Enzo Fernández | signs for Chelsea

Not open for further replies.


Full Member
Aug 7, 2014
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
The 'advantage' being that Chelsea is spending heavily now before a new set of FFP rules will kick in from the summer. Also UEFA fast-tracked changes to amortization rules solely in response to what Chelsea is doing, meaning five year will be the max amortization period for a transfer outlay, regardless of contract length. Which essentially means Chelsea are stealing a march on the competition by doing the insane spending now which rules out pretty much every other club that are sane enough to not gamble on their existence.

It's quite easy to see why these loopholes needs to be closed because they gamble way too heavily on future earnings and revenue increase. Also if it's true that Chelsea are using a factoring company to finance transfer deals then it's about to set a dangerous precedent by allowing potentially unknown third-party financing - which will make it even harder to keep club's finances under control. It's like saying Wall Street doesn't need to be regulated.
Not open for further replies.