5 hours ago, ChumpX said:

The way I read it is Conor wants to stay, he's CFC thru and thru. The owners want rid as they need the 100% profit for their business situ. So they offer him a contract, which when compared to the 7-8 year contracts handed out to all last season, feels and most likely is, a bit cheap. This is non-negotiable. We are between a rock and a hard place. I honestly do not believe Conor would do anything to damage the club (ie let his contract run out), but he rightfully resents the way this is being handled. He is young, an England International, and honestly one of our best performers last season. If he stays, in all likelihood, he'll outstay the current manager, who has done nothing but make me fearful for the season. The real problem here is the septic's running the club. I was duped by them early doors, but now think they are treating our club like a stock market game. Buying young prospects in the hope that they become valuable assets, rather than proven players that actually bring us trophies. Bloody yanks.. 

The 7- and 8-year contracts were mainly about amortisation. Purchase price could be amortised over the long period. It was a loophole discovered and exploited. The loophole has since been plugged. 5 years is now the amortisation maximum. You probably won't see any more 7- and 8-year contracts.

14 hours ago, Simplymo said:

The beeb

 

"Chelsea have explained to Conor Gallagher that he would not be a regular starter under Enzo Maresca with the Italian's possession-based approach.

The 24-year-old midfielder is believed to have told the Blues that he wanted to be a starter when negotiating a new contract in June, which he turned down because it was only a two-year-deal with an option for a further season.

The short length of the contract was deemed in the best interest of both parties when offered as Gallagher was not judged to be an ideal fit for Maresca's new approach.

It is believed the club offered Gallagher other contracts at various points down the years.

The England international will now decide whether to join Atletico Madrid or risk staying at Chelsea in a squad role after a bid of around £33m was accepted on Wednesday.

He has less than one year left on his current deal and could leave on a free transfer next summer.

Tottenham remain admirers but are not expected to challenge the Spanish club for his signature this month. Newcastle, West Ham and Everton also previously showed an interest in Gallagher.

Gallagher would stay at Chelsea on the right terms - the homegrown midfielder loves the club and believes he could make it work under new manager Maresca.

Chelsea have offered him three new deals to date and each came after bids from Premier League rivals, with the last coming after Aston Villa tried to sign him for £45m when he was reluctant to be part of a swap deal.

There are concerns Gallagher could be dropped from the first-team squad like Trevoh Chalobah, but he will not be part of the US tour simply as he was given an extended holiday after Euro 2024."

But that man on twitter said "CONNOR GALLAGHER BANISHED....."

 

Oh what to believe.....

Listening player suitability to certain style give me headache. 

What matter is what you want the player to do? 

Do you want your midifelder to run and preas opp? Do you want him to run the channel? Or do you want him to sit back and distribute? 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

Listening player suitability to certain style give me headache. 

What matter is what you want the player to do? 

Do you want your midifelder to run and preas opp? Do you want him to run the channel? Or do you want him to sit back and distribute? 

 

 

We wanted him to be go to the club with the highest bid - signed the owner

 

This just seems like one big mess...

Fitting for CFC lately.

22 hours ago, Argo said:

 

 

The same company runs the PR for Drogba and Lampard, surprised they're not commentating for Red Devils TV at this point. 

The fact you've sent a thread from CFCaccountable is hilarious because he has a long standing hatred of English Chelsea players. The hate campaign he used to push on Mount while he was still at the club was crazy.

14 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

Stop being so reasonable! It doesnt fit the "owners are bad" narrative/agenda that many are trying to push. 

No one has to push the narrative that our owners are bad !

19 hours ago, evissy said:

Okay..so it is also Conor and not just the club...he has his demands and has rejected 3 offers. Greatest deals have many times been the most difficult to strike. Hopefully that happens. Clearly Conor is pushing and the club is not budging. 

If Conor is demanding a starting role you can't dismiss that in judging this whole saga.

I think a contract or deal agreeing a starting role for a player is very very rare.

All reports say the problem is the contract offer . 

Amazing.

Without working with Conor, without playing him , without seeing how he would fit into his system,  Enzo and the Club can declare that Conor will not be a regular starter. 

 

Totally ridiculous how a London club like ours can get itself into a situation like this with Gallagher.

I doubt it was intentional and it's probably a poor analogy but it now appears: if you're foreign import you get a nice contract a starting place and good deal... if you're not - f-off.

Not really a good advert for the Club imho.

 

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

No one has to push the narrative that our owners are bad !

They may or may not prove to be successful in their "project". But nobody can say that they are doing it half heartedly or not trying. They have pumped literal shedloads of money into the club, and are going all in on whatever it is they are trying to do.

The Connor situation is sensible from their perspective. A player whose contract is due to run out, who isnt world class, who doesnt have the technical skills to be world class, and who has decided not to sign a 5 figure 3yr contract.  Of course they want to cash in to get something out of their asset before he clears off for free.

I like Connor as much as the next guy. Looks like he genuinely cares for the club and bleeds blue. But so does @just and @dkw and @Dkw_is_a_moron....and nobody is suggesting we sign them up on 8 yr contracts and build a team around them. Even though they would probably do better than most of the players we have purchased recently.

3 hours ago, Mod said:

Those stats make him out to be an advanced Kante type player. WE'll miss him when he's gone, more so than when mount left. Not sure where Gallaghers energy will come from in the other players. Perhaps they'll step up becasue they have to. 

10 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

They may or may not prove to be successful in their "project". But nobody can say that they are doing it half heartedly or not trying. They have pumped literal shedloads of money into the club, and are going all in on whatever it is they are trying to do.

The Connor situation is sensible from their perspective. A player whose contract is due to run out, who isnt world class, who doesnt have the technical skills to be world class, and who has decided not to sign a 5 figure 3yr contract.  Of course they want to cash in to get something out of their asset before he clears off for free.

I like Connor as much as the next guy. Looks like he genuinely cares for the club and bleeds blue. But so does @just and @dkw and @Dkw_is_a_moron....and nobody is suggesting we sign them up on 8 yr contracts and build a team around them. Even though they would probably do better than most of the players we have purchased recently.

Yep, it might be right to sell connor now, from their perspective and to save the club from ny possible points deduction, but it really ddidnt have to work this way - I see current events as a cover up for blowing 60 million on Santos and Willian in the past two seasons and neither are at the club. Santos isnt good enough for Chelsea as he's been loand now twice, and we wont see willian for another 12 months or whenver? 

There is also five managers in two seasons. That's 60 million for two players not at the club plus a probable 20 million for manager's compensation = 80 million down the drain in two seasons on 7 people. half of the amount likely had they had kept Tuchel for a season. 

Then our best midfielder and quite arguably our most consistent defender (Chalobah) from last season is up on the auction block. I simply see it as two massive gun shot wounds to both legs and weakening a squad to pay for the gambling addiction. Not happy, but this is now Chelsea Football Club so I still love it... But I dont have to love its current owners. 

I wish Gallagher nothing but the best when he is eventually forced out of the club. Makes me think about JT's words even more about there being another side to things re Mason Mount. 

Blaming the club for signing Santos and Willian is just silly.

Santos costs the club roughly 2.5 mill / year on his deal. So 5 mil spent on him so far, and probably less with some loan fees. (14 mil over 7 years amoritzed, and .5 mil / year in salary). And I'm not sure we've even spent any money on Willian yet, we have contract, but really not sure on the financials. It may all come due on his 18th birthday.

The transfers fees aren't whats holding it up, the club clearly doesn't want to have players with important roles on a 1 year deal. They are giving Conor 3 options, sign, transfer or sit.

The deal that set us back werent on the current owners it was the Lukaku deal.
We are still on the hook for 16.9 M in salary and 19.5 in transfer fees. So this year Lukaku can still cost us 36.4 M, but you're upset about Santos?

Mount, Challobah, and Gallagher together won't cover what we've wasted on Lukaku.

51 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

They may or may not prove to be successful in their "project". But nobody can say that they are doing it half heartedly or not trying. They have pumped literal shedloads of money into the club, and are going all in on whatever it is they are trying to do.

The Connor situation is sensible from their perspective. A player whose contract is due to run out, who isnt world class, who doesnt have the technical skills to be world class, and who has decided not to sign a 5 figure 3yr contract.  Of course they want to cash in to get something out of their asset before he clears off for free.

I like Connor as much as the next guy. Looks like he genuinely cares for the club and bleeds blue. But so does @just and @dkw and @Dkw_is_a_moron....and nobody is suggesting we sign them up on 8 yr contracts and build a team around them. Even though they would probably do better than most of the players we have purchased recently.

What money are the owners pumping into our club ?

 

 

The money they are spending on transfers, wages, paying off managers etc is our club's money , it comes from our income .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, dermott said:

The 7- and 8-year contracts were mainly about amortisation. Purchase price could be amortised over the long period. It was a loophole discovered and exploited. The loophole has since been plugged. 5 years is now the amortisation maximum. You probably won't see any more 7- and 8-year contracts.

I see that we have an  amortisation figure of £200m a year which is taken into account as spending for PSR rules.

I'm not sure how it can be that high, but I've checked and it seems to be correct...

Does anyone know how it's calculated and why it's so high?

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

What money are the owners pumping into our club ?

 

 

The money they are spending on transfers, wages, paying off managers etc is our club's money , it comes from our income .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The income that CFC generate hasn’t been close to paying the clubs expenses for years it’s why so much money was pumped in by RA.

Ah  hear you say but what about all that money they have spent and yes that’s a point but the new owners had no choice but to bring in certain numbers and yes the money spent is huge  but taking into account inflation then just two signings Kepa and Lukaku  trump the  cost as a % of turnover.

As far as some are concerned the new owners can do no right so reflect on a the fact that they have spent and spent big , they clearly have a plan , a project if you like . I am far from convinced that’s have got close to seeing any results but the challenges in terms of the squad left after the sanctions and the money pit that they inherited were never going to make it easy but they aren’t afraid to admit when they have got it wrong and have taken steps to try and right.

Sorry but it seems to me that some actually want the owners to fail. So be very careful what you wish for.

 

 

Edited August 3, 20241 yr by terraloon

10 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

I see that we have an  amortisation figure of £200m a year which is taken into account as spending for PSR rules.

I'm not sure how it can be that high, but I've checked and it seems to be correct...

Does anyone know how it's calculated and why it's so high?

That was the 22/23 number and yes we have seen more incomings but when you think that Lukaku, Kepa collectively attract a charge circa £30 million of that £200 million. 

After  that number was published players have been removed from the book that account for £60 million. 

Zieych     £8 million

Havertyz  £15million

Koulibaliy £8 million

Kovacic    £8 million

Pulisic £10 million

Mendy £6 million 

PEA  £6 million

 

I have seen estimates that the number will rise from £200- £250 million I am not sure that’s right but there is a need to look at squad costs going forward rather than just the accounts 

 

 

This once great football club is now f**ked. No more  a venue to go to every week, meet friends, drink some beer, talk about football, talk about transfers and who we could sign. Now just a soul less bland venue, run by bland soul less money making w**kers. The news now is f**king corporate money speak and even more mind numbingly stats, 50 plus years following this club and now FUC KED

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

The income that CFC generate hasn’t been close to paying the clubs expenses for years it’s why so much money was pumped in by RA.

Ah  hear you say but what about all that money they have spent and yes that’s a point but the new owners had no choice but to bring in certain numbers and yes the money spent is huge  but taking into account inflation then just two signings Kepa and Lukaku  trump the  cost as a % of turnover.

As far as some are concerned the new owners can do no right so reflect on a the fact that they have spent and spent big , they clearly have a plan , a project if you like . I am far from convinced that’s have got close to seeing any results but the challenges in terms of the squad left after the sanctions and the money pit that they inherited were never going to make it easy but they aren’t afraid to admit when they have got it wrong and have taken steps to try and right.

Sorry but it seems to me that some actually want the owners to fail. So be very careful what you wish for.

 

 

Owners come and go, the club has always remained. So what if these clowns sell up and take their dodgy wonga and accountancy with them, I hope it happens sooner rather than later. The club will be sold and remain and rather than us talking about players as assets we could talk about improving the squad because very few signings have done that to date. 

2 minutes ago, bluetrooper said:

Owners come and go, the club has always remained. So what if these clowns sell up and take their dodgy wonga and accountancy with them, I hope it happens sooner rather than later. The club will be sold and remain and rather than us talking about players as assets we could talk about improving the squad because very few signings have done that to date. 

Football unfortunately now will for the foreseeable future be all about the likes of PSR / FFP . To suggest that we won’t be talking about the likes of amortisation, impairment and the bottom line accounting issues is a pipe dream.

I read a lot of other teams fans forum and the Chelsea under RA as great as it was simply was not sustainable clubs like Everton yearned for someone to ship up and spend and look how it panne£ out for them.

We were a blink of an eye from going into insolvency following the sanctions . I get it that the new owners aren’t RA but he has in effect tied us to this ownership group  part of the conditions of sale prohibit the onward sale of the club for several years the only way out of that would be some sort of insolvency event such as administration .

I can only repeat that so many seem to massively underestimate the issues that RAs tenure left to be resolved . Some will have implications and impact for quite a while. Issues such as those currently being investigated by the PL .

 

3 hours ago, terraloon said:

The income that CFC generate hasn’t been close to paying the clubs expenses for years it’s why so much money was pumped in by RA.

Ah  hear you say but what about all that money they have spent and yes that’s a point but the new owners had no choice but to bring in certain numbers and yes the money spent is huge  but taking into account inflation then just two signings Kepa and Lukaku  trump the  cost as a % of turnover.

As far as some are concerned the new owners can do no right so reflect on a the fact that they have spent and spent big , they clearly have a plan , a project if you like . I am far from convinced that’s have got close to seeing any results but the challenges in terms of the squad left after the sanctions and the money pit that they inherited were never going to make it easy but they aren’t afraid to admit when they have got it wrong and have taken steps to try and right.

Sorry but it seems to me that some actually want the owners to fail. So be very careful what you wish for.

 

 

The owners have failed already, no one has to hope that they will fail.

They have spent big I agree.

But it's our money they are spending, it's not their money.. And we have got worse as a team.

Anyway, let's hope we have a better season. cheers mate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 20241 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

3 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

The owners have failed already, no one has to hope that they will fail.

They have spent big I agree.

But it's our money they are spending, it's not their money.. And we have got worse as a team.

Anyway, let's hope we have a better season. cheers mate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry - just don't agree with the pessimistic, poor us, crying into our beer mindset.

From my perspective the owners have failed at a couple of things - but the bigger picture "project" has not failed and will take time.

For me they have failed in:

1) Spending big money during transfer window 1, when buying the likes of sterling. Other transfers that have been a failure include the likes of Mudryk, who has been awful. Other big money transfers (e.g caicedo, lavia, enzo, nkunku) may or may not be successful long term.

2) Getting the right manager. Tuchel had to go. Potter was too passive. Poch was too passive. Lamps was a disaster. We will see about maresca - personally I am hugely skeptical. 

3) Linked to 2 - they have failed to get our football evolving to a quicker, more progressive style. We are rubbish. We are boring. We are city light. I hate the fact that we appear to be trying to copy others with the sh*tty, possession at all costs style that each new manager (and presumably the new owners) want us to play. But this can change. 

10 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

The owners have failed already, no one has to hope that they will fail.

They have spent big I agree.

But it's our money they are spending, it's not their money.. And we have got worse as a team.

Anyway, let's hope we have a better season. cheers mate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Other than supporter costs such as admission, food at the stadium, commercial products such as replica shirts, programmes etc. in other words supporters paying for a product how are they spending “ our money”?

As for a worse team as I keep pointing out the hand they were dealt in terms of the squad wasn’t great many players were out of contract some like Mount and Havertyz wanted out so you clearly have answers what would you have done ?

Was RA spending “ our money”? If you had shares in CFC Ltd you might have a point or made a voluntary donation again maybe but I would guess that’s not the case.