. 

It wouldn't be in his best interests to sulk his way through the season.

Currently he's on 18 months of bad form but at the moment is getting the benefit of the doubt due to the circumstances around the club in that period. If 18 months turn into 30 then clubs are going to start suspecting he's doing a Oscar/Dele Alli.

2 minutes ago, Argo said:

We've been selling at the right price to rivals for the better part of a decade.

Only if the manager wanted to get rid of them. We've sold zero players the managers have wanted to keep to direct rivals. Wait, there is actually one exception and that's Matic and that went to hell.

Pochettino wants to keep Mount. We are instead selling him to a direct rival.

Edited June 15, 20233 yr by OriginalS

11 minutes ago, OriginalS said:

Only if the manager wanted to get rid of them. We've sold zero players the managers have wanted to keep to direct rivals. Wait, there is actually one exception and that's Matic and that went to hell.

Pochettino wants to keep Mount. We are instead selling him to a direct rival.

Jose wanted to keep Cech (or at the very least not sell him within the league).

23 minutes ago, Argo said:

Currently he's on 18 months of bad form but at the moment is getting the benefit of the doubt due to the circumstances around the club in that period. If 18 months turn into 30 then clubs are going to start suspecting he's doing a Oscar/Dele Alli.

My concern is that his form had a lot to do with being burnt out, and that after a proper rest period he'll be back to his best next season and we'll look like fools for letting him leave.

 

11 minutes ago, Argo said:

Jose wanted to keep Cech (or at the very least not sell him within the league).

I always thought Cech was allowed to go wherever he wanted as a thanks for his service to the club. He wasn't first choice anymore and there were questions over how many years he had left in him after his injuries (shoulder/back moreso than the head injury). Regardless, it's a very different situation than that which we face with Mason.

5 minutes ago, cfr95 said:

My concern is that his form had a lot to do with being burnt out, and that after a proper rest period he'll be back to his best next season and we'll look like fools for letting him leave.

 

Maybe, but sometimes if you've been played into the ground it's not as simple as just a pre season, damage is already done.

That's why I was excited about the prospect of the short term extension because we could have truly assessed the situation with him once and for all.

4 minutes ago, cfr95 said:

I always thought Cech was allowed to go wherever he wanted as a thanks for his service to the club. He wasn't first choice anymore and there were questions over how many years he had left in him after his injuries (shoulder/back moreso than the head injury). Regardless, it's a very different situation than that which we face with Mason.

He had to basically go to Roman's house and put the sales pitch of the century to convince him to allow it and IIRC Jose wasn't exactly shy in stating it to be a move he didn't want.

5 minutes ago, Argo said:

That's why I was excited about the prospect of the short term extension because we could have truly assessed the situation with him once and for all.

This would've been ideal really, I agree

12 minutes ago, Argo said:

Jose wanted to keep Cech (or at the very least not sell him within the league).

Conte wanted to keep Matic also.