1 hour ago, evissy said:

We bought him for €15m and he is going for €23m. Good piece of business. I think we have a couple of these same type of players at Chelsea.

 

I won't be surprised to see Deivid Washington go the same path.

15 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Maybe another young Brazilian that shares his surname with a former US president?

I think we already sold Kenedy mate

What time tonight does their window close?

3 hours ago, forbzy said:

I won't be surprised to see Deivid Washington go the same path.

Didn't we sell him to Strasbourg or was that some sort of joke. For 17m...?

I am pretty sure the club will make these sort of buys/sells in the future as well. I am thinking Carney and Kellyman could also be on this track. 

Buy for a decent price, keep in squad for 1-2 seasons or loan to Strasbourg and if it doesn't work out for the player sell a Chelsea branded player for profit. 

I am not saying they are cynical and using the player as a commodity but it presents this opportunity so it can be taken.

I really liked angelo, with a few years of regular football he could be a top player. Does anyone else feel we are completely mismanaging our multiclub situation here. Being that loans are limited, A player like angelo should be moving to strasborg on a permanent transfer in order for us to keep hold of him until hes ready to play a role with us.

2 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

What time tonight does their window close?

Beeb states 2200 tonight.

9 minutes ago, evissy said:

Didn't we sell him to Strasbourg or was that some sort of joke. For 17m...?

No, we couldn't as it would ring alarm bells selling him to ourselves or something like that. 

Angelo sold for £6m profit despite never making debut

Latest from Sky Sports News chief reporter Kaveh Solhekol:

Chelsea have sold Angelo Gabriel to Al Nassr and made a £6m profit, even though he never played for them.

Chelsea signed the 19-year-old forward for £13m from Santos last summer. 

He has been sold to Al Nassr for £19m this evening after he spent last season on loan at parent club Strasbourg. 

Gabriel has signed a five-year contract, and Chelsea have a sell-on clause.

He becomes the 26th player to leave Chelsea this summer and brings their net spend down to £52m.

24 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

Angelo sold for £6m profit despite never making debut

Latest from Sky Sports News chief reporter Kaveh Solhekol:

Chelsea have sold Angelo Gabriel to Al Nassr and made a £6m profit, even though he never played for them.

Chelsea signed the 19-year-old forward for £13m from Santos last summer. 

He has been sold to Al Nassr for £19m this evening after he spent last season on loan at parent club Strasbourg. 

Gabriel has signed a five-year contract, and Chelsea have a sell-on clause.

He becomes the 26th player to leave Chelsea this summer and brings their net spend down to £52m.

Ignoring the academy boys, I think that makes him our most profitable buy/sell transaction in the last 10 years, pinching the crown by £700K from the legendary Papy Djilobodji 🙂 

Edited September 3, 20241 yr by Sexyfootball

Nice bit of business there. I’m sure it will rub many the run way, mainly other teams. But under the new model a smart move. Quite impressive net spend is only £52M this summer. With lower wage bill I assume that’s quite easily absorbed now. 

Just now, PhilH930 said:

Nice bit of business there. I’m sure it will rub many the run way, mainly other teams. But under the new model a smart move. Quite impressive net spend is only £52M this summer. With lower wage bill I assume that’s quite easily absorbed now. 

Certainly some decent work on the selling side of things ... albeit the elephant in the room is that the players signed didn't really address what was needed in the balance of the squad. 

 

1 hour ago, PhilH930 said:

Nice bit of business there. I’m sure it will rub many the run way, mainly other teams. But under the new model a smart move. Quite impressive net spend is only £52M this summer. With lower wage bill I assume that’s quite easily absorbed now. 

It's most probably even lower than that. Could be around 8.5mil.

Analysis - 'Angelo sale helps Chelsea balance the books'

BBC Sport football news reporter Nizaar Kinsella

The sale of Angelo to Al-Nassr is significant for Chelsea as it edges the club towards balancing the books.

The Blues will receive £19.1million, a nearly £6m profit on the fee paid to Santos last summer, to take the overall total for player sales to £188.9million.

If money banked from loan fees and sell-on clauses were also publicly disclosed and included, the total is likely over £200m.

That balances out the some £208.5m spent on buying 11 players, not including Genk goalkeeper Mike Penders and Palmeiras winger Estavao Willian, who will join in 2025.

Although Chelsea’s approach is chaotic - as one of the busiest clubs in the transfer market every summer under this new Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital ownership - it can be both profitable and highlight that there is indeed a plan.

That plan is to sign young players who haven’t maximised their value and either wait for them to develop into first team players or be ruthless in flipping them for a quick profit if need be.

The mere association with Chelsea is believed by many within the club to raise the value of players while they also have Strasbourg, where Angelo spent last season, as a place to send players on loan before they are sold.

Eyebrows were raised when Chelsea signed Angelo, an out of form winger struggling to break into his team in Brazil in 2023, but these figures highlight the prospect of profit as a reason to sign so many young players.

Edited September 3, 20241 yr by Simplymo

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was less than 8.5mil or even in the black!

Undisclosed fees like loan fees and sell on clauses could be better than predicted.

Ever heard of a journalist/reporter saying anything positive about us...lol

The media will be gutted that we made a profit on this sale, lets talk about points deductions transfer bans and the like for pity sake😂

3 hours ago, Simplymo said:

It's most probably even lower than that. Could be around 8.5mil.

Analysis - 'Angelo sale helps Chelsea balance the books'

BBC Sport football news reporter Nizaar Kinsella

The sale of Angelo to Al-Nassr is significant for Chelsea as it edges the club towards balancing the books.

The Blues will receive £19.1million, a nearly £6m profit on the fee paid to Santos last summer, to take the overall total for player sales to £188.9million.

If money banked from loan fees and sell-on clauses were also publicly disclosed and included, the total is likely over £200m.

That balances out the some £208.5m spent on buying 11 players, not including Genk goalkeeper Mike Penders and Palmeiras winger Estavao Willian, who will join in 2025.

Although Chelsea’s approach is chaotic - as one of the busiest clubs in the transfer market every summer under this new Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital ownership - it can be both profitable and highlight that there is indeed a plan.

That plan is to sign young players who haven’t maximised their value and either wait for them to develop into first team players or be ruthless in flipping them for a quick profit if need be.

The mere association with Chelsea is believed by many within the club to raise the value of players while they also have Strasbourg, where Angelo spent last season, as a place to send players on loan before they are sold.

Eyebrows were raised when Chelsea signed Angelo, an out of form winger struggling to break into his team in Brazil in 2023, but these figures highlight the prospect of profit as a reason to sign so many young players.

Wo hoo excellent work by the bbc breaking news 12 hours later than everyone else😂

Player brokers.

28 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

The media will be gutted that we made a profit on this sale, lets talk about points deductions transfer bans and the like for pity sake😂

We're going to get charged with  "child explotation" by FIFA, the FA, EUFA, EPL, the UN, etc etc

I pray for the day when us Chelsea fans are praising a trophy winning team instead of feeling good about making a few bob in the transfer market.

Hurry up and win something!

6 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Ignoring the academy boys, I think that makes him our most profitable buy/sell transaction in the last 10 years, pinching the crown by £700K from the legendary Papy Djilobodji 🙂 

Didn't we make a small profit on buying/selling Eden Michael Walter Hazard?

53 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

Didn't we make a small profit on buying/selling Eden Michael Walter Hazard?

Of course, but we signed him in 2012, so he's out of scope for the sample set I was looking at ... "last 10 years ... buy/sell ... "

The previous regime had precious few players that we sold for more than we paid for them, Hazard being the notable exception. That's not necessarily a criticism btw, just an observation. Roman was walking to the beat of a very different drum in financial terms to BlueCo .... 

The puppy farm bears fruit 

A snapshot of ‘the model ‘ working.

A path to sustainability:

-sell a few academy players every year, for pure profit goodness. Every million helps. 

- Sell 2-3 young investments every year. Buy young and (relatively) cheap - and move them on quickly after a season or 2 (Lesley, Santos, Petrovic, Washington all next to go?)

- Sign young players on long contracts - giving control, and amortisation benefits. Low base wages mean these assets will be more attractive to buying clubs, in theory meaning Chelsea can get a higher transfer fee if they choose to sell.  Assume the likes of Mudryk, Veiga, Gusto and Jackson would all fit this model. 

 

It’s all about the money - it’s all about the dum dum dum dum dum dum dum

12 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Of course, but we signed him in 2012, so he's out of scope for the sample set I was looking at ... "last 10 years ... buy/sell ... "

The previous regime had precious few players that we sold for more than we paid for them, Hazard being the notable exception. That's not necessarily a criticism btw, just an observation. Roman was walking to the beat of a very different drum in financial terms to BlueCo .... 

We actually had plenty of first-team players that were sold for an actual or book profit (Oscar, Costa, Morata, Havertz, Salah, De Bruyne and so on).

A large proportion of our "losses" on transfers were because we kept players for their entire peak before moving them on, where arguably the club extracted a football value rather than a financial one from them. 

Of course, people only remember the spectacular busts like Torres and Lukaku. 

44 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

A snapshot of ‘the model ‘ working.

A path to sustainability:

-sell a few academy players every year, for pure profit goodness. Every million helps. 

- Sell 2-3 young investments every year. Buy young and (relatively) cheap - and move them on quickly after a season or 2 (Lesley, Santos, Petrovic, Washington all next to go?)

- Sign young players on long contracts - giving control, and amortisation benefits. Low base wages mean these assets will be more attractive to buying clubs, in theory meaning Chelsea can get a higher transfer fee if they choose to sell.  Assume the likes of Mudryk, Veiga, Gusto and Jackson would all fit this model. 

 

It’s all about the money - it’s all about the dum dum dum dum dum dum dum

We were already doing this previously, it is nothing new. It will work some years and won't in others. The only reliable profit is always going to be from our academy.

The problems are:
- We're getting bailed out by Saudi, which is a unique circumstance. That will not always be an option for promising young players
- Our profits are mediocre rather than substantial. Angelo is a nice win, but none of the others mentioned will make substantial net profit because we paid a lot for them in the first place. However, the club seems less concerned with this than with ensuring a PSR/FFP book profit.

- Webster ruling:  Players are free to buy themselves out of their contract after 3 years irrespective of contract length. While this rule is rarely exercised at present, that is largely because clubs offer short contracts and are often trying to negotiate the best sale value rather than keep the player. A player on a seven-year contract might feel very differently. Interestingly the Webster ruling also effectively caps the transfer fee to the remaining length of a player's contract, but a long contract fortunately offers some protection in this regard.

- We are known as a 'selling' club, so our standing in negotiations is already compromised to an extent. It seems like that might have backfired a little this year with no clubs seemingly interested in our players.

 

 

 

It's rare a guy at his age decided to go to Saudis. That hype train won't last forever, he's going to earn a lot of money, but probably never play for a big or even decent European team. Yes the Saudis have been good to bail them out, but don't expect that gravy train to last for long.

2 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

We actually had plenty of first-team players that were sold for an actual or book profit (Oscar, Costa, Morata, Havertz, Salah, De Bruyne and so on).

A large proportion of our "losses" on transfers were because we kept players for their entire peak before moving them on, where arguably the club extracted a football value rather than a financial one from them. 

Of course, people only remember the spectacular busts like Torres and Lukaku. 

We were already doing this previously, it is nothing new. It will work some years and won't in others. The only reliable profit is always going to be from our academy.

The problems are:
- We're getting bailed out by Saudi, which is a unique circumstance. That will not always be an option for promising young players
- Our profits are mediocre rather than substantial. Angelo is a nice win, but none of the others mentioned will make substantial net profit because we paid a lot for them in the first place. However, the club seems less concerned with this than with ensuring a PSR/FFP book profit.

- Webster ruling:  Players are free to buy themselves out of their contract after 3 years irrespective of contract length. While this rule is rarely exercised at present, that is largely because clubs offer short contracts and are often trying to negotiate the best sale value rather than keep the player. A player on a seven-year contract might feel very differently. Interestingly the Webster ruling also effectively caps the transfer fee to the remaining length of a player's contract, but a long contract fortunately offers some protection in this regard.

- We are known as a 'selling' club, so our standing in negotiations is already compromised to an extent. It seems like that might have backfired a little this year with no clubs seemingly interested in our players.

 

 

 

I do wonder why more players are not utilising the Webster ruling.

in our case I don’t think we have anyone who signed a contract more than 3 years ago. 

But take Reece James . He signed a new 6 year deal in sep 2022, for approx £250k per week. This means in September 2025, he can buy out the remainder of his contract and leave us for £39m. (Remaining 156 weeks x £250k). Which if on form and fit is a relative bargain. 
 

I wonder if it’s because if this starts happening, clubs will all lose so much money - and so they have an unspoken agreement not to encourage it.

I do recall a legal case with some club in Switzerland that appeared to balance the previous precedent set in the hearts case - but not entirely sure of the impact (Seems that the Swiss club who encouraged a player to buy out his contract from another club was fined and had a transfer ban - and there was also a ruling about calculation of compensation)

Edited September 4, 20241 yr by nonotnowjim