The loan rules are changing thus summer, so it will be very interesting to see what Chelsea and others do with their respective players thar have been on loan.
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
Tbf though, apart from two summers ago we haven’t actually gone mental in the transfer window in a long time. And that was only because we were coming off the transfer ban. So it’s not as though us Chelsea supporters have been used to spending hundreds of millions of pounds every summer and now suddenly the faucet is being turned off.
We only signed literally 1 player last summer (Lukaku) for example. So anything we do this summer will be more exciting that that.
Chelsea have significantly changed the “ loan “ model and a simple trawl through the players currently out on loan will highlight that to a large degree Chelsea are compliant with those amended rules.
That mental summer was also partly funded by the sales of 120m Hazard and 50m Morata, which people forget. We have plenty of players with value to sell this summer so I see no reason why we can't be spending around £100-£150m. When Arsenal have gone out and spent nearly £200m last summer with no CL football for 6 years and coming out of Covid years with no fans in the stadium, its odd when people are acting like we'll have nothing to spend.
Sorry what, someone spent £50m on Morata?!
Think you have completely misunderstood what FFP actually measures.
Recouped nearly the entire 57m we spent on him.Sorry what, someone spent £50m on Morata?!
Your negotiators man
Which should be investigated, to be honest
Christensen has been replaced and improved upon by Chalobah. AC is mediocre on a good day.
Atleti thankfully. A massive loan fee then bought him the season after. Then loaned him to JuventusSorry what, someone spent £50m on Morata?!
I personally think that there will be a few outgoings that generate quite decent sums. There will be a couple of surprises such as Kante and Jorginho others such as Berkley, Werner and possibly Lukaku are perhaps more predicable
I want Real for obvious reasons to win the CL but another massive plus is that that would trigger another of the add ons when we sold Hazard and that would see another £20 million added to the coffers at SB
To be fair the same negotiators sanctioned the 57m purchase in the first place.Your negotiators man
Hey man it was a fair price to facilitate the move for the hometown academy hero.Which should be investigated, to be honest
Agreed. If I had to list the players that I think there's a possibility they'll leave I'd say Pulisic/Ziyech/Werner/Lukaku/Jorginho/Kante/RLC/Alonso/Kepa?/Emerson.
Think its fair to say that most of those would fetch atleast £20m. Maybe not Alonso, Kepa, and Emerson. Then there's also Barkley/Drinkwater/Saul etc wages to be freed up. If we manage to sell maybe 3 of those of value, bring back the players who have done well on loan (Gallagher, Colwill, Broja) and go about replacing those we have lost I'd be more than happy. I can see it being a £150m summer if that happens.
Clearly not, it's about clubs not overspending and getting into serious debts.
How is £1.5b not a serious debt?
Who is going to buy them?
Disagree with that. Chalobah is a decent option to have in the squad but I certainly wouldn’t want him starting every week. Makes far too many individual errors.
If the ambition next season is to put in a credible title challenge then I don’t think we could do that with Chalobah as a first choice CB.
you’d think that but you don’t become a billionaire without having some dastardly plans. he’s going to dig the pitch up and deliver it piece by piece through the letter box of each cpo. he apprantely wants to be there for each delivery so he can call every chelsea fan a piece of shit in person, just in case the letters that he is sending them saying the same get lost in all the soil and grass.
How very tory
You do realise renovation of the training facilities, stadium, development of the youths and women's team are included in that 1.5 billion debt?
And according to FFP, those are not factored into the calculations.
Who knows. Obviously its not realistic for them all to be sold nor do I want them to be. But as I said, if three of them were to go which to me isn’t out the realms of possibility, it could be enough to help fund a decent summer.
The new owners would have to be willing to take huge losses on Lukaku and Werner. Will they fancy that? I’m not sure.
Well this will be a good test of whether your negotiators really could sell sand to the Arabs all this while or whether RA was moneywashing through transfers. I read Werner and Lukaku are on around 300k a week. Good look finding someone to pay those wages and a big fee on top of it.
The new owners didn’t buy Lukaku and Werner and have no connection to them, which perhaps would make it easier to part with them? Guess we’ll find out.
We also have to factor in what the players want. In the case of Werner, Pulisic, and Lukaku there have been plenty of rumblings that they aren’t happy and want to move on. We’d be taking a loss regardless so no point keeping players who don’t want to be here.
They’re assets who are unhappy, not playing well, and in the case of Lukaku, barely playing. Not sure why the suggestion that these players could be sold is being branded as ‘football manager’. If Tuchel doesn’t want them and doesn’t intend to use them why wouldn’t we try to offload them? Are you suggesting we keep them and watch their values depreciate further?
An easy out for the new owners could be to write the wrongs of the previous regime. That could start with moving on some of the failed purchases, even if that means at a loss.
Last edited:
They are still an asset. You need to get your head around being run like a normal club now. It’s not football manager anymore.
If an asset is depreciating in value, surely it's better to sell sooner rather than later if we're looking purely at economics.
You cannot really extrapolate too much from the Dodgers. The MLB is different to the NFL in that teams have a lot more protection in regard to their 'markets' i.e. the city and State they play in. That is why the Dodgers and Yankees earn so much more as the revenues generated by those markets aren't split as evenly as in other leagues.
That said, he has run them very well.
The problem here is he has committed £1.75bn to investing in the club over the next ten years. Additionally, Chelsea have quite a few players that they can sell even if it is for losses. I suspect there is money there.
I know a little about the London real estate market and I wouldn't be surprised to see Chelsea move. However, I suspect it will be to Earls Court.
Earls Court has been a disaster from start to finish and essentially, owing to the saturation of luxury flats in London that aren't selling, it's really isn't in a place to be developed like that for some time.
Consequently, rumours are the council want an anchor tenant to go in and get things moving. Expect some sort of land swap with sizable cash going to Chelsea and/or a virtual freehold (999 lease on peppercorn terms) to happen. Another thing I have heard is that this hasn't happened already because no one wanted to get tied up with RA once the project looked doomed owing to the political cilmate, the US owners won't have such an issue.
The SB site I expect will get turned into high end housing with a mix of flats. That area is more ripe for that sort of development rather than a mega flat project like Battersea of Nine Elms.
If that happens, Chelsea will do very nicely out of it.
The problem is the way the debt was structured. You may have heard, prior to any indication of a sale, that Chelsea were essentially debt free. The reason for that was due to the option for RA to turn that debt into equity (read shares) as and when he wanted to. That is why the debt can be written off as it will be converted to equity.
[ZQUOTE="TheReligion, post: 28830464, member: 23584"]
The new owners would have to be willing to take huge losses on Lukaku and Werner. Will they fancy that? I’m not sure.
[/QUOTE]
Bit of a moot point, the owners have brought Chelsea with these two as an ongoing concern that would've been factored into their budgets. By selling Lukaku say for £20m isn't going to be a £80m loss for them, as they would've put that into their figures when buying.
Tbh, I think Chelsea, the club itself, have come out of this quite nicely. The only real concern for them will be if the new owners are hopeless at signing people and continue their trend of buying players like Kepa, Bakayoko, Drinkwater and Lukaku etc.
Last edited:
We raised over £100M in transfers last summer.
We do run like a normal club thats why we still have Danny Drinkwater, Baba Rahman, Bayakyako, Batshuayi, Kennedy still on the books because Marina wont sell them unless we get decent money for them.
Werner as a creator has been quiet good the last few months.
But technically as a striker, he's as limp as Jesse Lingard in a female strip club
I think its very naive for some CFC fans to think and believe the club will continue to operate exactly how it did under Roman however I accept the vast majority have never followed the club before him so won’t really understand what he brought to the table.
They're getting a consortium of American business men?
Ouch, welcome to reality Chelsea fans
Ouch, welcome to reality Chelsea fans
You only need to look at their way of running the Dodgers to answer that. After taking over they built a team by getting the players needed to win. After winning the title and Covid losses when almost all teams were scaling back expenses, they spent a lot more. They are willing to spend a lot to grow their product to get a title winning team.
They do very much believe in investing in producing your own players by getting top prospects and developing them and then going into the market and getting the best players they can to fill the positions they could not develop. If they follow their own model they will invest a lot in the academy to produce players for the team and go into the market to buy players. They have spent a lot to bring the Dodgers back to the top. The success of our academy was probably a pretty big draw for this group of owners.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/sports/baseball/los-angeles-dodgers.html
Boehly is a minority owner and maybe the fourth or fifth most important person involved with running the Dodgers and charting their strategy.
In any case, the story of the Dodgers is really the mega TV contract and the stadium giving them the highest revenues in the game, then the team also being run very intelligently. They’re like Man City in that regard, or United in the glory days.
What the story is not about is the owners being willing to spend a lot of money out of their own pockets.
To be honest I think your naive if you think that they won't spend decent amounts going forward. Think they will spend as much as anyone else at the top of the table bar Newcastle who will overspend to catch up.
The Dodgers are run by his group, which Boehly is very active in the day to day running of the team. He is also the person in the group that plays the biggest role in bringing in recruitment for both development and the starting line up. He has several youtube interviews where he discusses this. It is his experience here that has his partners for Chelsea always saying Todd will run day to day operations.
i think with a lot of people its hope more than anything. Since Abramovich owned us im sure the most we have paid out in a single summer window, not net spend, simply outgoings, is roughly 230m. That is since 2003.
Would it really be that insane to think Boehly and his group wont spend say 200-220m this summer?
They’ll spend of course. The point I’m making is it won’t be run as it was under RA. Daft to think it will be.
I think those oppo fans that are hoping this doesnt go well for Chelsea, I don’t think problems will come from refreshing the squad. The real question will be how does Tuchel do with a very hands on owner when he has loved running things with a very hands off owner. That could be a source of friction.
Ok, you clearly have no idea how baseball teams work if you think he is spearheading recruitment or setting the starting lineup.
He isn’t the majority owner (his former partner Walter is) and, in any case, the owners have hired top executives (Friedman and Kasten most importantly) to run the team at both major and minor league levels. The manager is then going to make decisions on a game by game basis, such as who goes in the starting lineup.
Not to say Boehly hasn’t been involved but it’s a group effort and he has played a limited role.
In the end, I think he is a smart owner who will be pretty similar to FSG at Liverpool - try to hire good people, then let them work. Invest strategically when necessary, but overall look to create a sustainable model in which costs and expenditures are balanced in most years. Overall, run the team like a business. But that’s very different from Roman, even in recent years.
I think that Walter is in our takeover too. Mark Walter, is it?