Only the 6 year?
Chelsea 2022/2023 | THIS IS LAST YEARS THREAD YOU NUMPTIES
- Thread starter duffer
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
- Status
When Sterling was signed he was 3rd highest paid player in the league, that was how it was reported. Later people started using 300K as his wages when he was on more than that at City. He won't be taking pay cut to join inferior club (with all due respect).
All this "Low wages" nonsense started once there was so much attention on the total spent, people are doing mental gymnastics to prove how Chelsea are not spending too much.
You can clearly read the patterns with some clubs, Liverpool are the biggest culprits and they use their journalists like a PR machine, better than any politician can dream of. Chelsea are following in the same path.
Pogba was on 150K base wage and this isn't based on PR nonsense either, it was on football leaks but his overall wage was 290k. How many were using "Pogba was paid 150K per week"? There is nothing different that's been done. Players have base wages which is bit lower and then bunch of bonus like loyalty bonus, match bonus, CL bonus and in some cases linked to individual performance bonus. Without doing much, players will be paid most of those bonus.
Y’all are just making up Math at this point.
My example was a hypothetical £100m player. But let’s say Mudryk flops (he won’t). If he’s sold in two years for £40m, he’s a £22m loss. You had to pay £62m for something you sold for £40m. You still have to pay £62m for a thing you’re selling for £40m.
Anyone getting caught up in financial treatments is mad. You don’t buy 22 year olds and be happy that their value goes down.
In the accountancy software he may be a depreciating asset. But in actual reality he was purchased as an appreciating asset.
Unless the Chelsea owners are looking to pump £200-500m in every year, something’s gotta give. The club is paying over the top money for players with potential, and handing them 8 year contracts.
Admittedly, I think they’ll make a success of it. But all of this fawning over the club accountants is pathetic. United so dumb shit like that all the time. It’s why we keep offering contracts to the likes of Phil Jones. His value stays high. The club looks roses. But nobody should care about that stuff. It’s woo.
You just can t and should not be allowed to spend 600M in 6 month. That s unfair competition.
For instance, the likes of PSG and City have billions, have more revenue than Chelsea, but can t spend that much.
Chelsea and Boehly are playing a dangerous game and will increase the inflation of the market this summer.
If Newcastle are in CL, there will be a serious battle this summer with Arsenal investing after a title, City investing after losing one, us trying to rebuild a team, Newcastle trying to be competitive in CL, then Chelsea again, Liverpool may finally overpay some players etc, so it s worse and worse.
There s a difference between overpaying Antony, splashing the cash for Casemiro and buying 17 players in 6 months.
For instance, the likes of PSG and City have billions, have more revenue than Chelsea, but can t spend that much.
Chelsea and Boehly are playing a dangerous game and will increase the inflation of the market this summer.
If Newcastle are in CL, there will be a serious battle this summer with Arsenal investing after a title, City investing after losing one, us trying to rebuild a team, Newcastle trying to be competitive in CL, then Chelsea again, Liverpool may finally overpay some players etc, so it s worse and worse.
There s a difference between overpaying Antony, splashing the cash for Casemiro and buying 17 players in 6 months.
"At this point"?
Player's individual wages are never disclosed. It's always arguing about made up figures.
Completely understandable, however, the point is not to drop Sterling's wages but to calibrate pay to performance. Sterling was a starter at City for most of his time there. He will likely be a starter at Chelsea for most his time here and as such his wage would be comparable (team performance depending).
I have zero interest in reading patterns to suit conspiracies and I am as skeptical as can be. I only judge the value of PR based on the outcomes. Every step (so far) of the announced plan to change the structure of the club has come to fruition - from the academy, women's team and men's team investment, recruitment staffing , stadium development, and the player contract structure. There has simply been no reason until now to 'read between lines' or doubt the validity of their claims.
Why can Chelsea spend this much but PSG and City can't? The rules aren't different for Chelsea. They could do exactly what Chelsea are doing but chose not to.
Same with Man United, the owners are billionaires but don't want to spend their money, it's not they they can't, they just won't.
His wages would be comparable? He is the third highest paid player in the league and that was only behind Salah and Ronaldo.
You can all lap it up with how players are paid peanuts and shed their blood to make good wages, lets see what the total wage bill says when it is reported.
They can indeed. But if I were them, I too would be afraid to spend fake commercial revenues.
Next will be the medical team boehly and co should concentrate on. Then commercial income. Our main sponsor 3 agreement will be over at the end of the season need to be better sponsors lined up.
New owners are already specialised in that area we will surely increase commercial income 20-30% minimum for sure. They already hinted commercial income was not on par with the popularity. Will be interesting to see how they manage to increase it.
New owners are already specialised in that area we will surely increase commercial income 20-30% minimum for sure. They already hinted commercial income was not on par with the popularity. Will be interesting to see how they manage to increase it.
I missed the part where City bought 17 players in one season. I also missed the part when they spent 600m in 6 months.
United have lowered wages significantly compared to before as well with CL clauses, performance based bonuses. This is nothing new, as others have mentioned Pogba was on base 150k. Doesn't mean s***.
Missed this part, so doing PR then. All City journalists reported how Aguero was on 200-250K per week and contract leaks showed he was earning 350K per week and this was signed long back. If the club is trying to follow City then they are already successful as fans already believe these low wages.
This thread has been a very insightful read from both sides. I am genuinely curious to see how this unfolds over the next few years. Will Boehly and friends really find new ways to monetize football that every other club simply has not thought about yet? Or have they misunderstood the culture and structure of football and will find those other avenues not viable?
Only time will tell.
Only time will tell.
I won’t say Chelsea side is especially impressive. It’s not but their way of wanting success with that ownership shows how far the Glazer’s are behind the times and how they don’t build anything.
Our owners just sit still and are very happy taking their 10 percent cut each season thinking maybe we’ll get a super league.
City’s, Chelsea’s, Madrid’s of this world all had a plan and obviously in the end ambition usually wins.
God knows what happened to FFP though. Foreign clubs must be turning in their graves watching Premier League spending if we get a state ownership too.
Our owners just sit still and are very happy taking their 10 percent cut each season thinking maybe we’ll get a super league.
City’s, Chelsea’s, Madrid’s of this world all had a plan and obviously in the end ambition usually wins.
God knows what happened to FFP though. Foreign clubs must be turning in their graves watching Premier League spending if we get a state ownership too.
In my opinion, they will probably target commercial revenue. I think I remember reading something where Chelsea's commercial revenue is apprantly below most of their competitors. Imo, I reckon Clearlake will use their connections to up this significantly and pull Man City style deals out of their arse to clear the books for FFP or whatever it is called now.
I may be wrong but aren't there certain companies (depending on where they're located) that can use sponsorship deals against their tax liabilities? If so, I wouldn't be surprised if Clearlake can lean on some of these companies to funnel money into Chelsea sponsorships in order for Clearlake to make promises about supporting their stock prices if they downturn.
Personally, I don't think people that are involved with Clearlake would be so naive to think they will up match day revenue to such a degree. Especially, as such things as the £30 away ticket cap and things like FSG having had walk outs at Anfield over price increases being so well publicised.
Chelsea have had the lowest revenue growth out of all the top 6 clubs in the last 10 years or so. We're about 4th in the league for revenue (so higher than Arsenal and Spurs despite their much larger stadiums) so there's definitely a lot of room for growth in this area, and as someone else mentioned last night, 3 of our main sponsors, including Three, will be up after this season so there's an immediate chance there to impact revenue growth.
Last edited:
If you have a subscription a really good article about what Clearlake is trying to achieve. It is not as random as some people think.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So very little reason to assume there’s easy scope to grow.
Well there is a lot of room for potential growth. Though I suspect none of it will be easy. CPO for a start don’t help the club, only themselves.
City were plenty busy in the transfer market when Guardiola first came in though. In the first year (from summer 2016 to summer 2017) they brought in 12 new first team players for a total €450M or so, as well as handful of youth prospects signed for fees around 40M overall.
I would assume our busy as feck January window means we'll have a more quiet summer with maybe a couple more new signings to plug some final holes in the squad but main focus being on the outgoings. Figures adjusted to the general inflation of the transfer market since 2016, is it really all that different to what City did other than the fact we did the bulk of our spending in January instead of waiting till the next summer to continue the rebuild? The '17 new players in one season' includes a handful of youth prospects just like City, and the number of straight up first teamers brought in is not that much higher.
Now if we'll still go on to spend another 300M+ again in the summer you'll definitely have a point but if going forwards our spending will slow down considerably (like it did for City when they'd done the bulk of their signings) it's basically just a comprehensive squad rebuild that was just done on a significantly accelerated timeline and the main difference would just be the contract policy that includes longer than usual deals offered to the players.
The Swiss Ramble article on Chelsea's finances released a couple of weeks ago said the club's commercial revenue, including sponsorships but not match day revenues, is far behind United/Liverpool/City and now even behind Tottenham. Where others have grown their sponsorship deals significantly over the last decade, our growth in this area has stalled because for starters the Abramovich regime probably didn't have specialized people to take care of this side of the business and also because they probably just didn't care as much due to having Abramovich's wallet to fall back on if needed?
Latest published figures in commercial revenue were:
£309M for City
£258M for United
£233M for Liverpool
£182M for Spurs
£177M for Chelsea
Everyone knows how City inflate their sponsorships so I'd leave them out of the equation, and I also wouldn't expect us to reach quite the same kind of values as United or even Liverpool do but I also don't see any reason why Chelsea's sponsorships should be valued lower than fecking Tottenham's. Just 7-8 years ago the club's commercial revenue was more than double what Spurs were making and in the time it's taken them to treble their commerical income, ours has only increased by around 60% so one would assume there's some room for growth there. An extra £30M a year would still place us considerably lower than the top dogs in this area but it would also boost our finances significantly if the new owner group can pull it off.
Intriguing to see how the new look Chelsea get on. Don’t expect much this season they’ve blown it already, but with next season in mind, we’ll get our first look at the new Chelsea tonight.
Well Felix is still suspended and I doubt Chilwell, James and Sterling are ready to start tonight plus Fofana and Kante are still out injured as well as Kovacic now. So it will probably still be a mish mash of a starting line up again but hopefully we'll get to see Mudryk and Enzo start tonight, I'm really looking forward to that.
Bwahahahahahahaha.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Do you guys have a cheese room at Stamford Bridge? Because I'd imagine Spurs income doubled when they installed theirs.
They also made massive savings on not having to pay for or maintain a trophy room. Levy is playing 3D chess while Toddy is struggling with checkers.
It is just a bit funny how some of the same people that are claiming that there is a clear plan now were saying how good Chelsea's business was in the summer.
It was clear as day that there was no plan with how the spending was carried out in the summer, but when some of us pointed that out a few of the Chelsea supporters here told us we were wrong. You have to understand why we are now dubious of this new plan and how it will turn out for your club. You also should maybe understand why we take what comes out of the club with a pinch of salt.
Also worth bearing in mind that United supporters have suffered from out of touch owners who don't know how to run a successful forward thinking football club even if they had success in other American sport. Hence why we may be extra dubious of your regime.
We won't really know how well this plan actually works for a few years, I just don't understand why so many Chelsea supporters are so keen to buy into it at the moment. Or maybe it is just hope.
It was clear as day that there was no plan with how the spending was carried out in the summer, but when some of us pointed that out a few of the Chelsea supporters here told us we were wrong. You have to understand why we are now dubious of this new plan and how it will turn out for your club. You also should maybe understand why we take what comes out of the club with a pinch of salt.
Also worth bearing in mind that United supporters have suffered from out of touch owners who don't know how to run a successful forward thinking football club even if they had success in other American sport. Hence why we may be extra dubious of your regime.
We won't really know how well this plan actually works for a few years, I just don't understand why so many Chelsea supporters are so keen to buy into it at the moment. Or maybe it is just hope.
In the Athletic article I posted, it was pretty clear what their plan is and all the risks that goes with it. It can definitely crash and burn. It also discussed how the summer spending was incredibly rushed because of the circumstances of the sale and since that time there is a team in place now and how they are targeting a specific type of player for recruitment. The summer was very random. What is going on now is not. It is a very risky plan, high reward and high penalty if it does not go right. I think Chelsea fans are happy with owners that are very aggressive. When they made the statement this is just the beginning of the spending it does not relate to just players. The stadium and the building of the multi club franchise is going to be very expensive. They have a yearly plan that goes out at least 5 years full of spending.
I'm afraid I can't see the Athletic article, so can't comment on it.
In the summer though I remember Chelsea supporters telling us that the business was good and they could see the plan and team taking shape, when others here were calling it out as being random and scattergun. Some Chelsea supporters were very keen to advise us that it was in no way random or scattergun. Hence why I would treat this regime with a bit of trepidation and not wholeheartedly backing whatever their next plan is. I know the recruitment team has changed now, so there should be improvement in targeting players, but those in charge of the big picture are still in charge of it.
Well in the summer, it was more of a case of replacing outgoing players. I don't know if the 'plan' extended much more beyond that. It was just Boehly and Tuchel tag teaming their way through the summer trying to buy players in the positions of the players we had lost/let go with no structure to speak of behind them.
Rudiger --> Koulibaly
Christensen --> Fofana
Alonso --> Cucurella
Werner --> Sterling
Lukaku --> Auba
I would say the winter business seems a lot more coherent to my eyes. You're right about not knowing if this is a great window or not for a while yet. If you had asked me the day after deadline day in September 2020 I would rated that window as an excellent one, but 3 years down the line most of those players either outright flopped or seriously underwhelmed and I would now class it as an average borderline pretty poor window. We'll see. There are reasons to be both optimistic and concerned. Rival fans will naturally focus on the negatives, whilst most Chelsea fans acknowledge the concerns but maybe place more faith in the positives. It's the nature of football fandom.
I will post just a few snippets from the article pertaining to the owners ambition.
It is a long article, these are just a few points made.
This is absolutely fair. At times it just feels that some Chelsea supporters (not all Chelsea supporters here), are telling us how everything that is being done makes total sense and we just can't see it. Such full throated support of the moves being made just seems a bit naïve at times from where a lot of United supporters are sitting, I think.
Thanks very much for sharing. The quotes involved all seem to hedge their bets, basically saying it could work and the club could be ahead of the game, or it could go wrong and they could be in big trouble.
I don't doubt that these people involved are clever people, but again you would have thought they would have handled their first transfer window a lot better than they did. That's all we really have to go on as evidence so far. No doubt it can turn around, but they have to earn that credibility in football before we all declare them to be good operators.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what your obsession with 'believing' and PR is all about. City offer highly incentivised deals so due to their recent success, naturally his actual wages would be higher. Mudryk has a baseline of 95k. If he plays, does well, and so does the team it would be expected under the new structure that he would earn 150k-200k. Under the old chelsea regime he would have earned 150k+ regardless of his performances and contact bonuses were largely centered around trophies. This is not conjecture, this is fact. It is now different to what it was. That doesn't mean a good player who contributes won't be earning high wages. It means shitty ones like Bakayoko won't be.
I don't think Spurs makes more than Chelsea from sponsorships like shirt sponsor, sleeve sponsor, etc. They make more because of the new stadium, which is a driver of both matchday (ticket sales, food, etc) and commercial (advertising within the stadium, merchandise sales at the stadium store, plus other activities like concerts, etc).
The bottom line with Chelsea is that if you take out the revenues that are strictly tied to performance (European broadcast revenue, plus the domestic broadcast differential tied to league position) then there isn't really much case for them having higher revenue fundamentals than Arsenal or Spurs. The fanbase is around the same size as Arsenal, the stadium is worse than either of the clubs (for now at least). City have their own fraudulent thing going, Newcastle likely will do the same eventually, and United and Liverpool are just always going to have higher commercial potential due to their history and the larger size of their support. The idea that Boehly is going to transform Chelsea into the highest or nearly highest earning club in England just doesn't seem that realistic.
Then they would be wrong same way people on the other extreme (the ridiculous comparisons to Woodward) are.
There's been some green moments but this window has been very promising.
The window has been promising but I wouldn’t be surprised at all in the next couple of weeks if UEFA open an investigation into the financial workings of the deals and how the club intends to remain compliant with the rules.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Official - Enzo, Mudryk, and Felix have been added to the CL squad for Chelsea. Aubameyang has been removed even though Pulisic isn't even fit 
https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/clubs/52914--chelsea/squad/
Think this makes a lot of sense since Aubameyang is more or less a corpse at this point - but then surely Potter shouldn't be bringing him on to more or less ruin our attack against Liverpool? Personally I'm hoping he doesn't get another minute for the rest of the year.
https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/clubs/52914--chelsea/squad/
Think this makes a lot of sense since Aubameyang is more or less a corpse at this point - but then surely Potter shouldn't be bringing him on to more or less ruin our attack against Liverpool? Personally I'm hoping he doesn't get another minute for the rest of the year.
At least Benfica must be happy. Pay €10m for a player they sell 17 league games later for twelve times that.
Feel a bit for Badiashile but with the cost of Enzo and Mudryk as well as Felix's loan fee, they were always going to be the three in. Guess Fofana must be back soon?Official - Enzo, Mudryk, and Felix have been added to the CL squad for Chelsea. Aubameyang has been removed even though Pulisic isn't even fit
https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/clubs/52914--chelsea/squad/
Think this makes a lot of sense since Aubameyang is more or less a corpse at this point - but then surely Potter shouldn't be bringing him on to more or less ruin our attack against Liverpool? Personally I'm hoping he doesn't get another minute for the rest of the year.
He is training and will start to see minutes. Probably will take a bit to get him fully game fit.
- Status