Enzo Fernández | signs for Chelsea

Status
Not open for further replies.
P-Ro said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Even if this signing is a flop, they can sell him, recoup some money back few years later.
 
RedSky said:
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).
Click to expand...

Exactly this.
 
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
 
WeePat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
They spent something like 500M this season? How can they afford it?
 
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
 
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.
 
Mr. Meeseeks said:
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.
Click to expand...
No we and dont we didnt. Nobody has.
 
I hope they flop and these players just sit out their contracts
 
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...
 
fallengt said:
Even if this signing is a flop, they can sell him, recoup some money back few years later.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
dannyrhinos89 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Denis79 said:
They spent something like 500M this season? How can they afford it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
crossy1686 said:
Because they haven't. You amortise purchases over the length of the contract, that's why these contracts are getting longer and dafter.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ayushreddevil9 said:
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).
Click to expand...

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
 
GoonerInPeace said:
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
Click to expand...
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!
 
Massive Spanner said:
FFP is clearly not doing its job if a club can spend that much money in six months.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mb194dc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GoonerInPeace said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Massive Spanner said:
FFP is clearly not doing its job if a club can spend that much money in six months.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Messier1994 said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
galcianuk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.