Zaphod2319
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2020
- Messages
- 4,209
- Supports
- Chelsea
Ornie was just on the Spurs pregame show. He said talks between BHA and Chelsea will continue after the Chelsea game.
Not quite sure that’s how FFP works. From what I’ve read on here it’s a straight 5 year amortisation for FFP, irrespective of the contract length.The only benefit is that the amortisation hits start after the first 3 years, presumably the player signs 8 years contract. So they get a ffp pass in the first 3 years. I could be wrong though.
Ornie was just on the Spurs pregame show. He said talks between BHA and Chelsea will continue after the Chelsea game.
Its because they’re getting both players.at what point do Chelsea actually make an offer? bit weird how much they are stalling on this whilst simultaneously negotiating with Southampton.
Apparently bid made, it’s the structre that’s being discussed.at what point do Chelsea actually make an offer? bit weird how much they are stalling on this whilst simultaneously negotiating with Southampton.
Was just about to post this. £900m in one year is ridiculous.From what I've read Chelsea if they sign Caicedo for £100m+ will have spent upwards of £900m since last summer.
How the feck are they getting around FFP?
Didn't UEFA close the 8 year contract loophole?
About 500 mil of sales in the same period and how FFP actually works is how.From what I've read Chelsea if they sign Caicedo for £100m+ will have spent upwards of £900m since last summer.
How the feck are they getting around FFP?
Didn't UEFA close the 8 year contract loophole?
This is not the first time Chelsea have been here (they took multiple players from under our noses back between 2003-06 thanks to Kenyon's insider info & Abrahamovich's money), so I'm not quite sure what's new here to be alarmed about? I'm not sure if they're doing something "illegal" here by overspending (well, maybe breaking FFP for which they'll get a fine). I'd love for history to be reversed, Chelsea to be told to stop and clubs to be told to revert to how they worked 20+ years ago but I know what I want is not going to happen in the world of football. FIFA/UEFA want investment in the game, FA want to make the premier league the most competitive by attracting the best players in the world - there's a little in it for everyone. We can either take a socialist approach and try to fight it (not sure how though?), or we can accept things for what they are and try to work around it. I'd rather we do the latter.What you’re saying makes no sense. The history should remain such and not be built upon and worsened; everyone knows what Abramovich did, and we know what City and PSG have done, but that shouldn’t be some gateway to even worse times, which Boehly is purposely ushering in. He is being laughed at as some fool, but there’s at least partial method to the madness and Chelsea have very quickly emerged as a reckless shark in amongst lesser, predatory fish I.e. if Chelsea involve themselves and you’re not a proverbial whale (state/oil) or some gladiatorial shark yourself (Real, Bayern and Barca to an extent), you’re stepping aside (see how they’ve savaged Liverpool) before the blunderbuss obliterates you and your budget.
These smart clubs you refer to aren’t challenging for titles, or in the German clubs’ sense, it’s not their primary objective. In other words, and pointing to what was written above, they aren’t there to fight with the shark for ”food” rather offer it up once they’ve had their fill. Great, someone always profits in times of chaos and disruption, that’s not news, but others suffer, and in this sense we can say “suffer” because it’s not do or die, but it’s still an absolutely disruptive and negative force driving the whole market into far murkier waters than anyone pre-Boehly foresaw. This guy is a blubbering force of nature - and once the dust settles, that will be processed because everyone else will pick up the pieces.
It’s all shits and giggles watching Liverpool get ran through, but the smiles will be all theirs once it’s us tussling with Chelsea for a player or two.
I didn’t wake up expecting to make lazy, aquatic analogies. -_-
I liked Spurs during Poch era and still do like them to an extent since then.Spurs shouldn't deserve respect, they deserve pointing and laughing
According to Transfermarkt it's about £300m in sales over the last 3 windows. Now granted I've never found them to be the most accurate but £500m in sales seems high in one year.About 500 mil of sales in the same period and how FFP actually works is how.
The players fee divided by contract length, up to 5 years. It's recalculated if they sign an extension.Not quite sure that’s how FFP works. From what I’ve read on here it’s a straight 5 year amortisation for FFP, irrespective of the contract length.
Chelsea fans pulling figures out of their arses againAbout 500 mil of sales in the same period
Did I say 500 £ or €? I did not.Chelsea fans pulling figures out of their arses again
Actual sales figure:
22/23: €67.80m
23/24: €253.90m
Total = €321.7m or £277.5m
Expenditure on transfers:
22/23: €611.9m
23/24: €207m (pre-Caicedo/Lavia)
Total = €818.9m or £707m
Also, these figures are just for base fee and don't include addons which would take it north of €900m pre-Caicedo. Stop peddling BS in here, it won't fly.
Why would you look at the last two years when FFP looks at the last 3? Which is pretty clearly what @duffer was referring to.Chelsea fans pulling figures out of their arses again
Actual sales figure:
22/23: €67.80m
23/24: €253.90m
Total = €321.7m or £277.5m
Expenditure on transfers:
22/23: €611.9m
23/24: €207m (pre-Caicedo/Lavia)
Total = €818.9m or £707m
Also, these figures are just for base fee and don't include addons which would take it north of €900m pre-Caicedo. Stop peddling BS in here, it won't fly.
Looks good for a few goals either way.Liverpool’s midfield looks dire on paper.
Fingers crossed it looks as dire on the pitchLiverpool’s midfield looks dire on paper.
Looks good for a few goals either way.
You’d think they’ll make a serious push for a couple of players or their season is going to be tanked early.Fingers crossed it looks as dire on the pitch
Reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit either. The post which the user was referring to said €900m spent since last summer aka after Boehly came in.Why would you look at the last two years when FFP looks at the last 3? Which is pretty clearly what @duffer was referring to.
Total spent 21-23: €936m
Total sold 21-23: €471m
Sure it's not £500m but it's not a million miles away.
Gosh, you seem quite mad about this so congratulations for winning the argument?Reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit either. The post which the user was referring to said €900m spent since last summer aka after Boehly came in.
Thanks bud - I get standard amortisation but for some reason I thought I read on here UEFA doesn’t take the standard rules into account but uses 5 years to avoid discrepancies like 8 year contracts. But maybe I dreamt thatThe players fee divided by contract length. It's recalculated if they sign an extension.
There's an article here
https://soccernoise.com/football-ffp-what-is-amortization/
I haven't seen that but it's a new rule so it's possible but I can't see why it would be. Amortisation is a standard format. As far as I've seen it applies to the first 5 years of the 8 year Chelsea contract. After that (years 6-8) the player is free of any minus FFP so can be treated like an academy player if sold. Therefore Chelsea get the FFP benefit over are contracted player on a shorter contract whose FFP is reduced but not gone.Thanks bud - I get standard amortisation but for some reason I thought I read on here UEFA doesn’t take the standard rules into account but uses 5 years to avoid discrepancies like 8 year contracts. But maybe I dreamt that
I will glady spend 1/3 of my daily posts to laugh at thisThe ONLY time a 50:50 scarf is acceptable is it Caicedo is spotted at the game tomorrow wearing one.
Haha this gave me a proper laugh nice one!Did I say 500 £ or €? I did not.
I'm obviously talking in Australian Dollars.
I thought Gallagher did decent against Liverpool. He was everywhere harrassing players and winning some 50-50s. Only thing he wasn't as good as was in possession but I think he wised up to it as the game went on and started just playing it simple so Liverpool couldn't take the ball off him as easily as they did at first.Chelsea needs Caicedo more than Liverpool, their midfield is overrun by Liverpool. Gallagher is not XI CM.
In that case @Dumbstar will spam every thread with “I told you so”.What happens if Chelsea fail to make a new bid?