Probably best not to judge that yet considering where they finished last year. I certainly wouldn’t care for supporting 11 new players each season.Chelsea won the lifetime jackpot didnt they
First Roman, now this guy.
Romeo Lavia | Chelsea bound?
- Thread starter bosnian_red
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Oh that's a really good point. I don't think it's rolling though - I believe that for the next 5 years Chelsea have to account for Enzo's entire transfer fee, then for the last 3.5 years of the deal he's more or less free accounting-wise?
It could be how you've described as well, however this would be inconsistent with how contract extensions are dealt with I think e.g. a player has 2 years left and then signs a new 5 year deal, his remaining balance is amortised over the new contract.
If it is rolling, it's easier for Chelsea to manage FFP. However, if Chelsea struggle to shift underperforming big money signings, it will eventually catch-up.
Another thing that could be happening is the player's wages may be loaded towards the end of the contract when amortisation will be much lower (assuming it's rolling).
The Athletic reporting a few months ago was worded as :
"Clubs will have a maximum of five years to amortise transfer fees in their accounts regardless of a player’s contract length following amendments to UEFA regulations."
If that's correct, I don't think it's rolling.
"Clubs will have a maximum of five years to amortise transfer fees in their accounts regardless of a player’s contract length following amendments to UEFA regulations."
If that's correct, I don't think it's rolling.
True - though as per @Plastic Evra 's post, I don't think this is the case.
That said, maybe you've figured out another loophole - if a contract has multiple one-year extensions built in based on some low-threshold performance metrics like appearances every year in theory those in being triggered sequentially would allow effectively for rolling 5 year periods.
Anyone have Boehly's mobile number?
Absolute rubbish this. How are they soulless? Which big clubs doesn't spend a ton of cash these days?
Are you saying if/when we get taken over by the Qatari, we'd become a soulless club just because the owner is willing to splash a lot money to rebuild the squad?
Yes. Absolutely.
Yeah, I would.
But luckily for everyone I probably would've stopped caring about the club at that point.
Well yeh, potentially? These things have an impact. If we started selling a significant chunk of our youth players that would change the feel of the club. If we started spending hundreds of millions each summer and constantly changing the team, it would change how we connect to the players. Knowingly getting into serious FFP problems and banking on it paying off by getting into CL feels like a weird way to run a football club.
EDIT. Glad to see others refute your point. Seems fairly obvious to be honest.
Fair play to Chelsea for sorting out that problem of having too many players.
When the window is finished Poch's plan is to have 22-23 players. Loans about to kick off.
By the logic of some here, 'soul' has a different dictionary meaning now:
- soul = miserly spenders
- soulless = generous spenders
To the extent there's really "soul" in elite football, I'm sure the one of MU won't be missed too hard by most if it means competing again, both financially and on the pitch.
I mean if you read into how the owner is approaching football yea it’s soulless. He’s looking at amassing players like an investment portfolio, there seems to be no real recruitment strategy apart from buy youth and hope it appreciates in value. They’ve a bloated squad and apart from Colwill look like they are using their academy as a profit machine. A lot of Chelsea fans are disappointed with the sale of Hall. There are two blights on prem ownership 1, the oil states and 2, the American investors. One is sportswashing the other is commodification of the premier league package.
Hall asked for the move. We don't hold players at the club if they desire a move. Chelsea fans are disappointed he did not want to stay, but in the end it is his choice about his career. We have plenty of academy players in the first team. When you have a large academy, most are not going to make it to the first team. It is a cash machine for sure.
Hall signed a 7 year deal just a few days ago. You don’t do that and then immediately pivot to pushing for a move. He’s known about Newcastle’s interest all the summer. What I think is actually happening here is Chelsea have deemed him a necessary sacrifice to balance the books and he’s like ‘yeah ok I want to leave if you don’t have any plans for me here’.
He thought he was going on loan to Crystal Palace. Who knows the conversation when that fell through and Newcastle interest became concrete.. I'm not sure he is a Newcastle fan, as has been said, but I think it is true his family is. Family can have a strong influence on an 18 year old.
Newcastle’s interest isn’t new though. I don’t think anyone would sign a 7 year deal and then agitate for a move within days, unless something happened that is pushing him out. I don’t know what happened with the Palace loan. Some have linked it to the failed Olise bid. Who knows.
I’m just saying, I don’t buy that it’s him who wants to leave.
I think he could have been upset he did not feature in preseason. I think if it was me, I wouldn't be too happy either.
Everybody in the media including Orny say that Chelsea wanted to loan him, but it was Hall that wanted the move to Newcastle.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We can take it to the Hall thread instead of this Lavia one, but yeah I know Ornstein said this but the sentence right above that says this.
“Newcastle had seen a number of previous approaches rebuffed for Hall, who recently signed a long-term Chelsea deal.”
So Hall knew Newcastle were pursuing him throughout the summer, signs a 7 year deal anyway and agrees to a loan move and then what, suddenly has a change of heart and now he’s demanding to be sold? I’ve seen this tactic from the club before when they’re making a business decision and they’re about to sell an academy player everyone loves, we’re suddenly getting briefs all over the place that it’s the player who wants to leave.
Yes definitely the wrong thread for the discussion. I just have a hard time believing our PR is good enough to get the entire media to buy in.
Here me out, football is business these days. Everybody and their dog knows this.
They can't compete with a club like united when it comes to revenue. So the only way for them I guess, is to amass a lot of young players, including their academy products, and sell to generate revenue when they appreciate in value.
Nobody on here really knows their recruitment strategy or their plans from the outside. I believe they have their strategy when one looks from the inside.
Boehly is crazy, but if his plans work, they set for 4-5 years, and they might not need to spend like this for some times.
Also every youth or academy product can't make it into the first team. Not only colwill, they have James, Gallagher, and maatsen in their first team this season.
If an owner is willing to splash a lot of money, that does not make them soulless, in as much they are breaking any rules.