Chelsea 2022/2023 - The new era

ZolaWasMagic

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2018
Messages
2,589
Supports
Chelsea
The timing suggest this may have been what's pushed us to go for Gusto and Enzo, which would be hilarious if so.
Was my initial thoughts. Gusto apparently will be a 6 and a half yr deal if he signs
 

autopilot

Full Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
282
Supports
Chelsea
Starting next summer. This window the deal can still be over the entire length of the contract.
Absolutely, was mentioned in the parent comment so didn't include it in mine. Wonder if this changes the plans for us this winter - financially advantageous and likely less competition for highly sought-after players (Caicedo, Fernandez).
 

Zaphod2319

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
3,645
Supports
Chelsea
Absolutely, was mentioned in the parent comment so didn't include it in mine. Wonder if this changes the plans for us this winter - financially advantageous and likely less competition for highly sought-after players (Caicedo, Fernandez).
I do not think it was a coincidence that Gusto and Enzo links ramped up on the same day that Uefa were set to announce this.
 

SirReginald

Full Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
1,684
Supports
Chelsea
UEFA are simply pissed that Boehlys lawyers found loopholes in their FFP rules. The way they have moved so quickly to “fix” the rules, I’m really not sure what their intentions are, on the surface it appears very malicious. Spreading costs over a longer period of time seems to be a financially savvy move that other teams could benefit from copying. Rather than prevent it, they should promote it for the benefit of smaller clubs.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
50,523
Location
Canada
UEFA are simply pissed that Boehlys lawyers found loopholes in their FFP rules. The way they have moved so quickly to “fix” the rules, I’m really not sure what their intentions are, on the surface it appears very malicious. Spreading costs over a longer period of time seems to be a financially savvy move that other teams could benefit from copying. Rather than prevent it, they should promote it for the benefit of smaller clubs.
Longer contracts weren't allowed until very recently I think, and I don't think they're allowed elsewhere in Europe, just England/UK maybe. So this would be them just adapting to suit contract changes.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
50,523
Location
Canada
I hope they spend big and get Gordon. What a waste of money that would be.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
46,898
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
Longer contracts weren't allowed until very recently I think, and I don't think they're allowed elsewhere in Europe, just England/UK maybe. So this would be them just adapting to suit contract changes.
It's been a thing in Spain for a very long time.

Denilson signed a 10 year contract with Betis in 1998.

Messi signed a 9 year contract with Barca in 2005.

Saul signed a 9 year contract with Atletico on 2017.

In England, Fabregas signed a 9 year contract with Arsenal back in 2005 or something like that.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
50,523
Location
Canada
It's been a thing in Spain for a very long time.

Denilson signed a 10 year contract with Betis in 1998.

Messi signed a 9 year contract with Barca in 2005.

Saul signed a 9 year contract with Atletico on 2017.

In England, Fabregas signed a 9 year contract with Arsenal back in 2005 or something like that.
Well the Reddit comment i vaguely remember reading a few weeks ago must have been wrong then...
 

UsualSuspect

Full Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
353
Supports
Chelsea
Longer contracts weren't allowed until very recently I think, and I don't think they're allowed elsewhere in Europe, just England/UK maybe. So this would be them just adapting to suit contract changes.
Saul signed a 9 year contract in 2017. Fabregas 8 years for Arsenal in 2006. It's not new or restricted to England. Other clubs simply chose not to do it due to the inherent risks, Chelsea are prepared to take the risk and mitigate some of the risk with incentivised contracts. And now it's a bad thing...
 

MayosNoun

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2020
Messages
2,489
Supports
Chelsea
Interesting because from an outsider looking in your transfer 'strategy' looks like the equivalent of loading a shotgun with makeup and firing it into your own face.

Mudryk looked good in his cameo though. I'll grant you that.
We have some older players who are on their way out in a squad with a lot of good young talent around them. Many fans have been calling for a complete overhaul of the squad and Boehly took it literal.

I’m delighted that we are targeting young players with first team experience though as opposed to 30 year olds (ignore Koulibaly) for overpriced fees.

Once we get rid of a few players we will have a very young squad with some experienced players around them.
 

GoonerBear

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Messages
2,064
Supports
Arsenal
Saul signed a 9 year contract in 2017. Fabregas 8 years for Arsenal in 2006. It's not new or restricted to England. Other clubs simply chose not to do it due to the inherent risks, Chelsea are prepared to take the risk and mitigate some of the risk with incentivised contracts. And now it's a bad thing...
Those examples are players already at the club signing contracts though, no? Not a FFP fudge.
 

Vapor trail

Full Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
998
I don't fault Chelsea's approach, they seem to be going hard in the early tenure of the new owners and it will likely simmer down once the following windows come through.

The issue is it's a guarantee that some of the signings will be misses and the coach has to ensure that the ratio is more positive than negative. The long contracts are only a detriment in the event the said player is a failure and they are unable to move them on. I think they have signed talented players but no real star quality aside Mudryk and Enzo if it goes through.

I'm not sure that Potter is the profile of manager for the task at hand. It's almost as if Brighton to a Chelsea with this strategy is too significant of a step. The timing is off in my opinion unless the club generally give him 36 months to work with irrespective of league finishes. Even if Graham doesn't work out that's potentially Poch, Enrique and to lesser extent Simeone on the wings.
 

Bluelion7

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
861
Supports
Chelsea
Those examples are players already at the club signing contracts though, no? Not a FFP fudge.
There are tons of ways to work around FFP though. A lot of these people writing about it seem to have only marginal understanding of all the elements. They pick and choose aspects of strategy and say “THAT” is how Chelsea is handling FFP.

The longer contracts do allow you to amortize the original fee of the player over different periods … if you wanted to do that in every case. Americans have a ton of experience with Cap manipulation. It is its own finance specialty.

Longer contracts offer bigger financial commitments to players, but they give you more flexibility, but not just for FFP. It gives you leeway on when and how you structure re-signings: this near blackmail system of counting down the last 18 months and the drama involved is weird.

You can shift money around to specific years. Say three years from now you have cap (FFP) room you weren’t expecting and you shift some future salary on some contracts into that year with yet another timely re-sign.

Anyway, there are other factors in FFP like the hardship allowances. The tiered structure of the financial penalties teams are supposed to be afforded before other punishments are engaged (here we call that luxury tax… and good teams pay it). There are offsets that are supposed to be built in based on infrastructure investment, investment in women’s football, charities, etc.

Enzo would not have fallen under youth investment, but several of the players we’ve signed do in the figures that keep getting released.

Then there is the basic economics of how the money hits and doesn’t hit.

They believe they are in line now and they haven’t even moved anyone yet, and they have tons of assets

I wrote about this before as a hypothetical: But it would be easy to create immediate FFP room just by essentially moving CHO on as a direct counter weight to Mudryk. You would get a full, immediate accounting of the sale money, and significant savings to FFP on wages. I don’t think they want to do that, but it’s just an example.

Again, when you HAVE money, manipulating money is easy. It’s when you try to manipulate things to try to hide the fact you DONT have money that things get difficult.
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
9,013
I don't fault Chelsea's approach, they seem to be going hard in the early tenure of the new owners and it will likely simmer down once the following windows come through.

The issue is it's a guarantee that some of the signings will be misses and the coach has to ensure that the ratio is more positive than negative. The long contracts are only a detriment in the event the said player is a failure and they are unable to move them on. I think they have signed talented players but no real star quality aside Mudryk and Enzo if it goes through.

I'm not sure that Potter is the profile of manager for the task at hand. It's almost as if Brighton to a Chelsea with this strategy is too significant of a step. The timing is off in my opinion unless the club generally give him 36 months to work with irrespective of league finishes. Even if Graham doesn't work out that's potentially Poch, Enrique and to lesser extent Simeone on the wings.
Right now that ratio ain’t looking too good. Chelsea are approaching half a billion spent in 6 months and the only sign of “money well spent” is a 15 minute cameo on the weekend. The rest of the expenditure certainly hasn’t gone as planned so far.
 

GoonerBear

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Messages
2,064
Supports
Arsenal
There are tons of ways to work around FFP though. A lot of these people writing about it seem to have only marginal understanding of all the elements. They pick and choose aspects of strategy and say “THAT” is how Chelsea is handling FFP.

The longer contracts do allow you to amortize the original fee of the player over different periods … if you wanted to do that in every case. Americans have a ton of experience with Cap manipulation. It is its own finance specialty.

Longer contracts offer bigger financial commitments to players, but they give you more flexibility, but not just for FFP. It gives you leeway on when and how you structure re-signings: this near blackmail system of counting down the last 18 months and the drama involved is weird.

You can shift money around to specific years. Say three years from now you have cap (FFP) room you weren’t expecting and you shift some future salary on some contracts into that year with yet another timely re-sign.

Anyway, there are other factors in FFP like the hardship allowances. The tiered structure of the financial penalties teams are supposed to be afforded before other punishments are engaged (here we call that luxury tax… and good teams pay it). There are offsets that are supposed to be built in based on infrastructure investment, investment in women’s football, charities, etc.

Enzo would not have fallen under youth investment, but several of the players we’ve signed do in the figures that keep getting released.

Then there is the basic economics of how the money hits and doesn’t hit.

They believe they are in line now and they haven’t even moved anyone yet, and they have tons of assets

I wrote about this before as a hypothetical: But it would be easy to create immediate FFP room just by essentially moving CHO on as a direct counter weight to Mudryk. You would get a full, immediate accounting of the sale money, and significant savings to FFP on wages. I don’t think they want to do that, but it’s just an example.

Again, when you HAVE money, manipulating money is easy. It’s when you try to manipulate things to try to hide the fact you DONT have money that things get difficult.
You keep talking these guys up, about how rich they are, how clever they are, how much they are willing to invest, how they will throw money at everything to make sure you have the best of everything going forward, how they will find loopholes to follow through with their ideas etc. Then don't be all offended when authorities try and close some loopholes to counter it.

They've clearly came in, acting like Billy Big Bollocks, and ruffled feathers. When that happens, clubs and authorities tend to try and put in measures that help counter that. Here's a novel idea, why look to find loopholes, why look to bend or stretch current rules, why not just play the same game everyone else is playing?

If you want to be seen as clever owners, that run a well run football club, do you need to do that? Is it really clever to throw half a billion pounds at a team in 6 months to make it perform worse than it previously did? Do you just spend another half a billion pounds the next season to improve it further?

You might get success that way, throw enough money at anything and you should get it right at some point, but don't moan when no-one respects that way of doing it or there is a fight back against it. That's not clever, that's just some rich kid buying every toy in the store so they have the best of stuff. At the end of the day, It is a sport after all, even though each year it seems more like an arms race.
 

Bluelion7

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
861
Supports
Chelsea
You keep talking these guys up, about how rich they are, how clever they are, how much they are willing to invest, how they will throw money at everything to make sure you have the best of everything going forward, how they will find loopholes to follow through with their ideas etc. Then don't be all offended when authorities try and close some loopholes to counter it.

They've clearly came in, acting like Billy Big Bollocks, and ruffled feathers. When that happens, clubs and authorities tend to try and put in measures that help counter that. Here's a novel idea, why look to find loopholes, why look to bend or stretch current rules, why not just play the same game everyone else is playing?

If you want to be seen as clever owners, that run a well run football club, do you need to do that? Is it really clever to throw half a billion pounds at a team in 6 months to make it perform worse than it previously did? Do you just spend another half a billion pounds the next season to improve it further?

You might get success that way, throw enough money at anything and you should get it right at some point, but don't moan when no-one respects that way of doing it or there is a fight back against it. That's not clever, that's just some rich kid buying every toy in the store so they have the best of stuff. At the end of the day, It is a sport after all, even though each year it seems more like an arms race.
I don’t care if you think they’re clever or not. I am literally just trying to explain what is essentially mixed up information at best.

If you go back to earlier in this thread during Summer I said they could go 550 million pretty easily, especially based on the circumstances of the sale and the unique situation of the FFP cycle transitioning.

If you dont want to know, then dont read.

I read about them “closing the loophole” … starting next Summer… so essentially, if they believe that’s Chelsea’s only avenue, they are taking it away from everyone else … after Chelsea have used it?

Genius.

Two years from now Clearlake will have multiple clubs in its system and an entire structure. They won’t need to buy 16 players in a year. They have the ability to do it now and are taking advantage. It isn’t cheating and it isn’t a trick.

We got very lucky with our new ownership group. That’s my opinion. They are going to do other things in the near future that involve spending vast sums of money, and it gets annoying explaining all the incorrect things I see; especially when it SO off base as to the scope of the ownerships resources and plans.

Maybe I should t bother; but I do find it amusing, and it IS the Chelsea thread.
 

SirReginald

Full Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
1,684
Supports
Chelsea
Right now that ratio ain’t looking too good. Chelsea are approaching half a billion spent in 6 months and the only sign of “money well spent” is a 15 minute cameo on the weekend. The rest of the expenditure certainly hasn’t gone as planned so far.
Very simplistic view. A lot of money was spent because we had to get players in. Overpriced and some wrong players for sure but were going to start the season with half a squad.
 

Bluelion7

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
861
Supports
Chelsea
Right now that ratio ain’t looking too good. Chelsea are approaching half a billion spent in 6 months and the only sign of “money well spent” is a 15 minute cameo on the weekend. The rest of the expenditure certainly hasn’t gone as planned so far.
All anyone could talk about prior to Mudryks cameo was how imperious and skilled Badiashile had been.

Fofana was fantastic before injury. If he keeps getting injured then that will be an issue, but he’s good enough he’s worth the risk.

Nkunku is star; flat out. If there is anyone as quick and dangerous with the ball as Mudryk, it is Nkunku.

People make fun of Cucurella, but he actually grades out extremely well when he does the thing he is great at: playing LB (not LWB) and sliding back to be the third defender when Potters system shifts to attack.

I like the Noni purchase, and I think he will fit what we particularly want to do well.

The people they bought specifically to make Tuchel happy (Koulibaliy and Auba in particular) haven’t been great, but I never expected KK to be good without a strong CDM in front of him (he plays fine with Zakaria on the pitch) and I expected zero from Auba.

Sterling had been a disappointment, but I don’t think that’s a crippling shock. And he could yet be unlocked. If he were healthy and getting those rap releases in the box Mudryk and Felix can create? Goals.

The youth we’ve bought have all been great so far. A few rough patches but real flashes of talent, especially when they were t supposed to have to play this much so soon like Carney (although I think he needs to be deeper..)

It all comes down to the midfield. Signing and RB signing to me. I would be very happy with Gusto. Forcing Azpi to stay was another horrible Tuchel error (and yes, it was his call). Even with all our other injury issues, if we have someone like Gusto when James goes down we are at least 5 points better right now.

We will see though. We will see.

I personally feel really good about the overall direction.
 

GoonerBear

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Messages
2,064
Supports
Arsenal
I don’t care if you think they’re clever or not. I am literally just trying to explain what is essentially mixed up information at best.

If you go back to earlier in this thread during Summer I said they could go 550 million pretty easily, especially based on the circumstances of the sale and the unique situation of the FFP cycle transitioning.

If you dont want to know, then dont read.

I read about them “closing the loophole” … starting next Summer… so essentially, if they believe that’s Chelsea’s only avenue, they are taking it away from everyone else … after Chelsea have used it?

Genius.

Two years from now Clearlake will have multiple clubs in its system and an entire structure. They won’t need to buy 16 players in a year. They have the ability to do it now and are taking advantage. It isn’t cheating and it isn’t a trick.

We got very lucky with our new ownership group. That’s my opinion. They are going to do other things in the near future that involve spending vast sums of money, and it gets annoying explaining all the incorrect things I see; especially when it SO off base as to the scope of the ownerships resources and plans.

Maybe I should t bother; but I do find it amusing, and it IS the Chelsea thread.
Ah, the old multi club system, something that some Chelsea fans aren't even comfortable with.

I'm intrigued to see how you pull it off and what benefits you get from it, because I look at the City group for instance and don't see how it's benefited Man City's first team directly apart from 'spreading the brand' and perhaps allowing them to do some creative accounting.
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
6,696
Supports
Chelsea
You might get success that way, throw enough money at anything and you should get it right at some point, but don't moan when no-one respects that way of doing it or there is a fight back against it. That's not clever, that's just some rich kid buying every toy in the store so they have the best of stuff. At the end of the day, It is a sport after all, even though each year it seems more like an arms race.
Most of the people moaning and "fighting back" wished us out business months ago so feck them.
 

Rnd898

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2022
Messages
410
Supports
Chelsea
Ah, the old multi club system, something that some Chelsea fans aren't even comfortable with.

I'm intrigued to see how you pull it off and what benefits you get from it, because I look at the City group for instance and don't see how it's benefited Man City's first team directly apart from 'spreading the brand' and perhaps allowing them to do some creative accounting.
Yeah can't say I'd be too happy with some multi-club shenanigans even if it has potential to be beneficial for the club. It's just not good for football overall.

As for the second point, I believe the 'multi-club model' in Chelsea's case would probably be quite different to what City are doing. For them the 'City Football Group' clubs have very little to do with Man City themselves, and like you said it's more just increasing the overall brand value around the world and using that to increase their revenues.

For Chelsea, and this is according to Boehly himself from some interview he had last summer, the plan would be more in line with the Red Bull group (and that's probably why they even hired people with experience from the RB organisation like Vivell and Stewart). They could use Chelsea's scouting network to sign promising youngsters directly to the 'feeder club' and the ones who prove good enough they could then transfer to Chelsea for below market value prices, much like Red Bull are doing with Salzburg/Leipzig. In addition to that they could also, within the loan rules of course, send our own academy youngsters there to develop in an environment the club have total control over in deciding who manages the team, what kind of football the team plays and which players get selected. If the playing style for the feeder team had some similarities to how the Chelsea first team play, it would then be easier for these players to come back and slot right in as compared to being out on loan at some random clubs.

I definitely see why they'd want to do it and what the benefits to Chelsea could be if such a model was in place but still can't say I'm a fan of the idea.
 

Rajiztar

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
1,648
Supports
Chelsea
Yeah can't say I'd be too happy with some multi-club shenanigans even if it has potential to be beneficial for the club. It's just not good for football overall.

As for the second point, I believe the 'multi-club model' in Chelsea's case would probably be quite different to what City are doing. For them the 'City Football Group' clubs have very little to do with Man City themselves, and like you said it's more just increasing the overall brand value around the world and using that to increase their revenues.

For Chelsea, and this is according to Boehly himself from some interview he had last summer, the plan would be more in line with the Red Bull group (and that's probably why they even hired people with experience from the RB organisation like Vivell and Stewart). They could use Chelsea's scouting network to sign promising youngsters directly to the 'feeder club' and the ones who prove good enough they could then transfer to Chelsea for below market value prices, much like Red Bull are doing with Salzburg/Leipzig. In addition to that they could also, within the loan rules of course, send our own academy youngsters there to develop in an environment the club have total control over in deciding who manages the team, what kind of football the team plays and which players get selected. If the playing style for the feeder team had some similarities to how the Chelsea first team play, it would then be easier for these players to come back and slot right in as compared to being out on loan at some random clubs.

I definitely see why they'd want to do it and what the benefits to Chelsea could be if such a model was in place but still can't say I'm a fan of the idea.
Don't worry when we started to imply that model uefa will ban it. :lol:
 

terraloo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
239
Supports
Chelsea
Those examples are players already at the club signing contracts though, no? Not a FFP fudge.
Felix at Atletico signed a 7 year deal on transfer
Grelish when signing for City
Kepa when we signed for us signed a 5 year deal
 

terraloo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
239
Supports
Chelsea
You keep talking these guys up, about how rich they are, how clever they are, how much they are willing to invest, how they will throw money at everything to make sure you have the best of everything going forward, how they will find loopholes to follow through with their ideas etc. Then don't be all offended when authorities try and close some loopholes to counter it.

They've clearly came in, acting like Billy Big Bollocks, and ruffled feathers. When that happens, clubs and authorities tend to try and put in measures that help counter that. Here's a novel idea, why look to find loopholes, why look to bend or stretch current rules, why not just play the same game everyone else is playing?

If you want to be seen as clever owners, that run a well run football club, do you need to do that? Is it really clever to throw half a billion pounds at a team in 6 months to make it perform worse than it previously did? Do you just spend another half a billion pounds the next season to improve it further?

You might get success that way, throw enough money at anything and you should get it right at some point, but don't moan when no-one respects that way of doing it or there is a fight back against it. That's not clever, that's just some rich kid buying every toy in the store so they have the best of stuff. At the end of the day, It is a sport after all, even though each year it seems more like an arms race.
So by adhering to the rules that are in place that allow contracts over 5 years that allow amortisation of the fee over the period of a contract finding loopholes? Is it a loophole when a club extends a contract & the amortisation charge reduces ? It certainly isn’t it’s how the rule book is written

Its not your money it’s not your club so why worry ?
 

terraloo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
239
Supports
Chelsea
It’s actually quite interesting when you look at this because Chelsea are from alone when you look at the number of PL clubs that offer new signings deals over the 5 year time line.

Newcastle have 7, City 8 Spurs 3 and Utd 3 and I by no means have looked at every clubs/ players co lengths.

Ok some like Kane didnt cost a fee but the majority of Cities 8 were offered deals past 5 years on transfer in that also applies to Harry M at Utd who signed a 7 year deal.

Ironicaly I understand that Arsenals latest signing is getting a deal of over 5 years
 

Niemans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2021
Messages
1,200
Supports
Barcelona, Celta de Vigo
Yeah can't say I'd be too happy with some multi-club shenanigans even if it has potential to be beneficial for the club. It's just not good for football overall.

As for the second point, I believe the 'multi-club model' in Chelsea's case would probably be quite different to what City are doing. For them the 'City Football Group' clubs have very little to do with Man City themselves, and like you said it's more just increasing the overall brand value around the world and using that to increase their revenues.

For Chelsea, and this is according to Boehly himself from some interview he had last summer, the plan would be more in line with the Red Bull group (and that's probably why they even hired people with experience from the RB organisation like Vivell and Stewart). They could use Chelsea's scouting network to sign promising youngsters directly to the 'feeder club' and the ones who prove good enough they could then transfer to Chelsea for below market value prices, much like Red Bull are doing with Salzburg/Leipzig. In addition to that they could also, within the loan rules of course, send our own academy youngsters there to develop in an environment the club have total control over in deciding who manages the team, what kind of football the team plays and which players get selected. If the playing style for the feeder team had some similarities to how the Chelsea first team play, it would then be easier for these players to come back and slot right in as compared to being out on loan at some random clubs.

I definitely see why they'd want to do it and what the benefits to Chelsea could be if such a model was in place but still can't say I'm a fan of the idea.
Chelsea want to do something similar to the Red Bull group but there are different contexts and there will be different problems.

Red Bull doesn't have any top team that you can't buy a player from, that makes young players have opportunities and want to stay.

Chelsea have a squad of young players and they cost a lot of money, plus Chelsea does not sell.
In the end, young players with quality are not going to go there because they know they will not have opportunities, they will choose other clubs.
This has already happened other times in different clubs.
I wouldn't be surprised if academy players started leaving soon.
 

Dr. StrangeHate

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
4,491
Call me a homer all you want but it's ridiculous that UEFA are already moving to crack down on this but will stand idly by as Man City signs their umpteenth fake sponsorship with yet another company that doesn't actually exist
Tbf no club has ever done what Chelsea is doing. City have never spent like this.
 

Tom Cato

Godt nyttår!
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
6,956
Call me a homer all you want but it's ridiculous that UEFA are already moving to crack down on this but will stand idly by as Man City signs their umpteenth fake sponsorship with yet another company that doesn't actually exist

Your net spend in the transfer window is nearly £400m, what are you talking about.

What these long ass contracts do is simply moving the problem further down the line. The debt on the books will still be there. At least by limiting contract terms it stops clubs from overextending.
 

Strootman's Finger

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
1,083
All anyone could talk about prior to Mudryks cameo was how imperious and skilled Badiashile had been.

Fofana was fantastic before injury. If he keeps getting injured then that will be an issue, but he’s good enough he’s worth the risk.

Nkunku is star; flat out. If there is anyone as quick and dangerous with the ball as Mudryk, it is Nkunku.

People make fun of Cucurella, but he actually grades out extremely well when he does the thing he is great at: playing LB (not LWB) and sliding back to be the third defender when Potters system shifts to attack.

I like the Noni purchase, and I think he will fit what we particularly want to do well.

The people they bought specifically to make Tuchel happy (Koulibaliy and Auba in particular) haven’t been great, but I never expected KK to be good without a strong CDM in front of him (he plays fine with Zakaria on the pitch) and I expected zero from Auba.

Sterling had been a disappointment, but I don’t think that’s a crippling shock. And he could yet be unlocked. If he were healthy and getting those rap releases in the box Mudryk and Felix can create? Goals.

The youth we’ve bought have all been great so far. A few rough patches but real flashes of talent, especially when they were t supposed to have to play this much so soon like Carney (although I think he needs to be deeper..)

It all comes down to the midfield. Signing and RB signing to me. I would be very happy with Gusto. Forcing Azpi to stay was another horrible Tuchel error (and yes, it was his call). Even with all our other injury issues, if we have someone like Gusto when James goes down we are at least 5 points better right now.

We will see though. We will see.

I personally feel really good about the overall direction.
You haven't signed Nkunku yet, and I doubt he wants to sign for a team hovering around the bottom half of the table.
 

Vapor trail

Full Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
998
Call me a homer all you want but it's ridiculous that UEFA are already moving to crack down on this but will stand idly by as Man City signs their umpteenth fake sponsorship with yet another company that doesn't actually exist
Think it's different because of the outlay. If Chelsea found a way to make the exposure of the loophole less noticeable then I doubt it would be an issue. City have spent lots of money over an extended period of time. If they decided to buy Mbappe, Messi, Vini Junior and some other high profile players in a single season / short time frame they will likely get far more attention. I'm not suggesting it's just however as a loophole is more permissable than fraud which is City's territory.
 

Iker Quesadillas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,993
Supports
Real Madrid
People make fun of Cucurella, but he actually grades out extremely well when he does the thing he is great at: playing LB (not LWB) and sliding back to be the third defender when Potters system shifts to attack.
I love to spend 60 million pounds on a player who is only great at one thing.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
5,172
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Your net spend in the transfer window is nearly £400m, what are you talking about.

What these long ass contracts do is simply moving the problem further down the line. The debt on the books will still be there. At least by limiting contract terms it stops clubs from overextending.
Not sure what net spend has to do with this? Unless you think City being first in commercial revenue is completely legit and therefore take their net spend at face value?

Obviously Chelsea are spending huge money right now. What's ridiculous is that Boehly has found a loophole and UEFA are already moving to close it despite City's flagrant cheating going unaddressed for years now.

Also you are just incorrect regarding contract length. The limiting factor when selling players is how much money they are making annually, not how much is left on the deal. What Chelsea are doing is offering a high floor for young players in terms of career earnings (e.g. guaranteeing Mudryk that he'll make at least £‎42.5m in his career over the next 8.5 years) whilst still allowing ample room for raises and/or sales. It's a bet that football as a sport will continue to grow along with commercial revenues.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
5,172
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Think it's different because of the outlay. If Chelsea found a way to make the exposure of the loophole less noticeable then I doubt it would be an issue. City have spent lots of money over an extended period of time. If they decided to buy Mbappe, Messi, Vini Junior and some other high profile players in a single season / short time frame they will likely get far more attention. I'm not suggesting it's just however as a loophole is more permissable than fraud which is City's territory.
I know I've called it a loophole but I don't even think it fits the definition. It's just standard accounting practice that has always been done, and there are examples littering the thread of longer deals being signed by incoming players.

It's true that no one has used this as a clearly defined strategy on a broad scale, though.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
5,172
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
That is the point though. At some point that "bet" becomes unacceptable if the club will not bre able to handle any shortcomings in growth.
Fair - but there's nothing to indicate that football revenues are any sort of bubble. And the current ownership group has previous experience in developing novel revenue streams for professional sporting teams.
 

Hughie77

Full Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
2,937
Chelsea next season, pre season with the new players in all injuries back they will be a force imo, Potter if he's still there which I think he will , has a massive chance of winning the league. Mydryk or whatever his name is wow he looks a player .
 
X