Xabi Alonso | Chelsea manager

[quadrant]

Your understanding is incorrect. Chelsea's flexibility varies significantly from year to year as per the terms of the agreement:

For 25/26, Chelsea are limited to a maximum of €60m loss. As mentioned previously, this year will not be a problem due to CWC and CL income for the 25/26 season
For 26/27, Chelsea are limited to a loss of €0m - unless there is a gap between the -€60m figure in 25/26 and wherever we end up
For 27/28, the limit is again €60m

So as you can see, a £2m loss in 25/26 to save £10m in 26/27 makes perfect sense. You also forgot to include the amoritsation of Garnacho's transfer fee in your original post, so arguing that we'd only save £2m in his wages for 26/27 is incorrect.

So here's my reading, going from the UEFA report directly.

- Firstly, you seem to be a year ahead. In the 25/26 season the actual loss limit is "the projected deficit submitted in the business plan". So it's whatever has already been agreed with UEFA. Two things are unknown here a) exactly how much that is and b) whether it's broken down into categories of loss or just a flat total. I think it would be a much to assume you can just pile losses into this year number though.

- In 26/27 you can indeed make a €60m loss, but only "if such an increase is entirely covered by either contribution or equity in reporting period ending in 2026.". So, certainly not quite as simple as an allowable loss. We can both speculate whether Clearlake will invest €60M covering the loss, but I'd say it's not certain. And that investment has to happen in the current season, so we'll know by August if this is going to happen I guess.

- The loss limit for 27/28 is zero, unless you "overperform" in the previous year, as you correctly point out (albeit for the previous year). So if we assume Clearlake invest €60m in 26/27, then indeed your permitted loss would be €60M, in isolation. However if they don't, then your permitted loss is €60M over 2 years.

- In 2028/29 you will be judged on "having an aggregate Football Earnings surplus, or an aggregate Football Earnings deficit within the acceptable deviation with regard to the reporting periods ending in 2026, 2027 and 2028". (my emphasis). This seems to be the normal permitted loss rules, ie €60M over the 3 year period. So yes, there is a multi-year element to the permitted loss rules, and there isn't anywhere near the flexibility you seem to be implying.

In a nutshell, the agreement resets the clock on your old losses, but puts new year by year restrictions in instead to stop you gaming them. The flexibility in the year by year caps are there in place of the usual rolling 3 year cap. However you're then off ramped at the end of the agreement, so to speak, by getting back to the normal rules of €60M loss over 3 years at the end of the period 26/27 to 28/29. So yes, a rolling total definitely applies. Its the same total as anyone else.

It's also worth pointing out that there's an additional wrinkle in terms of your transfers, because you can't register players for Europe if you have a negative transfer balance over a set period. This is an interesting one I didn't realise, and actually works against the notion of selling players quickly. You're not in Europe next season, so having a negative transfer balance is not a problem. But if you quality for Europe in 27/28 season, you will need that transfer balance to be positive to register players. I'm not trying to move the goalposts here as I didn't realise this myself til I just read it, but it does work make it less valuable to sell players this year than wait til next.

 

[Infra-red]

Maresca didn't walk because he was pissed off. He walked because he wanted to get into Pep's warm chair.

Perhaps I've drunk too much BlueCo Kool Aid but given that we know that Maresca was actively seeking the City job whilst still at Chelsea and walked away without compensation, it feels harsh to blame our coterie of morons

I recall reading reports during the fallout from his exit that said City had approached Maresca earlier in the season and offered him the job (despite playing dumb in public, City have presumably known that Pep was leaving for six months or more) - Marseca then went to the Chelsea hierarchy and said, "City have made me this offer, I'm happy to stay at Chelsea but want to do so with a new contract and pay bump in recognition of what I'm turning down", at which point BlueCo told him to essentially go feck himself. No?

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

So here's my reading, going from the UEFA report directly.

- Firstly, you seem to be a year ahead. In the 25/26 season the actual loss limit is "the projected deficit submitted in the business plan". So it's whatever has already been agreed with UEFA. Two things are unknown here a) exactly how much that is and b) whether it's broken down into categories of loss or just a flat total. I think it would be a much to assume you can just pile losses into this year number though.

- In 26/27 you can indeed make a €60m loss, but only "if such an increase is entirely covered by either contribution or equity in reporting period ending in 2026.". So, certainly not quite as simple as an allowable loss. We can both speculate whether Clearlake will invest €60M covering the loss, but I'd say it's not certain. And that investment has to happen in the current season, so we'll know by August if this is going to happen I guess.

- The loss limit for 27/28 is zero, unless you "overperform" in the previous year, as you correctly point out (albeit for the previous year). So if we assume Clearlake invest €60m in 26/27, then indeed your permitted loss would be €60M, in isolation. However if they don't, then your permitted loss is €60M over 2 years.

- In 2028/29 you will be judged on "having an aggregate Football Earnings surplus, or an aggregate Football Earnings deficit within the acceptable deviation with regard to the reporting periods ending in 2026, 2027 and 2028". (my emphasis). This seems to be the normal permitted loss rules, ie €60M over the 3 year period. So yes, there is a multi-year element to the permitted loss rules, and there isn't anywhere near the flexibility you seem to be implying.

In a nutshell, the agreement resets the clock on your old losses, but puts new year by year restrictions in instead to stop you gaming them. The flexibility in the year by year caps are there in place of the usual rolling 3 year cap. However you're then off ramped at the end of the agreement, so to speak, by getting back to the normal rules of €60M loss over 3 years at the end of the period 26/27 to 28/29. So yes, a rolling total definitely applies. Its the same total as anyone else.

It's also worth pointing out that there's an additional wrinkle in terms of your transfers, because you can't register players for Europe if you have a negative transfer balance over a set period. This is an interesting one I didn't realise, and actually works against the notion of selling players quickly. You're not in Europe next season, so having a negative transfer balance is not a problem. But if you quality for Europe in 27/28 season, you will need that transfer balance to be positive to register players. I'm not trying to move the goalposts here as I didn't realise this myself til I just read it, but it does work make it less valuable to sell players this year than wait til next.

Well shit, you seem to be right. Shouldn't have relied on a third party to interpret, thanks for this.

That said, surely the point of this is it makes even more sense to off-load the likes of Garnacho sooner rather than later - even if it's a short-term accounting loss, that is more than offset by getting his amortisation off the budget sheet.

Also regarding your last point, I don't think the transfer balance is reset year over year - I think the next time we're in competition, our List A will be compared to our List A from this past season. As such, selling players this summer vs next should be irrelevant - though I am not certain how UEFA looks at "transfer balance".

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I recall reading reports during the fallout from his exit that said City had approached Maresca earlier in the season and offered him the job (despite playing dumb in public, City have presumably known that Pep was leaving for six months or more) - Marseca then went to the Chelsea hierarchy and said, "City have made me this offer, I'm happy to stay at Chelsea but want to do so with a new contract and pay bump in recognition of what I'm turning down", at which point BlueCo told him to essentially go feck himself. No?

I don't think Maresca ever said that he'd be happy to stay at Chelsea - and it's very unlikely he was granted permission to negotiate with City during the season.

I'd say it's pretty clear his head was turned by City and they gave him assurances on the sly - hence why he would walk away without compensation from his sacking. It's also presumably why Chelsea are planning a legal complaint against City over the hiring.

 

[jakko]

Colwill isn't going anywhere. Don't think Acheampong is either. Chelsea have been trying to sell Chalobah for years, weirdly has not had many takers. Neto could go, but won't really recoup our fee and Joao Pedro and Enzo might be out of our hands anyway as they're heavily linked with Real/City and Barca so they could force their way out.

It all depends on what Alonso wants though. We're led to believe he will have big say on incomings and outgoings. The idea that we have to sell half the starting line up is just fear mongering.

Nothing weird about it, he's not very good.

 

[WeePat]

Nothing weird about it, he's not very good.

I disagree that he isn't good, but you don't have to be very good to have takers if available. He could slot in as a starter for half the teams in the prem.

 

[TheGame]

Wonder whether he'll play 3 at the back like he did at Leverkusen or a back 4.

 

[Dancfc]

Colwill isn't going anywhere. Don't think Acheampong is either. Chelsea have been trying to sell Chalobah for years, weirdly has not had many takers. Neto could go, but won't really recoup our fee and Joao Pedro and Enzo might be out of our hands anyway as they're heavily linked with Real/City and Barca so they could force their way out.

It all depends on what Alonso wants though. We're led to believe he will have big say on incomings and outgoings. The idea that we have to sell half the starting line up is just fear mongering.

If I trusted the recruitment I'd see Enzos potential sale as a similar opportunity to Liverpool/Coutinho.

But sadly, track record suggests it will be more closer to how Spurs made a pigs ear of the Bale money.

 

[quadrant]

Wonder whether he'll play 3 at the back like he did at Leverkusen or a back 4.

Have to assume it’ll be back 3. He did tentatively try it at Madrid til it became obvious it wouldn’t go down well. But with getting more say at Chelsea and a younger squad I reckon he’ll have the leeway to do it.

I’d guess Chelsea fans are also more chill than United’s, given Tuchel and Conte used it to such good effect.

 

[duffer]

Have to assume it’ll be back 3. He did tentatively try it at Madrid til it became obvious it wouldn’t go down well. But with getting more say at Chelsea and a younger squad I reckon he’ll have the leeway to do it.

I’d guess Chelsea fans are also more chill than United’s, given Tuchel and Conte used it to such good effect.

I have no issues with a back 3/5. I think our squad is pretty well suited to it in fact.

 

[Dancfc]

Have to assume it’ll be back 3. He did tentatively try it at Madrid til it became obvious it wouldn’t go down well. But with getting more say at Chelsea and a younger squad I reckon he’ll have the leeway to do it.

I’d guess Chelsea fans are also more chill than United’s, given Tuchel and Conte used it to such good effect.

It's heavily wingback dependant (I mean stating the obvious a bit, but it's even more so than the general opinion thinks). When we had Moses/Alonso then James/Chilwell out the quality of the team reduced massively, I'd go as far as saying almost by half.

So we will need to recruit well in that area. As the only current fullback we've got that I feel has the tools to do it, probably can't (consistently) because of his knees.

 

[WeePat]

If I trusted the recruitment I'd see Enzos potential sale as a similar opportunity to Liverpool/Coutinho.

But sadly, track record suggests it will be more closer to how Spurs made a pigs ear of the Bale money.

Yeah, its why most people I talk to are basically like 'yeah yeah this all sounds good but let's see it in action first'.

 

[WeePat]

It's heavily wingback dependant (I mean stating the obvious a bit, but it's even more so than the general opinion thinks). When we had Moses/Alonso then James/Chilwell out the quality of the team reduced massively, I'd go as far as saying almost by half.

So we will need to recruit well in that area. As the only current fullback we've got that I feel has the tools to do it, probably can't (consistently) because of his knees.

I wonder if Neto can be converted into a good LWB. He's a pretty middling, average winger but maybe his new calling is wing back? He gets through a lot of defensive work, he's rapid and he's a great cross on his left foot, and he can finish reasonably well if he finds himself in advanced positions. On paper he seems like a ready made wing back. Quenda is also an interesting prospect, though admittedly I haven't watched him properly more than a handful of games.

 

[Infra-red]

I wonder if Neto can be converted into a good LWB. He's a pretty middling, average winger but maybe his new calling is wing back? He gets through a lot of defensive work, he's rapid and he's a great cross on his left foot, and he can finish reasonably well if he finds himself in advanced positions. On paper he seems like a ready made wing back. Quenda is also an interesting prospect, though admittedly I haven't watched him properly more than a handful of games.

The biggest mistake to make with wingbacks is thinking of them as defensive players and employing fullbacks in those positions. They are primarily attacking outlets and converting wingers to play there is much more likely to be successful. Neto is probably a good option. Quenda is obviously tailor made for it.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Knowing Chelsea, we'd probably buy someone knew. But this summer seems to be about backing Alonso and doing what he wants for most the part, so if he wants a midfielder in to replace Enzo I'd imagine he would get that midfielder.

Why would Chelsea sell him though?

 

[WeePat]

Why would Chelsea sell him though?

Because it seems like he wants to leave.

 

[WeePat]

The biggest mistake to make with wingbacks is thinking of them as defensive players and employing fullbacks in those positions. They are primarily attacking outlets and converting wingers to play there is much more likely to be successful. Neto is probably a good option. Quenda is obviously tailor made for it.

Yeah, I was thinking about this today. Cucurella is a smashing LB but I dont think he'd be a great LWB. Neto, on the other hand, seems well suited on paper. I wonder if Gittens could suit the role too?

 

[Dancfc]

I wonder if Neto can be converted into a good LWB. He's a pretty middling, average winger but maybe his new calling is wing back? He gets through a lot of defensive work, he's rapid and he's a great cross on his left foot, and he can finish reasonably well if he finds himself in advanced positions. On paper he seems like a ready made wing back. Quenda is also an interesting prospect, though admittedly I haven't watched him properly more than a handful of games.

Yeah Neto does seem like the safer bet for sure. Not to mention, he for all intents and purposes played as a wingback in the CWC final.

Another interesting one would be Gittens, unlike many I do see something in him, but if we go to a back 3 he's likely back in the predicament that saw to him at Dortmund (unless Xabi inverts the LWB and has him holding width when he does play).

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Because it seems like he wants to leave.

I suppose it’s CL footy. Otherwise Chelsea usually have the financial power to keep their players.

 

[Powderfinger]

Have to assume it’ll be back 3. He did tentatively try it at Madrid til it became obvious it wouldn’t go down well. But with getting more say at Chelsea and a younger squad I reckon he’ll have the leeway to do it.

I’d guess Chelsea fans are also more chill than United’s, given Tuchel and Conte used it to such good effect.

I have a feeling it will be predominantly back four at Chelsea or some kind of hybrid system.

If you look at the big picture of Alonso's footballing career:

-Played mainly in back four systems throughout his career, with some back three experimentation by Pep at Bayern.
-Managed Real Sociedad B and played mainly back fours although he experimented with back threes to some degree his last year.
-Went to Bayer midyear and experimented with both back threes and back fours but the team had more success playing back threes.
-Had a fantastic second year at Bayer playing mainly back threes, kept that system largely in place the following year.
-Went to Real and played more back four while experimenting with both.

I think the takeaway is that he's just a manager that will pick the system he thinks work best for the squad and league in which he's competing, not a guy that is particularly tied to a back three in the way that Conte eventually became or Amorim has always been.

There are so few examples of big clubs successfully playing back threes in the recent history of the PL that I think he'll be focused on trying to figure out a way to make it work with a back four.

 

[bringbackbebe]

Yeah, I was thinking about this today. Cucurella is a smashing LB but I dont think he'd be a great LWB. Neto, on the other hand, seems well suited on paper. I wonder if Gittens could suit the role too?

This so reminds me of the discussions we were having under Amorim, trying to play Amad and Mount in RWB and Garnacho etc at LWB and Mainoo as a forward. I can't wait to see the results at Chelsea with all these positional discussions!

 

[quadrant]

I have a feeling it will be predominantly back four at Chelsea or some kind of hybrid system.

If you look at the big picture of Alonso's footballing career:

-Played mainly in back four systems throughout his career, with some back three experimentation by Pep at Bayern.
-Managed Real Sociedad B and played mainly back fours although he experimented with back threes to some degree his last year.
-Went to Bayer midyear and experimented with both back threes and back fours but the team had more success playing back threes.
-Had a fantastic second year at Bayer playing mainly back threes, kept that system largely in place the following year.
-Went to Real and played more back four while experimenting with both.

I think the takeaway is that he's just a manager that will pick the system he thinks work best for the squad and league in which he's competing, not a guy that is particularly tied to a back three in the way that Conte eventually became or Amorim has always been.

There are so few examples of big clubs successfully playing back threes in the recent history of the PL that I think he'll be focused on trying to figure out a way to make it work with a back four.

He doesn't seem as wedded as Amorim, for sure. I don't expect a my-way-or-the-highway situation. However the fact that he experimented with it at Real at all, given that it absolutely did not suit the squad, the fans were skeptical and there is little history of using it there, suggests that he wasn't simply trying to find the best way of using the players he found. He clearly likes the formation and wanted to try and make it work. He just wasn't going to alienate the fans and squad by sticking with it too long.

Chelsea is more of a blank slate, given that, frankly, they have only a small number of undroppable players. I think he'll have been attracted by the fact that he has more room to experiment. So I expect we'll see a back three at some point early on. Whether he settles on that longer term or not is another matter, I agree he'll likely go with what works over dogmatically insisting it stays forever.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I have a feeling it will be predominantly back four at Chelsea or some kind of hybrid system.

If you look at the big picture of Alonso's footballing career:

-Played mainly in back four systems throughout his career, with some back three experimentation by Pep at Bayern.
-Managed Real Sociedad B and played mainly back fours although he experimented with back threes to some degree his last year.
-Went to Bayer midyear and experimented with both back threes and back fours but the team had more success playing back threes.
-Had a fantastic second year at Bayer playing mainly back threes, kept that system largely in place the following year.
-Went to Real and played more back four while experimenting with both.

I think the takeaway is that he's just a manager that will pick the system he thinks work best for the squad and league in which he's competing, not a guy that is particularly tied to a back three in the way that Conte eventually became or Amorim has always been.

There are so few examples of big clubs successfully playing back threes in the recent history of the PL that I think he'll be focused on trying to figure out a way to make it work with a back four.

He doesn't seem as wedded as Amorim, for sure. I don't expect a my-way-or-the-highway situation. However the fact that he experimented with it at Real at all, given that it absolutely did not suit the squad, the fans were skeptical and there is little history of using it there, suggests that he wasn't simply trying to find the best way of using the players he found. He clearly likes the formation and wanted to try and make it work. He just wasn't going to alienate the fans and squad by sticking with it too long.

Chelsea is more of a blank slate, given that, frankly, they have only a small number of undroppable players. I think he'll have been attracted by the fact that he has more room to experiment. So I expect we'll see a back three at some point early on. Whether he settles on that longer term or not is another matter, I agree he'll likely go with what works over dogmatically insisting it stays forever.

I would say that it seems pretty likely we'll use a back 3 to be honest - especially if we are limited in our capacity to overhaul the squad. Any system that takes the attacking impetus away from our horrendous wingers and more onto the 10s will be a benefit - and getting Palmer into a free role should be a priority. Also theoretically getting an extra CB on should help mitigate the limited physicality in the team - and Hato / Chalobah are probably best suited to wide CB roles in a back 3 anyhow.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Xabi will pick what suits his squad best. Be it a back 3, 5 or 4. He is Mr. Flexible when it comes to shape

 

[WeePat]

I would say that it seems pretty likely we'll use a back 3 to be honest - especially if we are limited in our capacity to overhaul the squad. Any system that takes the attacking impetus away from our horrendous wingers and more onto the 10s will be a benefit - and getting Palmer into a free role should be a priority. Also theoretically getting an extra CB on should help mitigate the limited physicality in the team - and Hato / Chalobah are probably best suited to wide CB roles in a back 3 anyhow.

I've seen us linked to that Diomande CB from Sporting and he looks and seems about as physically imposing as our entire 40 man squad put together

 

[WeePat]

This so reminds me of the discussions we were having under Amorim, trying to play Amad and Mount in RWB and Garnacho etc at LWB and Mainoo as a forward. I can't wait to see the results at Chelsea with all these positional discussions!

I'm not opposed to the back 3. I did get tired of it by the end of Tuchel's time here but we've had huge successes playing this system. When Conte switched to a back 3, we discovered Moses was an excellent RWB despite being a bang average winger. Alonso was pretty decent too despite not having any pace at all. So if Xabi Alonso wants to do it we do have some players that fit the role on paper that he can experiment with in preseason.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I've seen us linked to that Diomande CB from Sporting and he looks and seems about as physically imposing as our entire 40 man squad put together

Yeah I like him a lot. Very good on the ball too - though imports from here can always be hit or miss.

I also like Diouf at West Ham; hope we can be smart enough to be opportunistic there.

 

[KM]

I think they're the worst footballing project ever in the history of game. Not sure how you could spend more than a billion in three years or so and still finish out of top6 in two of these years.
Such a shame too as they've the best academy in English football right now, if only they would've shown more faith in them rather than buying mediocrity throughout.

 

[quadrant]

I think they're the worst footballing project ever in the history of game. Not sure how you could spend more than a billion in three years or so and still finish out of top6 in two of these years.
Such a shame too as they've the best academy in English football right now, if only they would've shown more faith in them rather than buying mediocrity throughout.

Clearlake and co have cocked it up royally, they took a big brain hedge fund type gamble, thinking they could "disrupt" the system and make a tonne of money out of Chelsea at the same time. As things stand right now, it's gone spectacularly wrong and they look right chumps. They're on the hook for nearly a billion in debt that will need to be repaid down the line and its hard to see how they can cover it from the same of the club.

As a United fan, it's unfortunate that they did one thing right, they firewalled Chelsea the football club away from that debt (which I think was a requirement when they bought the club). So as funny as it would be to see Chelsea saddled with 1bn debt, that doesnt apply. Still, they're doing a good job of messing up the club in other ways.

And if its Clearlake who have to pony up several tens or even hundreds of millions to pay off the outstanding debt out of their own money, well, I doubt there's a football fan on earth who won't be laughing.

 

[Gabriel Djemba-Bebe]

Does the Palestra signing indicate that Alonso is going to play a back 5 at Chelsea?

 

[giorno]

Does the Palestra signing indicate that Alonso is going to play a back 5 at Chelsea?

Not necessarily

But I also don't really get it. A lot of money for a guy who is basically just really good at running....decent dribbler but meh