Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea (hopefully)

Rajiztar said:
Well when arsenal fans don't question about your spending why we need to question ours despite you had more net spend than ours for past three seasons including this season.

We are fine with ffp till now. So what bothers you about our spending.
Click to expand...

If you check back my posts, I'm not overly bothered or reactive about your spending. I specifically was questioning how the overall strategy is being portrayed as some sort of groundbreaking ownership by some, not all, (& not by @UsualSuspect who I happened to quote when making my point, but by others).

By the same token, I don't go along with the line that they are clueless idiots either.
I mean, the basics of good ownership should be first and foremost to get good football people in the door that know what they are doing, allow them a structure to do their jobs to the best of their abilities, and support them with funds for any improvements needed. Thats the basics, before looking going into specifics like growing revenues, improving infrastructures etc, and these are all things that the ownership is doing.

My main perception with the regime is that from the outside Boehly gives the perception of coming in dickswinging like he wants to make a giant splash, when a good comparison is with Newcastle for instance who seem to have done just what I mentioned above, but in a lot more understated way, and you've got to say more successfully on the park.

I predict you will get back to challenging for the top honours, mostly for the fact that with that level of spending it should be harder not to. And yeah, there's little point in talking about Net Spend of 3 seasons when it's a discussion centered around the new ownership.
 
Oranges038 said:
Well they can just sell them for 40m each and recoup their money.....

For example - take Fofana contracted to 2029. Been injured for 3 years in a row now. Reports suggest he's on up to 200k a week. Who's going to take him off Chelsea?

Lukaku and Sterling are on 300k+ with 3/4 years left, who the feck is taking on either of them?
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia.

If Lukaku is still at Chelsea by the end of the European transfer window, he will almost certainly end up in Saudi Arabia. He's not going to turn down the chance to earn more money when the alternative is sitting round at a club that probably won't even register him to play.
 
justsomebloke said:
That sounds good. Seems clear even to a casual observer like myself that good people have been brought in on the recruitment side. Now the proof is in what the on-pitch end product turns out to be.

I know I wrote earlier that the essential point isn't how quickly things happen and I think fundamentally that is true. But there is a real downside to attempting to assemble a new team with the extreme speed we're talking about here. If you build more gradually, you allow the key pieces to emerge that you can build around, and the exact nature of the limitations become clearer. You can then act with greater precision in adding pieces that alleviate the weaknesses, or enhance the strengths. It's also much easier for new players to integrate into a team where needs and roles are clear, than to find their place and function on a team where so much is in flux at the same time. I'll genuinely and enthusiastically salute the quality of your recruitment people and the clarity of their (football) vision if they turn out to have assembled a truly contending squad in this manner. And Poch, if he manages to make this work quickly.
Click to expand...

Good post (in a series of good posts).

I also don't think it is obvious that Chelsea have bought these players with a clear footballing vision in mind, beyond something generic like "Lets snap up a lot of young, talented players and let them grow together."

There are obvious benefits to doing that but the game has moved in a way where its just not enough to buy lots of talented players, because a team with lots of equally or even somewhat less talented players that fit together better and a manager with a stronger footballing vision for how to put those pieces together will kill you. Managers like Pep and Klopp, and now Arteta and perhaps Ten Hag, have a really clear sense of exactly the kind of football that they want to play in order to create a side capable of consistently dominating matches but also reacting to many different kinds of situations within a match, and from that they derive a clear sense of the physical, tactical, and technical qualities that players in each position need to have, as well as the composite qualities they want in the squad. That kind of vision should ideally be in place prior to spending a lot of money.

I don't think Chelsea's squad has been amassed this way at all. There have been seven different cooks in the kitchen and at no point have they had a manager with the tactical nous and vision to really understand what is needed to compete at the highest level in terms of style of football and then translate that into requirements for specific positions and then recruitment strategy. I'm sure they have good recruitment people and data analysts and everything else that every big club has now. And of course they probably had some broad unifying ideas like "We need to get more athletic" or whatever. But without the overarching footballing vision its hard to make it work.
 
littlepeasoup said:
Can someone who understands better than me answer this; are Chelsea (financially) a ticking time bomb?
Click to expand...

If they want to comply with FFP definitely. They’re spreading this insane spending over the next several years by some accountancy sleight of hand where each players is “paid for” over the length of their (very long) contracts. So to keep afloat they have to be successful over that period. CL qualification, big sponsorship and Tv deals etc. If they have any more seasons like last season they’re in deep shit because income drops and spending is fixed and they’ll find themselves in breach of FFP and no way to resolve it.

If FFP doesn’t matter (and I’m starting to think most big clubs don’t give a shit about it) then they can continue to compete while making a big loss. So the only concern is how long the people that own them will be willing to continue to bankroll a loss making football club. It’s possible their egos will make them double down and throw more good money after bad.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If FFP doesn’t matter (and I’m starting to think most big clubs don’t give a shit about it) then they can continue to compete while making a big loss. So the only concern is how long the people that own them will be willing to continue to bankroll a loss making football club. It’s possible their egos will make them double down and throw more good money after bad.
Click to expand...

From the very beginning I've thought it's clear the owners are more than willing to keep investing money into the club and any profits the private equity guys are planning to make will eventually come from the club's value rising year on year, which is already very likely for most established EPL clubs over time and even more so to the ones who are actually successful.

So basically buy the club for £2.5bn, invest a few billion into it (incl. the stadium project) over a decade or so and then just see the asset being valued £7-8bn in ten years. Whether it plays out like that or not remains to be seen. If it all goes tits up they may end up changing their strategy eventually.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If they want to comply with FFP definitely. They’re spreading this insane spending over the next several years by some accountancy sleight of hand where each players is “paid for” over the length of their (very long) contracts. So to keep afloat they have to be successful over that period. CL qualification, big sponsorship and Tv deals etc. If they have any more seasons like last season they’re in deep shit because income drops and spending is fixed and they’ll find themselves in breach of FFP and no way to resolve it.

If FFP doesn’t matter (and I’m starting to think most big clubs don’t give a shit about it) then they can continue to compete while making a big loss. So the only concern is how long the people that own them will be willing to continue to bankroll a loss making football club. It’s possible their egos will make them double down and throw more good money after bad.
Click to expand...

Its worth noting that when they bought the club they paid £2.5b but promised to invest another £1.75 billion into the club. They've since spent something like £600m net on player transfers and bought Strasbourg for another £65m. Meanwhile, the overall economic climate for building a new stadium has become much worse due to rising interest rates and construction costs, so they're now talking about spending like £1.5-1.8b on the stadium (and those estimates tend to go up in practice) and being out of a home for at least four years (another estimate that tends to go up in practice), during which time their matchday and commercial revenues will take a hit.

I have no idea how much Boehly and his partners are willing to spend but they're already on course to blow way past the £1.75b figure they initially planned on. My suspicion is that they hope to transition into a more standard mode of operation soon, in which they can use player sales to partially fund new transfers each year for the next five years or so, which are going to be pretty lean from a financial standpoint. Their goal is to lay the foundations of a young competitive team that is good enough to stay in the CL and has enough young talent to sell off to fund transfers for a while, this keeps them relevant and their brand in good shape until 2030 or so when they move into the new stadium and see a big rise in revenues.
 
Their net spending last season was insane but after the Caicedo deal they’re still 323m EUR spent 255m EUR gained from transfers, -68m net loss with United 192m EUR spent and 38m EUR gained -154m loss. They could sign Lavia and Olise and sell no one, and still have lower net spent than us. Just shows how much money they generated selling Havertz, Mount and plenty of deadwood
 
Red Star One said:
Their net spending last season was insane but after the Caicedo deal they’re still 323m EUR spent 255m EUR gained from transfers, -68m net loss with United 192m EUR spent and 38m EUR gained -154m loss. They could sign Lavia and Olise and sell no one, and still have lower net spent than us. Just shows how much money they generated selling Havertz, Mount and plenty of deadwood
Click to expand...
Lavia and Olise combined is an additional 100m basically... And last year they spent over 600m and only made 60m or so. Over 700m net spend in 3 windows.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If they want to comply with FFP definitely. They’re spreading this insane spending over the next several years by some accountancy sleight of hand where each players is “paid for” over the length of their (very long) contracts. So to keep afloat they have to be successful over that period. CL qualification, big sponsorship and Tv deals etc. If they have any more seasons like last season they’re in deep shit because income drops and spending is fixed and they’ll find themselves in breach of FFP and no way to resolve it.

If FFP doesn’t matter (and I’m starting to think most big clubs don’t give a shit about it) then they can continue to compete while making a big loss. So the only concern is how long the people that own them will be willing to continue to bankroll a loss making football club. It’s possible their egos will make them double down and throw more good money after bad.
Click to expand...
To be fair, even without success they could still be within FFP by continuously selling players for decent fees. I’m sure a couple of calls to Saudi to offload some high expenditures will be in the plan.
 
Chief123 said:
To be fair, even without success they could still be within FFP by continuously selling players for decent fees. I’m sure a couple of calls to Saudi to offload some high expenditures will be in the plan.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that Saudi option will be there much longer. After reading about how miserable Henderson looked playing in 35C on his debut. I reckon the reports will start to come back via the player grapevine about how shit it is to play (and live) in Saudi Arabia and footballers will start to dig their heels in.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I don’t think that Saudi option will be there much longer. After reading about how miserable Henderson looked playing in 35C on his debut. I reckon the reports will start to come back via the player grapevine about how shit it is to play (and live) in Saudi Arabia and footballers will start to dig their heels in.
Click to expand...
I think the players that have gone there probably already knew how shit it is to play there. But the size of the cheques has a bigger factor.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
We’ll see. Not all that long ago when it was China being talked up as a lucrative retirement home for footballers.
Click to expand...
Then China stopped giving out these lucrative contracts after the government clamped down on it. Footballers are pulled by money in general. No surprise.
 
To add to the above post. BBC listing the receipts. That is just net spend and not what FFP looks at. The players bought are on long contracts so their actual FFP cost is a fraction of the amount spent.

 
Chelsea looking like they could be selling Hall for around £35m. Net spend being boosted again.

 
Last edited:
GoonerBear said:
If you check back my posts, I'm not overly bothered or reactive about your spending. I specifically was questioning how the overall strategy is being portrayed as some sort of groundbreaking ownership by some, not all, (& not by @UsualSuspect who I happened to quote when making my point, but by others).

By the same token, I don't go along with the line that they are clueless idiots either.
I mean, the basics of good ownership should be first and foremost to get good football people in the door that know what they are doing, allow them a structure to do their jobs to the best of their abilities, and support them with funds for any improvements needed. Thats the basics, before looking going into specifics like growing revenues, improving infrastructures etc, and these are all things that the ownership is doing.

My main perception with the regime is that from the outside Boehly gives the perception of coming in dickswinging like he wants to make a giant splash, when a good comparison is with Newcastle for instance who seem to have done just what I mentioned above, but in a lot more understated way, and you've got to say more successfully on the park.

I predict you will get back to challenging for the top honours, mostly for the fact that with that level of spending it should be harder not to. And yeah, there's little point in talking about Net Spend of 3 seasons when it's a discussion centered around the new ownership.
Click to expand...
Our new owners bought the club in the state of needing immediate oxygen. It's natural to spend big to attain where we placed in the table before sanctions hit.

Still we were only spent some 80 mn net more than you if we take last three windows and that means nothing because we had to rebuild completely and forced to do lots of transfers when our new owner s regime started with players left for free and injury proned players were accumulated.

Also our spending include some youngsters as well if we add that we are on par with you till now.

Who cares about nufc intends to go slow or not. We are completely fine with ffp why we need to hold back.

When city have their own sponsors but we forced to find new sponsor because there may be clash with telecasting company. Righto. It's new owners way of saying hai to PL. :lol:
 
Pogue Mahone said:
We’ll see. Not all that long ago when it was China being talked up as a lucrative retirement home for footballers.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, I think it's pretty evident by now that we're talking about something that goes considerably beyond that in the Saudi case.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
To add to the above post. BBC listing the receipts. That is just net spend and not what FFP looks at. The players bought are on long contracts so their actual FFP cost is a fraction of the amount spent.

Click to expand...


The hoovering of talent model at work. Should never be forgotten as the club that started the decline of football.
 
Rajiztar said:
Our new owners bought the club in the state of needing immediate oxygen. It's natural to spend big to attain where we placed in the table before sanctions hit.

Still we were only spent some 80 mn net more than you if we take last three windows and that means nothing because we had to rebuild completely and forced to do lots of transfers when our new owner s regime started with players left for free and injury proned players were accumulated.

Also our spending include some youngsters as well if we add that we are on par with you till now.

Who cares about nufc intends to go slow or not. We are completely fine with ffp why we need to hold back.

When city have their own sponsors but we forced to find new sponsor because there may be clash with telecasting company. Righto. It's new owners way of saying hai to PL. :lol:
Click to expand...

Your owners can come in and spend what they want (of course as long as its not breaking rules), and it is natural to spend big when new owners come in as they want to make their mark, and if that's as far as your analysis goes then that's fine, it's their club, it's their money, they can do what they want.

What other people are debating is was it the right strategy to do, hence the direct comparison to Newcastle. The first thing you say is it's natural for new owners to come in and spend a fortune to get you to pre sanction levels, well that didn't work out last season did it? So again, I'll reiterate, people are asking if that was the right strategy, and even if it was, it clearly wasn't executed correctly.

So again, the comparison to Newcastle, they went from 11th to 4th, and you went from 3rd to 12th, and given how we are still all playing a sport on the field, I'd say that matters a lot.

Again, you mention our Net Spend, and you won't get any Arsenal fans denying it, the reason our Net Spend is so poor, is that we spend roughly the same as most of our peers, but our selling is much poorer than most of our peers. I don't think any Arsenal fan will disagree that it's something we are weak on.

When Arteta came in, we had an aging squad, with lots of underperforming players on big wages, which meant getting any fee for a lot of them was difficult. Might have been better if Saudi was an option back then for some, but it wasn't. Since then, we've actually employed not too dissimilar a strategy to yourselves, in terms of the bulk of our recruitment being at the U24 level, to give a lot younger, hungrier squad, which just as importantly can retain some sell on value.

It's not a unique or genius strategy for a self sustaining model, let's not kid ourselves on. You've just take the idea and ran with it on steroids.
 
GoonerBear said:
Your owners can come in and spend what they want (of course as long as its not breaking rules), and it is natural to spend big when new owners come in as they want to make their mark, and if that's as far as your analysis goes then that's fine, it's their club, it's their money, they can do what they want.

What other people are debating is was it the right strategy to do, hence the direct comparison to Newcastle. The first thing you say is it's natural for new owners to come in and spend a fortune to get you to pre sanction levels, well that didn't work out last season did it? So again, I'll reiterate, people are asking if that was the right strategy, and even if it was, it clearly wasn't executed correctly.

So again, the comparison to Newcastle, they went from 11th to 4th, and you went from 3rd to 12th, and given how we are still all playing a sport on the field, I'd say that matters a lot.

Again, you mention our Net Spend, and you won't get any Arsenal fans denying it, the reason our Net Spend is so poor, is that we spend roughly the same as most of our peers, but our selling is much poorer than most of our peers. I don't think any Arsenal fan will disagree that it's something we are weak on.

When Arteta came in, we had an aging squad, with lots of underperforming players on big wages, which meant getting any fee for a lot of them was difficult. Might have been better if Saudi was an option back then for some, but it wasn't. Since then, we've actually employed not too dissimilar a strategy to yourselves, in terms of the bulk of our recruitment being at the U24 level, to give a lot younger, hungrier squad, which just as importantly can retain some sell on value.

It's not a unique or genius strategy for a self sustaining model, let's not kid ourselves on. You've just take the idea and ran with it on steroids.
Click to expand...
Nobody said he was genius by spending this much. Our owners spent what it deemed necessary to overhaul the squad that stagnated. Can't operate as a good team without injury prone kante.

It's right strategy for other clubs who cares? But we deemed it's necessary to us to front load money so that we can move on from stagnated squad. We also wanted to develop new stadium. Some reports said it could drag on for three four years to finish. So our owners did what they thought necessary for team now.

You developed a very good team but you stumbled upon some of core players who are good enough otherwise it would never happen. For example if saka and martinelli not performed as much as they did or failed to respond to arteta you could have sold them and signed some others. It's not new.

We tried to do it in different way because we have stadium project coming up. After this season only we can see where we are. We take risks of course but we are not much bad financially like you all tried to portray.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
To add to the above post. BBC listing the receipts. That is just net spend and not what FFP looks at. The players bought are on long contracts so their actual FFP cost is a fraction of the amount spent.

Click to expand...

Isn't that counting the maximum price (with potential add-ons) for outgoings, but the price without add-ons for incomings?
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Isn't that counting the maximum price (with potential add-ons) for outgoings, but the price without add-ons for incomings?
Click to expand...

Isn’t Mount £55M + £5M? Seems like they’re excluding add ons across the board.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Ah right! I don't remember the Mount one, it was too long ago for my poor brain, but there were a couple that didn't compute. Fine if it's without add-ons for all of them!
Click to expand...

To be fair I had to double check Mount and Havertz to be sure. I wasn’t certain either.
 
Rajiztar said:
Nobody said he was genius by spending this much. Our owners spent what it deemed necessary to overhaul the squad that stagnated. Can't operate as a good team without injury prone kante.

It's right strategy for other clubs who cares? But we deemed it's necessary to us to front load money so that we can move on from stagnated squad. We also wanted to develop new stadium. Some reports said it could drag on for three four years to finish. So our owners did what they thought necessary for team now.

You developed a very good team but you stumbled upon some of core players who are good enough otherwise it would never happen. For example if saka and martinelli not performed as much as they did or failed to respond to arteta you could have sold them and signed some others. It's not new.

We tried to do it in different way because we have stadium project coming up. After this season only we can see where we are. We take risks of course but we are not much bad financially like you all tried to portray.
Click to expand...

Again, I never once said you were in a bad way financially going forward, and I can see how your sales offset your purchases with regards FFP currently. I also think Clearlake will be able to drive revenues upwards as well.

And yeah, I can sort of see the strategy of stock piling young players on long contracts if you might be hamstrung going forward because of a stadium build.

So I'm not really questioning what they are doing going forward, was more just questioning if they needed to accelerate it so quick as it obviously had an adverse effect on the park last season. However, it might well be a case of short term pain for long term gain, can see that as well.

Speaking of the stadium build, is it a concern to anyone that performances can drop if you're giving up proper home advantage if you have to move out to a temporary home while the stadium build is being done?
 
Mb194dc said:
It's all profit for FFP.

The FFP rules should be changed to remove the peverse incentive to sell home grown players...
Click to expand...

Or, you know, Boehly could lower the player turnover.
 
Are they really getting £35 million for a player that's played a total of nine league games and seventeen in all competitions?

The games well and truly gone mad!
 
I have background in finance, so I have done some analysis on United and Chelsea's transfer and its impact on our financials, both this year but importantly going forward. As you know, the transfer fee is amortised over the length of the contract, or starting this year, at a maximum of 5 years (UEFA rules). For transfer fees etc, I have used Transfermarkt as the source of truth, which reports transfer in euros, so all the analysis is in euros. All the numbers are estimates based on my analysis.

Looking at Manchester United, we currently have €544m in net intangible assets from transfers that will be spread out as a cost over the coming 5 years. See next few years schedule below, names are players who will be fully amortised:
2023/24: €170m
2024/25: €159m (Wan Bissaka)
2025/26: 107m (Maguire, Bruno, Varane, Amad, Donny)
2026/27: €69m (Casemiro, Sancho, Malacia)
2027/28: €38m
2028/29: €0m

As you can see, our costs will in 2025/26 and 2026/27 fall rapidly due the us finalising the amortisation of several key players. This should free up considerable capital for us to deploy in the transfermarket (250m in 25/26!) without increasing our annualised costs. So using the 5 year contracts that are common to United, we will have high amortisation costs for the next 2 years, but then we will be able to go heavy in the market again without increasing our costs.

Coming back to Chelsea their amortisation schedule looks like this:
2023/24: €223m
2024/25: €203m
2025/26: €180m
2026/27: €157m
2027/28: €143m
2028/29: €51m

If they would have signed them all on 5 years contract (really only affects last year) the scheduel wold have been:

2023/24: €250m
2024/25: €234m
2025/26: €211m
2026/27: €188m
2027/28: €77m
2028/29: 0m

Hence, the mastery of Chelsea's transfer plan over the past 3 windows, could spell trouble for them in the future as they will be hamstrung with high amortisation costs for years to come. While Chelsea have built up a dream midfield, they might struggle to have the funds to fix their attackers and defenders + goalkeeper unless they continue to find one-off sales that are profitable.

I could share a more detailed graph, but I as a newbie, I dont have the rights to do so yet.
 
Duffman2 said:
I have background in finance, so I have done some analysis on United and Chelsea's transfer and its impact on our financials, both this year but importantly going forward. As you know, the transfer fee is amortised over the length of the contract, or starting this year, at a maximum of 5 years (UEFA rules). For transfer fees etc, I have used Transfermarkt as the source of truth, which reports transfer in euros, so all the analysis is in euros. All the numbers are estimates based on my analysis.

Looking at Manchester United, we currently have €544m in net intangible assets from transfers that will be spread out as a cost over the coming 5 years. See next few years schedule below, names are players who will be fully amortised:
2023/24: €170m
2024/25: €159m (Wan Bissaka)
2025/26: 107m (Maguire, Bruno, Varane, Amad, Donny)
2026/27: €69m (Casemiro, Sancho, Malacia)
2027/28: €38m
2028/29: €0m

As you can see, our costs will in 2025/26 and 2026/27 fall rapidly due the us finalising the amortisation of several key players. This should free up considerable capital for us to deploy in the transfermarket (250m in 25/26!) without increasing our annualised costs. So using the 5 year contracts that are common to United, we will have high amortisation costs for the next 2 years, but then we will be able to go heavy in the market again without increasing our costs.

Coming back to Chelsea their amortisation schedule looks like this:
2023/24: €223m
2024/25: €203m
2025/26: €180m
2026/27: €157m
2027/28: €143m
2028/29: €51m

If they would have signed them all on 5 years contract (really only affects last year) the scheduel wold have been:

2023/24: €250m
2024/25: €234m
2025/26: €211m
2026/27: €188m
2027/28: €77m
2028/29: 0m

Hence, the mastery of Chelsea's transfer plan over the past 3 windows, could spell trouble for them in the future as they will be hamstrung with high amortisation costs for years to come. While Chelsea have built up a dream midfield, they might struggle to have the funds to fix their attackers and defenders + goalkeeper unless they continue to find one-off sales that are profitable.

I could share a more detailed graph, but I as a newbie, I dont have the rights to do so yet.
Click to expand...
We will be in trouble only if we failed to generate revenue and I understood boehly and co are masters in generating revenue from sports teams. They are experienced in that field.

We put faith in talented youngsters. We did well in defense upgrade too. Our midfield needed long term surgery and we finally upgraded it. With good midfield you depend less on your defense.

In attack we did enough to beat liverpool may be you need to wait for few more games to conclude whether we need to spend lot in attack,defence and goal keeping or not.
 
Duffman2 said:
I have background in finance, so I have done some analysis on United and Chelsea's transfer and its impact on our financials, both this year but importantly going forward. As you know, the transfer fee is amortised over the length of the contract, or starting this year, at a maximum of 5 years (UEFA rules). For transfer fees etc, I have used Transfermarkt as the source of truth, which reports transfer in euros, so all the analysis is in euros. All the numbers are estimates based on my analysis.

Looking at Manchester United, we currently have €544m in net intangible assets from transfers that will be spread out as a cost over the coming 5 years. See next few years schedule below, names are players who will be fully amortised:
2023/24: €170m
2024/25: €159m (Wan Bissaka)
2025/26: 107m (Maguire, Bruno, Varane, Amad, Donny)
2026/27: €69m (Casemiro, Sancho, Malacia)
2027/28: €38m
2028/29: €0m

As you can see, our costs will in 2025/26 and 2026/27 fall rapidly due the us finalising the amortisation of several key players. This should free up considerable capital for us to deploy in the transfermarket (250m in 25/26!) without increasing our annualised costs. So using the 5 year contracts that are common to United, we will have high amortisation costs for the next 2 years, but then we will be able to go heavy in the market again without increasing our costs.

Coming back to Chelsea their amortisation schedule looks like this:
2023/24: €223m
2024/25: €203m
2025/26: €180m
2026/27: €157m
2027/28: €143m
2028/29: €51m

If they would have signed them all on 5 years contract (really only affects last year) the scheduel wold have been:

2023/24: €250m
2024/25: €234m
2025/26: €211m
2026/27: €188m
2027/28: €77m
2028/29: 0m

Hence, the mastery of Chelsea's transfer plan over the past 3 windows, could spell trouble for them in the future as they will be hamstrung with high amortisation costs for years to come. While Chelsea have built up a dream midfield, they might struggle to have the funds to fix their attackers and defenders + goalkeeper unless they continue to find one-off sales that are profitable.

I could share a more detailed graph, but I as a newbie, I dont have the rights to do so yet.
Click to expand...

At this point in time ( it can only reduce further ) Chelsea have just four players that attract a charge to amortisation who weren’t purchased for a fee prior to Bohleys takeover

Zieych
Kepa
Lukaku
Chillwell.

Following his contract extension Chillwells annual amortised cost wll be circa £5 million.

Lukakus, Kepa and Ziyechs combined charge based on reported fee would have been £38million.However it’s almost certain that it will be significantly less as in the 20/21&21/22 accounts a massive £93 million was impaired. In effect players reside values were reduced and I find it inconceivable that Lukakus book value didn’t decline significantly

I simply don’t trust the likes of Transfermarket when it comes to reporting transfer fees about the only thing they get right is the names and destinations of players transferring .

I get it why people ,particularly Sky , inflate the numbers its sensational and other than when we a player buys his contract out we really dont know much at all.

In the whole 22/23 season Chelsea registered 16 players . Five in the summer window and 11 in the winter window.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631/saison_id/2022

I am pretty sure the names of all the incomings are correct but again it’s the numbers that are mind boggling however the club itself hasn’t said anything. Or have they ?

Chelseas 21/22 accounts were signed off in October 22 but weren’t filed at companies house till March 23. Deep in those accounts is this statement



Events after the reporting date

Since the year end the Group has acquired the registration of 16 football players and restructured the first team management at an initial cost of £368.6m and disposed of the registration of 16 players at a profit of £22.2m.


Bear in mind that there will be provision in the accounts for add ons and the sum of £368.6 million is the fee and nothing to do with what % of the fee has been paid.

Chelseas charge to amortisation in 21/22 was £160 million . I would imagine that increased in 22/23 , not by as much as I have seen suggested and I would imagine it’s why they wanted the Havertz and Kovacic deals to be done prior to 1/7 but the other transfers such as Mount will be in the 23/24 numbers .
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Let's not get carried away here.

Would City trade their midfield for Chelsea's? Real Madrid? Bayern Munich? Broke-ass Barcelona?
Click to expand...
City: Definitely would. They have already lost Gundogan and are trying to replace him with Paqueta, who isn't as good as either Enzo or Caicedo. KdB is fit as often as Martial is. Rodri is admittedly class, but Chelsea's is better on paper.

Real: Wouldn't even trade their second string midfield for Chelsea's. Best midfield in the world in terms of quality, experience, depth, and potential.

Bayern: If we're classifying Musiala as part of the midfield 3, then it's a tough one. Musiala & Kimmich v Enzo & Caicedo.

Barca: Similar to Bayern. Pedri and FdJ are brilliant, but their third man (Gavi) has as much to prove as Lavia does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.