Chelsea 2023/24 season thread.
- Thread starter duffer
- Start date
Yep 100%. Him and Loftus-Cheek never were the same after their Achilles injuries that year.
When the team was bought there was a pretty sizable amount of money paid that was held back until this was concluded. Evidently it is standard practice so new owners are not fined for discrepancies from the previous owner.
That's bad due diligence on the new owner's part, specially given they come from an investment banking background.
It was discovered while buying the team, reported, it took this amount of time for UEFA to make a decision. Not sure how they could have done it better? They are not going to walk away from the deal because there might be a minor financial reporting infraction.
You think discovering this in the buying process, immediately reporting it to the authoroties and setting aside money to put things right is "bad due diligence"?
So Chelsea's previous owners also did some accounting fraud like City did?
A more accurate statement would be "Chelsea have been fined for a FFP breach, just like Man United were a couple of weeks ago".
Wait, was this discovered after or before the takeover?
Due diligence is actually done before the purchase to make sure situations like these don't crop up. In this case, it's exceptional integrity on the new owner's part but not good due diligence if it was after (and good if it was before). Your new owners have always been well meaning tbh and they've always tried to legally squeeze the system - for eg, with 8 year contracts etc.
Before.
The new owners were allowed to set aside 100 million (taken from the original agreed asking price) for fines/losses for any dodgy shit done by previous owners.
As the fine was nowhere near 100 mil, hopefully they put the rest towards some midfielders!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Ah, well done in that case! Excuse my previous post, thought it was after.
Also was an excellent strategy to avoid being kicked out of UEFA competitions by deliberately not qualifying for any. Can't boot us out if we're not in!
Statement doesn't read like that. It says about inaccurate financial reporting or incomplete reporting.
Ha! Visionary!
I actually think CHO was starting to get back to his best in the Autumn/Winter 2021 period (maybe not finishing wise but creativity without a doubt).
It seems his injury after the CWC has gone under the radar as another big setback sadly.
Looks like we're signing another teenager, and he's possibly going on loan to Strasbourg. A lot of money to just be loaned out.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Think he will stay with us. He has very interesting profile. Aerially strong and very physical in ground duels. He has very similar profile to lavia for 20mn less. Scouts and technical team for recruitment started to do work it seems.
In midfield we didn't have aerially strong presence since matic left. I hope he will stay with us especially his DM profile with physically strong in duels make him high valuable for us in squad building.
Last edited:
We will get called out for Boehly’s newest loop hole sooner or later. Youth players are defined under FFP rules by the age, not if they are academy or first team players. The money spent on players defined as youth players does not count toward FFP. When they are sold for profit, it counts positively toward a club’s FFP calculation. Buying all these 2004 born players is like printing free FFP credits for the next few years. If they were bought by Strousburg, they reap the FFP benefit when sold. Bought by Chelsea and loaned to Strousburg, we get the credit for profit made. The owners have said there is a different budget for these youth players.
I've always been a massive fan of this guy.
What's the age to be called as youth player?
For FFP 9-20, but I think there are exceptions for young players and how many years they have first team experience at top leagues. The exact rules are ambiguous for people not versed in the laws. I could only find the age, but not the rest of the rule.
Any proof for this? Hard to believe this.
I mean something from UEFA, not some random Twitter account.
What age would you think it is, if not under 21?
It seems logically odd to me that transfer fees for 21 and under doesn't count towards FFP but explains Chelsea spending billions on every other 20 year old in the world.
Players who joins academy.
And what's the age limit for that?
If it was up to me, I would personally not include anyone over 15.
Academy transfers are usually 16 year old players.
19 year old players won't be considered as youth exception, they are first team players.
Do you have a source for that? And not some random Twiiter account.
I don't know what counts and doesn't count for FFP but the EUFA guildlines classify youth teams as up to 21.
Yeah, we are getting exception for 20 year old Hojlund too, who will be signed for 70 million.
The link that was posted talks about Championship, in any case it's not same as UEFA FPL.
It's cute though, Chelsea fans desperate attempt to prove Murtough as some genius
I think we're in agreement that it would be bonkers if is was an FFP exception.
With EUFA though, logic and common sense don't seem to be always present.
It won't, PSG signed Mbappe when he was 19, if he was FFP exception, it would have been made huge news.
That makes sense. I agree with you.
I would imagine the whole "investment in the youth team being exempt" is all about training facilities and coaching rather than transfer fees.
In the link I provided it speaks of Premier League qualifying players. It is both age + how many top league first team starts they have made to be classified as a youth player exempt from FFP calculations. The subject is made more difficult that EUFA does not publish FFP regulations online. There is a definite reason why Chelsea is all in on these youth players this year.
Say chelsea sign a player like cherki for £40m who's been playing top flight football for a couple of years now and still only 19, it won't be counted on ffp book? Or am I missing something?
Monster in aerial battles. I believe he is in the 99 percentile. However, everything else is a bit average to be a partner to Enzo. Pochettino typically has these kind of players in his team. Reminds me a bit of wanyanma. Caceido and this lad will be good enough cover in that number 6 or number 5 role. However, with santos impressing in preseason, I wouldn't be surprised if Ugo get loaned out. But, Ugo seems a different profile than what they currently have in midfield. May be best for Pochettino to keep him.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That seems very, very unlikely to me.