10 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Aren't they in the process of buying Barkley currently? Can't see them needing two more bodies in the middle unless they're selling anyone. Gallagher seems too similar to McGinn too. 

Villa have opened preliminary talks for Conor Gallagher according to Ornstein. 

Aston Villa are interested in him now apparently.

While he isn't the greatest player to ever pull on a blue shirt he is a good player, always gives 100%, was trusted by our last manager and is an important player for us.

This selling homegrown players to balance the books is weird and  the whole football world knows we are prepared to do it - Dortmund only want to offer £27m for Maatsen despite the clause saying £35m.

Clubs are now blatantly looking to take the p*ss out of us.

I'm surprised the Chelsea Supporters Trust hasn't said anything to these owners, wasn't part of their pitch when trying to buy us about a pathway for the academy players?

They lied to us and are prepared to sell anyone for a profit and use that money for an untried youngster from abroad.

I find the whole thing weird, producing players and selling them to domestic rivals.

 

 

Edited June 4, 20242 yr by 2211

He's a replaceable player and honestly saw him as more of a squad players if our injuries cease or we get better players but I don't like the idea of us selling homegrown  player especially to a team above us. 

To be fair...last Chelsea homegrown player we sold and now regret: go! 

30 minutes ago, evissy said:

To be fair...last Chelsea homegrown player we sold and now regret: go! 

I suppose its about the definition of regret. I regret us selling Livramento, Tomori and Guehi. Tomori has since shown some weaknesses that were evident when we had him but at different times we have expressed interest in re-signing these players so the club must have held these in some regard. Have we regretted that they have blown up like Musiala (couldn't stop him leaving), no, but i would still have liked to have seen these guys develop in the side.

45 minutes ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

He's a replaceable player and honestly saw him as more of a squad players if our injuries cease or we get better players but I don't like the idea of us selling homegrown  player especially to a team above us. 

He is replaceable but it’s the bigger picture I’m uncomfortable with.

I’m not fully confident we’ll replace with a superior player, maybe we will maybe we won’t, we are selling him to cover up the previous transfer windows where we have overspent.

I’d also rather sell Disasi and Badiasshile for say a combined £50m then Chalobah for £25m pure profit - surely that makes better footballing sense and would get back some money towards FFP.

Clubs are literally picking off and trying to get discounts on our homegrown players.

It’s ringing alarm bells all over the place and like I said with the Chelsea Supporters Trust as the link between the fans and the board, I’m a bit surprised they haven’t questioned the bigger picture.

 

 

12 minutes ago, 2211 said:

He is replaceable but it’s the bigger picture I’m uncomfortable with.

I’m not fully confident we’ll replace with a superior player, maybe we will maybe we won’t, we are selling him to cover up the previous transfer windows where we have overspent.

I’d also rather sell Disasi and Badiasshile for say a combined £50m then Chalobah for £25m pure profit - surely that makes better footballing sense and would get back some money towards FFP.

Clubs are literally picking off and trying to get discounts on our homegrown players.

It’s ringing alarm bells all over the place and like I said with the Chelsea Supporters Trust as the link between the fans and the board, I’m a bit surprised they haven’t questioned the bigger picture.

 

 

It's concerning, and I would have loved more academy players to stay but I don't think this is particularly new to our club. 

The infamous loan army full of academy players was created under Roman by Marina and they made a lot of profit selling academy players. Ake for example was sold for pure profit under the Roman era. Gallagher hasn't left as much as an impact on the club as James which may probably be the reason the board are okay with selling him. I don't think there is a new agenda to sell homegrown players. I think its just a continuation of what has previously been done at the club which is why there is no pushback from the Supporters Trust.

Under the old  regime, Gallagher probably would have already been sold before he even got the chances he had last season. You would need to be a James level of player to stay at the club.

Edited June 4, 20242 yr by Frankie8Lampard

If Olise manages to come we'd still have 3 club products in the starting XI despite all this talk about us selling our academy players. 

11 minutes ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

It's concerning, and I would have loved more academy players to stay but I don't think this is particularly new to our club. 

The infamous loan army full of academy players was created under Roman by Marina and they made a lot of profit selling academy players. Ake for example was sold for pure profit under the Roman era. Gallagher hasn't left as much as an impact on the club as James which may probably be the reason the board are okay with selling him. I don't think there is a new agenda to sell homegrown players. I think its just a continuation of what has previously been done at the club which is why there is no pushback from the Supporters Trust.

Under the old  regime, Gallagher probably would have already been sold before he even got the chances he had last season. You would need to be a James level of player to stay at the club.

You make some fair points but I’m just concerned the way it’s going , I think Conor is good enough to stay and be a squad player at least.

I don’t believe for one minute that Conor wants to leave and I certainly don’t believe he wants to rush through a move before Euro 2024 kicks off, it’s us making the world know he’s for sale and naming our price of around £50m.

The more the board neglect our academy in years to come the harder it will be eventually to convince young English prospects to join our academy over other EPL teams.

Maybe looking within the club or locally could be a possible solution rather than the current trend of looking at South America.

3 hours ago, 2211 said:

 

I'm surprised the Chelsea Supporters Trust hasn't said anything to these owners, wasn't part of their pitch when trying to buy us about a pathway for the academy players?

 

They lied to us and are prepared to sell anyone for a profit and use that money for an untried youngster from abroad.

James and Colwill were tied to long term contracts at the first opportunities despite the fact we could have probably got north of £150m combined for them.

The elite prospects will stay.

4 minutes ago, Argo said:

James and Colwill were tied to long term contracts at the first opportunities despite the fact we could have probably got north of £150m combined for them.

The elite prospects will stay.

That was last summer though, we're in a worse financial state than summer 2023 if a club came in with a serious bid for any of those 2 this summer I'm not as confident as you that we'd knock it back.

Whether Connor is replaceable in this team is still debatable, but no dobut he's a very important player in this team, and when he's playing well we are getting results ( as recent good runs showed). The fact he has to leave to balance the book is troubling, could we sell  a Sanzhez or Diasi to accomplish that, not going to happen because nobody will pay up. We used to sell home grown players, but not first team regulars, or players of great importance to the team.

3 hours ago, 2211 said:

 

I find the whole thing weird, producing players and selling them to domestic rivals.

 

 

I’m no fan of the current owners but we’ve been selling off our academy players for years before Clearlake arrived. However, the experience and quality of our first team under Roman was better and hence more difficult for an academy player to break into. Some of the players we have brought in recently aren’t much better than our homegrown 

We were one of the first of the elite clubs to use our academy as an income stream. City have adopted a similar approach of which we’ve been beneficiaries definitely with Palmer and hopefully with Osin and Lavia.

The long contracts we gave over the last few windows make moving some players on very difficult. Because we’ve amortised their book value over 8 years we won’t make much money when we sell them and for many of these players we won’t ever get offers above what we paid for them anyway.

After this window we’ll have put most of our eggs in our basket squad wise for the next few years. 
 

It seems a strange business model.

2 hours ago, 19seventyone said:

Because we’ve amortised their book value over 8 years we won’t make much money when we sell them and for many of these players we won’t ever get offers above what we paid for them anyway.

Actually, the opposite is true - as long as their sale value is higher than their book value for that period, we make a "profit" for the purposes of FFP/PSR. For example - say Mudryk's value is amortised at 10m/season, if we sell him for 15m this season we would have made 5m "profit" even though we lose ~50m in real money.

Economically, however, this means the floor price for a player is always their book value - Cole Palmer may well be able to command 100m+ in this summer's market, but any interested club would know that his book value is around 10m a season and so anything above that is Chelsea's profit, and that knowledge drags the price down a little bit. 

The long contracts work both ways, but there is a reason it was only done in exceptional circumstances before Clearlake.

6 hours ago, 19seventyone said:

I’m no fan of the current owners but we’ve been selling off our academy players for years before Clearlake arrived. However, the experience and quality of our first team under Roman was better and hence more difficult for an academy player to break into. Some of the players we have brought in recently aren’t much better than our homegrown 

We were one of the first of the elite clubs to use our academy as an income stream. City have adopted a similar approach of which we’ve been beneficiaries definitely with Palmer and hopefully with Osin and Lavia.

Although we have been doing this for years, like you said we had a better team and weren’t buying the likes of Disasi etc.. or selling players who have broken into our 1st team like Chalobah and Gallagher with 50 plus Premier League games under their belt, as someone else pointed out. We were selling academy players players with little or no Premier League experience, that’s a huge difference IMO.

3 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Actually, the opposite is true - as long as their sale value is higher than their book value for that period, we make a "profit" for the purposes of FFP/PSR. For example - say Mudryk's value is amortised at 10m/season, if we sell him for 15m this season we would have made 5m "profit" even though we lose ~50m in real money.

Economically, however, this means the floor price for a player is always their book value - Cole Palmer may well be able to command 100m+ in this summer's market, but any interested club would know that his book value is around 10m a season and so anything above that is Chelsea's profit, and that knowledge drags the price down a little bit. 

The long contracts work both ways, but there is a reason it was only done in exceptional circumstances before Clearlake.

Presumably then we would need to be quite cute in our timing of our sales. If we are unable to amortise sales on a similar basis, we will need to manage the tail of debt for sold players going forward (except for academy lads). For example if the annual tail of amortised costs for say Mudryk, Sterling, and Cucurella is £50m a year collectively we don't necessarily want to go sailing over the threshold Iby major sales in any one year and effectively lose that credit for the following year. 

Presumably there needs to be a calculated level of management of this process of keeping us in the black but sailing close enough to the margin in any accounting period so we can maximise the "profitability" of our accounting in future periods

Are the two 🤡🤡 still trying to sell Conor?

5 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Actually, the opposite is true - as long as their sale value is higher than their book value for that period, we make a "profit" for the purposes of FFP/PSR. For example - say Mudryk's value is amortised at 10m/season, if we sell him for 15m this season we would have made 5m "profit" even though we lose ~50m in real money.

Economically, however, this means the floor price for a player is always their book value - Cole Palmer may well be able to command 100m+ in this summer's market, but any interested club would know that his book value is around 10m a season and so anything above that is Chelsea's profit, and that knowledge drags the price down a little bit. 

The long contracts work both ways, but there is a reason it was only done in exceptional circumstances before Clearlake.

I think the moment you sell the player, you use whatever the leftover value. So for example if you sign player for 50 m / 5 years and you sell him for 10m after 2 years, it is going to be 10-30 = -20m 

Edited June 5, 20242 yr by Bob stark

7 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

I think the moment you sell the player, you use whatever the leftover value. So for example if you sign player for 50 m / 5 years and you sell him for 10m after 2 years, it is going to be 10-30 = -20m 

That makes sense to me and is in line with conventional accounting. The book value is the amortized value of the remaining contract. Buy for 50 on 5 yr deal then using straight line depreciation value  declines 10 a year. So after two years value is 30. Sell for 35 it’s a profit, 25 a loss. 
 

of course you could be fancy if the rules permit and use some accelerated depreciation so called declining balance method. But I doubt the would let you do it. 

6 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Actually, the opposite is true - as long as their sale value is higher than their book value for that period, we make a "profit" for the purposes of FFP/PSR. For example - say Mudryk's value is amortised at 10m/season, if we sell him for 15m this season we would have made 5m "profit" even though we lose ~50m in real money.

Economically, however, this means the floor price for a player is always their book value - Cole Palmer may well be able to command 100m+ in this summer's market, but any interested club would know that his book value is around 10m a season and so anything above that is Chelsea's profit, and that knowledge drags the price down a little bit. 

The long contracts work both ways, but there is a reason it was only done in exceptional circumstances before Clearlake.

Is this a ffp/psr specific rule? I’ve never seen calculations done this way, seems really weird.
If this is the case, there isn’t really an argument to sell homegrowns for pure profit anymore, as the yearly amortized amount isn’t really all that high - especially for the players we bought on long contracts before the rules changed

42 minutes ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

Is this a ffp/psr specific rule? I’ve never seen calculations done this way, seems really weird.
If this is the case, there isn’t really an argument to sell homegrowns for pure profit anymore, as the yearly amortized amount isn’t really all that high - especially for the players we bought on long contracts before the rules changed

It's an accounting amortization rule. Anything sold above a player's "book value" is considered a profit. Since academy players have no book value (we didn't purchase them) anything we collect on them is considered profit. 

- Sterling was purchased for £50m in 2022 on a 5 year deal. His remaining book value is £30m. If the club sell him for £40m, the club have earned a £10m profit for that fiscal year. 

- If Gallagher is sold for £50m, the club have earned a profit of £50m for that fiscal year. 

Edited June 5, 20242 yr by Sconnie Blue

This thread is giving me a headache.

Back to Gallagher though, even those who don't rate him as highly as some of us - even they must admit it would be a really bad move to let him go. At present he is the only real candidate to skipper the side into next season.

  

This is all speculation from our part. 

We don't know: whether Enzo rates him 

We don't know: whether Chelsea wants to keep hold of him

We don't know: whether we need to sell him over the profit issue

So this whole thing is just speculation.

Most Chelsea fans want him.