47 minutes ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

I wonder what will happen to Ben. Probably wont be able to sell him, and doesn’t seem like a tactical fit at full back in Marescas system. Got a suspicion that if we cant get a winger in, he’ll compete with Mudryk at left wing while Sterling moves over to the right with Noni. Thoughts?

Sounds absolutely horrendous

He should start at left-back or left wing-back depending on how we set up, he's our best player in that position by miles. 

I like Ben. He was fantastic when him and James were playing at wingback. But he's just not been able to get back to any sort of level with all these injuries. But I don't want to give up on him. At his best, he's very good.

1 hour ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

I wonder what will happen to Ben. Probably wont be able to sell him, and doesn’t seem like a tactical fit at full back in Marescas system. Got a suspicion that if we cant get a winger in, he’ll compete with Mudryk at left wing while Sterling moves over to the right with Noni. Thoughts?

I actually think that Mudryk is the most at risk player that we have tbh. If Maresca want's efficient footballers, surefooted in their touch, economical and accurate with their passes, possession retained, high success percentage passes made, patient methodical build up and erosion of the opposition's defences, i can't see any of these traits within Mudryk currently. He would represent the footballing equivalent of ADHD to Maresca, if what i am reading turns out to be the way we go style-wise. Really hope i am wrong because i really like his explosiveness and his potential impact, I just don't know if Maresca has ten time to harness that into something workable. Not when there are 3-4 alternatives already primed and ready.

56 minutes ago, PloKoon13 said:

He should start at left-back or left wing-back depending on how we set up, he's our best player in that position by miles. 

Disagree. He’s been dreadful for a good while now. 

1 hour ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Sounds absolutely horrendous

Dont really disagree, but he has to be given a role somewhere I think. In what is touted to be Marescas system I cant see a better role for him than as a touchline winger. Sad to see him maybe being surplus to requirements, seems like a good guy and is a brilliant wing back on form

1 hour ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

Dont really disagree, but he has to be given a role somewhere I think. In what is touted to be Marescas system I cant see a better role for him than as a touchline winger. Sad to see him maybe being surplus to requirements, seems like a good guy and is a brilliant wing back on form

Yes definitely. Could be worth keeping him around anyway - knowing our Sporting Directors Maresca will be out on his ear within a year and we'll be lurching towards a completely different style of football with wholesale changes.

I think barring catastrophy Maresca is here long term. Potter was their chosen one for the project, but he couldn't handle all the sh*t we suffered in that season. Poch' was bought in short term, purely to steady the ship, and help gel the team. He took far too long to reach a relatively resonable level of performance, and because of that i think they realised that they were in a position to appoint another project manager, without seeing out Poch's contract. Had Potter started in the same position as Maresca things may have been totally different.

Unfortunately Chillwell is never fit enough for long enough to get back to full form. I doubt we''ll ever see it again, probably only little cameo sightings.

Chilwell's absence through injury has really blinded people just how good on the ball he is. One of our best passers and finishers in the squad. He is also better defensively than Cucurella. While both are frequently caught out of position, Cucurella just doesn't have the speed to cover or cut/change to a different player like Chilwell does.

Playing the inverted role is a waste of his ability on the overlap, but he is more than capable of doing it because he is very good on the ball.

That said, if someone came in with a monster bid for either Chilwell or Cucurella, I'd bite their hand off.

Edited July 4, 20242 yr by SydneyChelsea

4 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Chilwell's absence through injury has really blinded people just how good on the ball he is. One of our best passers and finishers in the squad. He is also better defensively than Cucurella. While both are frequently caught out of position, Cucurella just doesn't have the speed to cover or cut/change to a different player like Chilwell does.

Playing the inverted role is a waste of his ability on the overlap, but he is more than capable of doing it because he is very good on the ball.

That said, if someone came in with a monster bid for either Chilwell or Cucurella, I'd bite their hand off.

I agree with most of that even though I think cucurella is getting better and right now is worth keeping over chilly. I know, I know...it hurts.

Issue I have with chilly is since his first injury that kept him out for a while, he's been injured more than "available". I love chilly but unfortunately if I had to make the choice, I'd definitely keep cucu over him right this moment. But no one can doubt how good he was/is...

Quite convinced the club is desperate to get rid of him but it's obviously hard with the injuries and the wages he's on. It's quite clear there is not going to be a place for him in Marescas team as we won't be playing with overlapping fullbacks.

injuries have taken there toll ,I think he is unlikely to get much game time even if he can stay fit...shame was brilliant

13 minutes ago, OriginalS said:

Quite convinced the club is desperate to get rid of him but it's obviously hard with the injuries and the wages he's on. It's quite clear there is not going to be a place for him in Marescas team as we won't be playing with overlapping fullbacks.

In the ideal world I think they'd quite like to get rid of Chilwell and also Cucurella and replace both of them with alternatives on less money.

Calafiori plus, say, Bradley Locko from Brest ... combined salary would probably be a third of what C+C are being paid ... 

£9-10m remaining book value, no? Likely the club would look to break even at worst, and come to an agreement on paying off remaining wages? 

2 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

£9-10m remaining book value, no? Likely the club would look to break even at worst, and come to an agreement on paying off remaining wages? 

If the £45 fee is correct his book value and had he not signed a new contract then that would be about right but in April 23 he signed a new deal so my best guess is his remaining book value is closer to £13.5 million 

16 hours ago, terraloon said:

If the £45 fee is correct his book value and had he not signed a new contract then that would be about right but in April 23 he signed a new deal so my best guess is his remaining book value is closer to £13.5 million 

signing a new deal doesn't change the book value as far as I'm aware. Transfer fee is spread over the original contract only, so even with an extension the transfer fee is over the original 5 years. £45m transfer for 5 year contract in 2020. A year left on his original deal so £9m book value. 

38 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

signing a new deal doesn't change the book value as far as I'm aware. Transfer fee is spread over the original contract only, so even with an extension the transfer fee is over the original 5 years. £45m transfer for 5 year contract in 2020. A year left on his original deal so £9m book value. 

From what I can gather, signing a new contract results in the balance (that which hasn't yet been amortised) being spread over the length of the new contract.

1 hour ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

signing a new deal doesn't change the book value as far as I'm aware. Transfer fee is spread over the original contract only, so even with an extension the transfer fee is over the original 5 years. £45m transfer for 5 year contract in 2020. A year left on his original deal so £9m book value. 

Sorry you are wrong.

https://priceoffootball.com/football-transfers-and-creative-accounting-protect-me-from-what-i-want/

When Ben C signed his fee would have been set to be amortised over the original 5 year deal. Once he signed the new deal the sum still to be amortised is re worked 

So say signed for £45 million over 5 years the sum was reduced by £ 9 million in 20/21, £9million in 21/22. In 22/23 some £6 ish million would have been amortised up to the date he signed his new deal in April 23. So at that point his worth in the assets would have been £21 million.

His new deal due to end in June 27 was then in effect 4 and a half years. So at the end of 23 season his value would have been roughly £18.67 million. At the end of the season 23/24 £ 14 million. End of 24/25 £9.34 M, 25/26 £. £4.6m  ending in 26/27 when it will be nil

The governing bodies have confused matters even further in that the maximum length you can now in FFP&PSR submission’s amortise costs associated with signing a player is 5 years. Even though in the statutory accounts the standard procedure will still be in accord with the old process. It will be interesting to see how the supposed experts get close to the numbers going forward because the accounts will be a way from the actual numbers.

Another point I am actually far from convinced they have seriously thought out is agent and intermediary fees. Currently you add these to on going amortisation but if for FFP /PSR you can only claim 5 years maximum I am not sure how they will deal with that.

Bear in mind our new owners have been ridiculed for giving long term contracts most of those contracts will include milestones that will lead to a rise, a bonus etc in effect the sums paid to agents and hence increases in that aspect of amortisation should be less.

 

 

That's as I understand it too.

Oh, I just got a headache...lol

16 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Sorry you are wrong.

https://priceoffootball.com/football-transfers-and-creative-accounting-protect-me-from-what-i-want/

When Ben C signed his fee would have been set to be amortised over the original 5 year deal. Once he signed the new deal the sum still to be amortised is re worked 

So say signed for £45 million over 5 years the sum was reduced by £ 9 million in 20/21, £9million in 21/22. In 22/23 some £6 ish million would have been amortised up to the date he signed his new deal in April 23. So at that point his worth in the assets would have been £21 million.

His new deal due to end in June 27 was then in effect 4 and a half years. So at the end of 23 season his value would have been roughly £18.67 million. At the end of the season 23/24 £ 14 million. End of 24/25 £9.34 M, 25/26 £. £4.6m  ending in 26/27 when it will be nil

The governing bodies have confused matters even further in that the maximum length you can now in FFP&PSR submission’s amortise costs associated with signing a player is 5 years. Even though in the statutory accounts the standard procedure will still be in accord with the old process. It will be interesting to see how the supposed experts get close to the numbers going forward because the accounts will be a way from the actual numbers.

Another point I am actually far from convinced they have seriously thought out is agent and intermediary fees. Currently you add these to on going amortisation but if for FFP /PSR you can only claim 5 years maximum I am not sure how they will deal with that.

Bear in mind our new owners have been ridiculed for giving long term contracts most of those contracts will include milestones that will lead to a rise, a bonus etc in effect the sums paid to agents and hence increases in that aspect of amortisation should be less.

 

 

Apology accepted

20 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Apology accepted

Some of us are just—- sorry !

£14 million is still a fairly reasonable cost to consider. Surely the club could agree with Chilwell on his remaining wages or his new club could offer to pay it. 

On 08/07/2024 at 20:07, terraloon said:

Sorry you are wrong.

https://priceoffootball.com/football-transfers-and-creative-accounting-protect-me-from-what-i-want/

When Ben C signed his fee would have been set to be amortised over the original 5 year deal. Once he signed the new deal the sum still to be amortised is re worked 

So say signed for £45 million over 5 years the sum was reduced by £ 9 million in 20/21, £9million in 21/22. In 22/23 some £6 ish million would have been amortised up to the date he signed his new deal in April 23. So at that point his worth in the assets would have been £21 million.

His new deal due to end in June 27 was then in effect 4 and a half years. So at the end of 23 season his value would have been roughly £18.67 million. At the end of the season 23/24 £ 14 million. End of 24/25 £9.34 M, 25/26 £. £4.6m  ending in 26/27 when it will be nil

The governing bodies have confused matters even further in that the maximum length you can now in FFP&PSR submission’s amortise costs associated with signing a player is 5 years. Even though in the statutory accounts the standard procedure will still be in accord with the old process. It will be interesting to see how the supposed experts get close to the numbers going forward because the accounts will be a way from the actual numbers.

Another point I am actually far from convinced they have seriously thought out is agent and intermediary fees. Currently you add these to on going amortisation but if for FFP /PSR you can only claim 5 years maximum I am not sure how they will deal with that.

Bear in mind our new owners have been ridiculed for giving long term contracts most of those contracts will include milestones that will lead to a rise, a bonus etc in effect the sums paid to agents and hence increases in that aspect of amortisation should be less.

 

 

Agent and intermediary fees are to be included in a player's costs. Player cost is the transfer fee, wages and associated costs. Any fees, signing-on bonus etc. paid to player or agent are part of the new amortisation calculation.

When a new contract is signed, the amortisation is re-calculated at that date. 

So assuming a £45m fee and £200k/wk wages (£10.4m/year), his amortised cost is ~£20m a season. With two years left Chilwell's book value will be around £40m meaning we will need at least that if we want to break-even for PSR purposes.

Hoping Chilly, (like quite a few others), can finally come back injury free and 100% fit. If he does, and he can stay fit, he is the best left back we have by a country mile. Still only 27 and coming into his peak years.