Enzo Fernández | signs for Chelsea

Status
Not open for further replies.

BarstoolProphet

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
6,517
I don't get where all this loophole talk is coming from too. If it's a loophole then I'm a banana. Loopholes are supposed to be ingenious ways of circumventing the rules. FFP follows general accounting principles and the transfer free is amortised over the length of the contract. Everyone knows this and crucially everyone also knows that signing players to 7+ year deals is risky as feck which is why no other teams are doing it.
The fact that governing bodies has to run around and immediately change the rules solely because of Chelsea exploiting the current accounting practice tells you all you need to know about what Chelsea are doing. Might be legally, yes. But there's no way this can be sustainable financial wise and they getting closer to how Juventus operated that got them into such trouble. The probably get away with it due to the peak in PL money is not reached yet, but still.
 

fallengt

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
5,593
Even if this signing is a flop, they can sell him, recoup some money back few years later.
 

Righteous Steps

Full Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
2,348
All you've done is defend Chelsea and provide excuses for their spending. Forest spent less than 200m on their rebuild, excessive but still not unusual. Chelsea spent over half that amount on just one player. You even attempted to use our spending as a defense for Chelsea. You have no idea what they're going to do in the future. City was accused of buying the league, well the most they spent in a 12 month period was just over 300m. Chelsea have doubled that. I would assume no other club in the PL has spent more than 300m over a 12 month period

So once again, it's not normal and it's not right. You clearly think Chelsea should be able to purchase as many players as they like and spend as much money as they like. I think that opinion is in a very small minority both on redcafe and shared with football fans across England (unless they're Chelsea fans of course then I imagine they'd be loving it).
Exactly this.
 

reelworld

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
8,763
Location
Mexico City, Mexico
Meh, no matter how many players they bought theu still only able to field 11 players
I'm not really fussed tbh, I still believe we can go toe to roe with them on the pitch
 

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
31,672
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
It was reported with Mudryk and others before him that the salary is heavily incentivised, so yeah they won’t stay on the same salary as they are on initially.
I wasn’t referring to that, I was referring to the fact that if these guys are as good as Chelsea seem to think they are, they’ll sign renewals after a couple of seasons which will see their salaries increase, as is usually the way with all players clubs want to keep.
 

Denis79

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
7,770
They spent something like 500M this season? How can they afford it?
 

GoonerInPeace

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2022
Messages
402
Supports
Arsenal
I dont see why this is a 'loophole' Chelsea are taking advantage of. There is no 'advantage'. They have assumed a massive amount of risk taking on so many players on 8 year contracts at massive money. If all these players hit the mark, then they should benefit from the risks they took. However if these players dont hit the mark , and they get another round of Lakaku's, Haavertz, Pulisic, Koulibaly, Cucarella - a combination of outright disasters and underperforming players, then they are in big trouble. They will be in such a bind that will last multiple years, they will be constrained by having underperforming players on the wage bill with no real way to move them, other than perpetual loans, whilst also still being booked under FFP accouting standards, which leaves less room to bring in replacements for any players that underperform.

They also used a factoring company to finance the Enzo deal. So the 107m fee is the official fee, but there will be associated interest payments on the fee. The out of pocket cost for Chelsea is going to be above 107m.

I dont see why these 'loopholes' need to be closed. If Chelsea want to bet the house on the current round of signings, they should be able to. Its their neck on the line
 

Son

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,715
They are taking on lots of risk and honestly 8 year deals do keep away vultures like Madrid, Juve and Bayern from stealing players away for next to nothing.

Chelsea are actually paying the full prices too. Bayern signed Lewa for almost nothing. City only paid £60m for Haaland through release clauses aquired by his former crooked agent so those are both dodgy ways to get amazing players for almost nothing.

If they are paying the full price and taking on huge debts it’s more to stop the clubs going bankrupt long term changing the rules.

It’s not cheating it’s potential unsustainable business practices which is Chelsea’s problem not ours…

Oh wait… actually we overspent too on transfers last few years while our club is leveraged in debt and interest rates went up…Now our owners have to sell the club because they can’t afford it.
 

Real Name

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2020
Messages
14,242
Location
Croatia
I worry (or maybe not so much) that Chelsea is starting to like us circa 10 years ago. The crazy spending is all well and good during transfer windows, but things can quickly turn ugly on the pitch.

All the hate about the money spent is just envy and hypocrisy as United has been spending like this regularly.
No we and dont we didnt. Nobody has.
 

LARulz

Full Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
18,194
I hope they flop and these players just sit out their contracts
 

Telsim

Full Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2021
Messages
4,860
Gutted about this one. I was hoping it would fall through. The fee is obviously well outside the realm of sanity. But I really wanted him here and he was the one we could realistically get. I hate Chelsea...
 

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
31,672
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
Even if this signing is a flop, they can sell him, recoup some money back few years later.
People say this but it rarely happens. Big wages, failed at a club with big ambitions, no one is taking on that responsibility unless Chelsea give him away or at least pay his wages.
 

chilax

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
21
Supports
Chelsea
Did he actually tell you that?
Or you just cant fathom any player wants to be at Chelsea and not at a club with decaying facilities
he doesn’t want to go there.

the obscene transfer fee that Benfica couldn’t turn down and high wages he will now be on have taken him there.
 

Mb194dc

Full Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
4,654
Supports
Chelsea
They spent something like 500M this season? How can they afford it?
Clear Lake borrowed £800m from JP Morgan and BOA. £500m for transfers and £300m working capital.

Not sure why the seeming rush to spend it all in just a couple of windows.

They're either mad men or geniuses, we'll see. If it all does go pear shaped, I think it's Clear Lake that go bust not Chelsea. Not exactly sure how it's structured though.
 

simmee

Full Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
940
Because they haven't. You amortise purchases over the length of the contract, that's why these contracts are getting longer and dafter.
Amortizing purchases doesn't say much about how they afford it. It has nothing to do with cash in our out. In this deal, for example, from what I've understood they will pay everything up front but the cost will still be amortized over the contract length. Although most deals are not paid upfront of course so they probably haven't spent all 500M this year from a cash flow perspective.
 

jesperjaap

Full Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
5,725
Post sounds like sour grapes tbh. I'm pretty sure you will never pick having players like McTominay, Elanga or Maguire over getting best players in the market like Nkunku, Enzo etc. The identity or whatever bs we spout, at the end of the day they win trophies and we dont.

On top of that they are showing immense ambition in the transfer market when their season is in tatters. They surely must be doing something right in convincing these players with the project they have. They are not a nobody club like Monaco a few years ago when they went splashing cash in the market.

Utd on the other hand are having one of the better seasons, in contention for top4 and a couple trophies. What does our board do? Sit back on their fat arses doing nothing to atleast cement the current position we are in. The squad is threadbare and we already have to rely on trash backup mids when Eriksen is injured. Do you think we wont have furthur injuries? Did you not see how poor we were when Casemiro was suspended?

Its easy to take the moral high ground but the bottom line is, one club is trying its hardest to assemble a capable squad to compete and other is just hoping everything turns out fine until the summer(where we probably wont have a strategy just like last summer).
Not at all, why woudl I have sour grapes over it? I have said a couple of players woul have loved us to sign, players I think have made the wrong move an dI dont jsut mean not coming here.

ANd you know what I think anyway will genuinely happen and not saying this out of sour grapes. Potter will fail, your youngsters will be unhappy, lots of stars will as you have too many players and not many are squiad players....I think your dressing room will not be a happy one over the next 18months.

Your not doing anything different to the last few years, its all jsut convaluted into one winwo, you have signed too many
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
32,177
Location
Voted the best city in the world
I dont see why this is a 'loophole' Chelsea are taking advantage of. There is no 'advantage'. They have assumed a massive amount of risk taking on so many players on 8 year contracts at massive money. If all these players hit the mark, then they should benefit from the risks they took. However if these players dont hit the mark , and they get another round of Lakaku's, Haavertz, Pulisic, Koulibaly, Cucarella - a combination of outright disasters and underperforming players, then they are in big trouble. They will be in such a bind that will last multiple years, they will be constrained by having underperforming players on the wage bill with no real way to move them, other than perpetual loans, whilst also still being booked under FFP accouting standards, which leaves less room to bring in replacements for any players that underperform.

They also used a factoring company to finance the Enzo deal. So the 107m fee is the official fee, but there will be associated interest payments on the fee. The out of pocket cost for Chelsea is going to be above 107m.

I dont see why these 'loopholes' need to be closed. If Chelsea want to bet the house on the current round of signings, they should be able to. Its their neck on the line
Yeah it's a damn risky strategy. Amazing how they've gone from UCL champions and looking like they could challenge for the title under Tuchel....to extremely patchy form, crappy signings and eventually sacking Tuchel to now having to replace basically that entire team who won the UCL (and who were mostly made up of "new" signings themselves). It's like they've almost rebuilt their entire squad twice over in just under 3-4 years! Yowzer!
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
FFP is clearly not doing its job if a club can spend that much money in six months.
Sadly it is. Chelsea fans are still drunk from the Roman era to the point the owners can load debt into the club like this and not have the fanbase say a word because debt hasn’t meant anything to them for 20 years now
Maybe they realise the risks, who knows.
 

BuzzKillington

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2021
Messages
1,542
Location
Greater Manchester
Clear Lake borrowed £800m from JP Morgan and BOA. £500m for transfers and £300m working capital.

Not sure why the seeming rush to spend it all in just a couple of windows.

They're either mad men or geniuses, we'll see. If it all does go pear shaped, I think it's Clear Lake that go bust not Chelsea. Not exactly sure how it's structured though.
I find it quite hard to believe the yanks would take the final hit on that. It’ll end up getting transferred to the club somehow. You’ve got that great big piece of real estate you’re sat on in London. Worst comes to worst you’ll just end up playing in Milton Keynes or Essex somewhere.
 

UpWithRivers

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
3,649
I dont see why this is a 'loophole' Chelsea are taking advantage of. There is no 'advantage'. They have assumed a massive amount of risk taking on so many players on 8 year contracts at massive money. If all these players hit the mark, then they should benefit from the risks they took. However if these players dont hit the mark , and they get another round of Lakaku's, Haavertz, Pulisic, Koulibaly, Cucarella - a combination of outright disasters and underperforming players, then they are in big trouble. They will be in such a bind that will last multiple years, they will be constrained by having underperforming players on the wage bill with no real way to move them, other than perpetual loans, whilst also still being booked under FFP accouting standards, which leaves less room to bring in replacements for any players that underperform.

They also used a factoring company to finance the Enzo deal. So the 107m fee is the official fee, but there will be associated interest payments on the fee. The out of pocket cost for Chelsea is going to be above 107m.

I dont see why these 'loopholes' need to be closed. If Chelsea want to bet the house on the current round of signings, they should be able to. Its their neck on the line
Its a loophole because no one else can do it. The FFP regulation will close this in the summer. You can say fair play they just played smart and took risks with 8 year contracts but in the spirit of actual fair play they have sidestepped the rules and got ahead of the competition. The other oil rich clubs will also sidestep the rules by getting fake sponsorships etc. In the end it just means there is no fair play. Well there is for 90 percent of clubs but a handful will just be playing dirty.
 

Messier1994

The Swedish Rumble
Joined
Oct 7, 2022
Messages
1,368
FFP is clearly not doing its job if a club can spend that much money in six months.
I still pondering to get a grip of how big impact FFP will have, if any. But as it is now, there is a very generous and long transition period for clubs post Covid and -- more importantly -- the sanction system is not designed to "punish"/"deter" clubs from breach, it is designed to make clubs comply. It is clear as day that you can make a really significant breach of the rules every 4th year -- and by that be allowed to spend a lot more than a club that constantly complies with the rules.

I expand on this in the this thread:
 

The Corinthian

I will not take Mad Winger's name in vain
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
11,818
I still pondering to get a grip of how big impact FFP will have, if any. But as it is now, there is a very generous and long transition period for clubs post Covid and -- more importantly -- the sanction system is not designed to "punish"/"deter" clubs from breach, it is designed to make clubs comply. It is clear as day that you can make a really significant breach of the rules every 4th year -- and by that be allowed to spend a lot more than a club that constantly complies with the rules.

I expand on this in the this thread:
Is this guy trying to make a name / money off of Swiss Ramble?

Also, really clunky analogy - not sure it makes it clearer at all.
 

Doracle

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
3,009
I mean he won the best young player award at the world cup, as well as being one of the eventual winners best players, too, ya know.
So, very similar to Renato Sanches in 2016 then? It’s a major risk spending £100 million on a player who has less than 20 matches in Europe. He looks talented but I personally didn’t think he looked particularly special in the WC.
 

RuudTom83

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
5,584
Location
Manc
It’s impossible to forget the money…but if you block that out…he is a good footballer.

Real challenge is blending all these new toys together into a winning ‘team’

I have my doubts Potter can do this tbh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.