Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea (hopefully)

duffer said:
Impossible task?

Lukaku, Maatsen, Chalobah, Hall, Ziyech and Broja will all bring money in over the summer. We'll easily get 100 million from that lot over the summer.

That's without selling anyone from the current squad or any of the 100 youngsters we bought last year which we could also do if necessary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that article is a bit sensationalist. Let’s be honest, 1 thing Chelsea do well is get money in for players, they’ll recoup plenty. The only issue I see is if there is a hard deadline of 30th June, for a couple of reasons.

1. If buying clubs know this, this obviously weakens Chelsea’s hand in negotiations.
2. If there is some sort of FFP or Profit and Sustainability deadline of 30th June, buying clubs might have similar issues so might want to wait until after that date to make purchases they can put into the following financial year. And given how January has played out, that certainly seems to be an issue.
 
duffer said:
We've already sold Ziyech!

Lukaku will go to Saudi! And after Broja plays well for Fulham there will be plenty of offers!
Click to expand...

As far as I can see Zyiech has an option to buy and it won't help you with FFP
Rnd898 said:
Lukaku took a massive pay cut for the remainder of his contract prior to the Roma loan being agreed so selling him will be a hell of a lot easier in the next window than it was last summer or in 2022. The renegotiated salary package also included a 35-40M€ release clause in Lukaku's contract which can be activated by his current loan club Roma or anyone else. Whether we get the full release clause amount or something a bit lower is a question mark but he'll 100% be gone for good in a matter of months. He's also started flirting with the head choppers in recent weeks so might even go there for a retirement fund but he can definitely stay in Italy and continue earning a more modest wage if he still fancies playing in Europe.

Ziyech is already gone. The loan to Galatasaray is said to include an obligation to buy him. The fee will be nominal at best, maybe even a freebie, but he won't be returning.

As for Maatsen, Chalobah, Broja and Hall it remains to be seen how much they'll bring in. Hall's loan to Newcastle already has an obligation to buy for £28M so unless something really drastic happens that's more or less guaranteed, Maatsen's loan to Dortmund has started brilliantly and I don't think there will be a shortage of takers for the £35M release clause included in his revised contract.

Chalobah has also attracted plenty of interest both in England and abroad, but his injury problems this season have so far scuppered the possibility of a deal but I could easily see him fetching £15-20M as well. You mentioned we couldn't sell Broja in the January window but did you see how very little transfer business was done in the EPL overall? Every club seemed almost afraid to spend any money, but I doubt that's going to continue once the summer window comes around. He's on loan at Fulham now and if he plays decentlyover the next months there will almost certainly be clubs interested in signing him in the summer and it's only going to be a question of how much the club are demanding to sell him. If there are some serious FFP concerns, the fee will naturally be on the lower end but if the club are in a position to stick to the valuation and there are still clubs interested it could raise his sale price.

So let's see: Hall £28M, Maatsen £30-35M, Chalobah £15-20M, Broja £25-35M, Lukaku £25-35M, Ziyech free transfer

All added up a conservative estimate would be £120M and could even go as high as £150M. Feel free to save the post and quote me at the end of June and we'll see who's right and who's wrong.
Click to expand...

Didn't realise that the Hall deal had an obligation to buy. He hasn't looked anything special at Newcastle so I'd say that's good business by Chelsea. It will create a big problem for Newcastle though in terms of Summer Spending!

I'm not sure Maatsen will go for £30-35M. Seems incredibly high for a left back. Wouldn't it make more sense for Chelsea to actually keep him and play him at left back?

Broja could go either way. £25m seems a bit high to me.
 
GoonerBear said:
Yeah, that article is a bit sensationalist. Let’s be honest, 1 thing Chelsea do well is get money in for players, they’ll recoup plenty. The only issue I see is if there is a hard deadline of 30th June, for a couple of reasons.

1. If buying clubs know this, this obviously weakens Chelsea’s hand in negotiations.
2. If there is some sort of FFP or Profit and Sustainability deadline of 30th June, buying clubs might have similar issues so might want to wait until after that date to make purchases they can put into the following financial year. And given how January has played out, that certainly seems to be an issue.
Click to expand...

Two really good points.

I think I'm right in saying that of the big Premier League clubs only City, Liverpool and Spurs have plenty of leeway in terms of FFP/P&S.

Its probably partly why Spurs are the club being linked with Connor Gallagher, but Levy will negotiate any deal for him right down considering all the factors that are working against Chelsea.
 
GoonerBear said:
Yeah, that article is a bit sensationalist. Let’s be honest, 1 thing Chelsea do well is get money in for players, they’ll recoup plenty. The only issue I see is if there is a hard deadline of 30th June, for a couple of reasons.

1. If buying clubs know this, this obviously weakens Chelsea’s hand in negotiations.
2. If there is some sort of FFP or Profit and Sustainability deadline of 30th June, buying clubs might have similar issues so might want to wait until after that date to make purchases they can put into the following financial year. And given how January has played out, that certainly seems to be an issue.
Click to expand...

The interested clubs are not just PL clubs. Maatsen is in Dortmund and any potential deal for him will likely involve them. Lukaku has seemingly softened his stance on a Saudi move, so he could accept an offer from a club there. Lewis Hall has essentially already been sold, with the obligation portion of the deal conveying in the summer, so that's £27m guaranteed there. Those 3 alone could get quite close to £100m.
 
WeePat said:
The interested clubs are not just PL clubs. Maatsen is in Dortmund and any potential deal for him will likely involve them. Lukaku has seemingly softened his stance on a Saudi move, so he could accept an offer from a club there. Lewis Hall has essentially already been sold, with the obligation portion of the deal conveying in the summer, so that's £27m guaranteed there. Those 3 alone could get quite close to £100m.
Click to expand...
Before end of June?
 
MegadrivePerson said:
Didn't realise that the Hall deal had an obligation to buy. He hasn't looked anything special at Newcastle so I'd say that's good business by Chelsea. It will create a big problem for Newcastle though in terms of Summer Spending!

I'm not sure Maatsen will go for £30-35M. Seems incredibly high for a left back. Wouldn't it make more sense for Chelsea to actually keep him and play him at left back?
Click to expand...

The obligation in Hall's deal comes with some conditions so it's not 100% yet but almost. All journos have reported the obligation is almost guaranteed to be triggered and that both clubs already view the move as permanent. It's possible there's some kind of 'out' for Newcastle to still reject the permanent deal but we'll see. I personally wouldn't mind getting Hall back and playing in our own squad, I rate him very highly.

As for Maatsen I'm pretty sure he'll go for that price. We already got offered £30M last summer based on a successful loan in the Championship so if he continues to build on his early good performances for Dortmund that fee will be seen as a steal come summer. Same as with Hall I rate Maatsen highly and would like to see us keep at least one of them but I just don't think that's going to be very likely, at least not if Poch continues as manager because he doesn't seem to rate either of them. Maybe with a managerial change things could be different, who knows?

In any case, assuming the article is correct and we need to raise £100M by the end of the financial year I don't see it as a problem at all. It should be achievable selling players not even in the first team squad right now, but worst case scenario the club will just panic sell Gallagher to raise some quick cash but I doubt that's going to be needed. Club might sell Gallagher regardless though.
 
WeePat said:
The interested clubs are not just PL clubs. Maatsen is in Dortmund and any potential deal for him will likely involve them. Lukaku has seemingly softened his stance on a Saudi move, so he could accept an offer from a club there. Lewis Hall has essentially already been sold, with the obligation portion of the deal conveying in the summer, so that's £27m guaranteed there. Those 3 alone could get quite close to £100m.
Click to expand...
Obligations to buy are included in last years accounts. If it’s an obligation it’s viewed as money already spent if I remember correctly
 
duffer said:
Impossible task?

Lukaku, Maatsen, Chalobah, Hall, Ziyech and Broja will all bring money in over the summer. We'll easily get 100 million from that lot over the summer.

That's without selling anyone from the current squad or any of the 100 youngsters we bought last year which we could also do if necessary.
Click to expand...

yeah but if you take logic out of the equation, then you’d have to admit that you’re seriously fecked.
 
cyberman said:
Obligations to buy are included in last years accounts. If it’s an obligation it’s viewed as money already spent if I remember correctly
Click to expand...

Why the feck would it be in last years accounts when the move was only made nearing the end of August 2023?

The financial year in question is from 1st July 2023 - 30th June 2024 so assuming the move goes through it's absolutely going to be included in those accounts and not the ones for 2022/23 season.

The 'viewed as money already spent last year' is exactly why the deal is going to be included in the 23/24 accounts and not 24/25, even if the move only officially goes through 1st of July 2024 like transfers often do.
 
Lukaku is already telling the world how great the Saudi league is and will be the dominant league in just a few years. That one is done.
 
cyberman said:
Obligations to buy are included in last years accounts. If it’s an obligation it’s viewed as money already spent if I remember correctly
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Any loan fee is on last year's books - but the reason why the purchase obligation was agreed was to ease Newcastle's FFP burden for the past season. Hall's fee will apply to next year 100%.
 
After the £100m is raised where will it leave Chelsea? What will their spending power be?
 
Dumbstar said:
After the £100m is raised where will it leave Chelsea? What will their spending power be?
Click to expand...

Well we're most likely buying Osimhen for an obscene amount, so I would guess it would leave us exactly where we are now, needing to offload more players in 2025.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
This is incorrect. Any loan fee is on last year's books - but the reason why the purchase obligation was agreed was to ease Newcastle's FFP burden for the past season. Hall's fee will apply to next year 100%.
Click to expand...
I swear this excuse was used as a reason we just didn’t loan to buy last January or this. There you go
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
This is incorrect. Any loan fee is on last year's books - but the reason why the purchase obligation was agreed was to ease Newcastle's FFP burden for the past season. Hall's fee will apply to next year 100%.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is what I thought.

Arsenal are doing the same thing with Raya from Brentford.
 
Rnd898 said:
Lukaku took a massive pay cut for the remainder of his contract prior to the Roma loan being agreed so selling him will be a hell of a lot easier in the next window than it was last summer or in 2022. The renegotiated salary package also included a 35-40M€ release clause in Lukaku's contract which can be activated by his current loan club Roma or anyone else. Whether we get the full release clause amount or something a bit lower is a question mark but he'll 100% be gone for good in a matter of months. He's also started flirting with the head choppers in recent weeks so might even go there for a retirement fund but he can definitely stay in Italy and continue earning a more modest wage if he still fancies playing in Europe.

Ziyech is already gone. The loan to Galatasaray is said to include an obligation to buy him. The fee will be nominal at best, maybe even a freebie, but he won't be returning.

As for Maatsen, Chalobah, Broja and Hall it remains to be seen how much they'll bring in. Hall's loan to Newcastle already has an obligation to buy for £28M so unless something really drastic happens that's more or less guaranteed, Maatsen's loan to Dortmund has started brilliantly and I don't think there will be a shortage of takers for the £35M release clause included in his revised contract.

Chalobah has also attracted plenty of interest both in England and abroad, but his injury problems this season have so far scuppered the possibility of a deal but I could easily see him fetching £15-20M as well. You mentioned we couldn't sell Broja in the January window but did you see how very little transfer business was done in the EPL overall? Every club seemed almost afraid to spend any money, but I doubt that's going to continue once the summer window comes around. He's on loan at Fulham now and if he plays decentlyover the next months there will almost certainly be clubs interested in signing him in the summer and it's only going to be a question of how much the club are demanding to sell him. If there are some serious FFP concerns, the fee will naturally be on the lower end but if the club are in a position to stick to the valuation and there are still clubs interested it could raise his sale price.

So let's see: Hall £28M, Maatsen £30-35M, Chalobah £15-20M, Broja £25-35M, Lukaku £25-35M, Ziyech free transfer

All added up a conservative estimate would be £120M and could even go as high as £150M. Feel free to save the post and quote me at the end of June and we'll see who's right and who's wrong.
Click to expand...

Not having a dig but I do find our clubs really different.

Id be gutted at losing lots of academy talent but you guys seem to just see it all as money. I mean you’ve let so many good young players leave and the ones you’ve brought in to replace them are nowhere near as good! Seems such terrible planning and a frivolous waste of money.
 
TheReligion said:
Not having a dig but I do find our clubs really different.

Id be gutted at losing lots of academy talent but you guys seem to just see it all as money. I mean you’ve let so many good young players leave and the ones you’ve brought in to replace them are nowhere near as good! Seems such terrible planning and a frivolous waste of money.
Click to expand...

My second post clarified that I'm very much against the idea of selling Maatsen who I rate rather highly, and was very much against the Hall move as well. Didn't see the point of signing Disasi when we already had Chalobah who can do the job just as well but now that Disasi is already at the club I don't see a need for Chalobah to stay.

Still, fact is the club are going to sell them. I don't have to be in favor of the moves to correct misinformed people about the finances surrounding them.
 
Rnd898 said:
My second post clarified that I'm very much against the idea of selling Maatsen who I rate rather highly, and was very much against the Hall move as well. Didn't see the point of signing Disasi when we already had Chalobah who can do the job just as well but now that Disasi is already at the club I don't see a need for Chalobah to stay.

Still, fact is the club are going to sell them. I don't have to be in favor of the moves to correct misinformed people about the finances surrounding them.
Click to expand...

I just Don’t understand why the club is so stupid
 
cyberman said:
I swear this excuse was used as a reason we just didn’t loan to buy last January or this. There you go
Click to expand...

Could be misremembering but wasn't part of it that there was still a lot of uncertainty over the club potentially being sold and that the Glazers didn't want to commit to future outlays on the books for 2024?
 
You should just make all the players who you don't want turn up in red outfits to the training ground when Terry is there.
 
But weren’t we all told it’s ok because they are bringing in half the world population on 10 year contracts? Now the narrative has changed to they’re fecked
 
golden_blunder said:
But weren’t we all told it’s ok because they are bringing in half the world population on 10 year contracts? Now the narrative has changed to they’re fecked
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t say we’re fecked by any stretch, but obviously when you spend a billion and then spend 18-24 months stuck in midtable things aren’t rosy.
 
TheReligion said:
It must be frustrating for you guys.
Click to expand...

I had actually convinced myself we’d be getting owners who, because they were inheriting a vastly different, much bigger club than the one Abrhamovich walked into, would spend less but work smarter. It’s still early days but so far it has been catastrophically bad.
 
Rnd898 said:
Why the feck would it be in last years accounts when the move was only made nearing the end of August 2023?

The financial year in question is from 1st July 2023 - 30th June 2024 so assuming the move goes through it's absolutely going to be included in those accounts and not the ones for 2022/23 season.

The 'viewed as money already spent last year' is exactly why the deal is going to be included in the 23/24 accounts and not 24/25, even if the move only officially goes through 1st of July 2024 like transfers often do.
Click to expand...
TheMagicFoolBus said:
This is incorrect. Any loan fee is on last year's books - but the reason why the purchase obligation was agreed was to ease Newcastle's FFP burden for the past season. Hall's fee will apply to next year 100%.
Click to expand...

Loan with obligation to buy(with no conditions) is considered like a permanent transfer, at least that's how it was since FFP rule was introduced.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/loan-with-an-obligation-to-buy.457002/#post-25942603
 
roonster09 said:
Loan with obligation to buy(with no conditions) is considered like a permanent transfer, at least that's how it was since FFP rule was introduced.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/loan-with-an-obligation-to-buy.457002/#post-25942603
Click to expand...

I know. But I ask you again: why would a transfer completed as an initial loan in August 2023 with a view of making the move permanent in the summer of 2024 ever be included in the accounts for the financial year ending in June 30th 2023?

I swear you're actually really fecking close to understanding just why the Hall sale would be included in the exact financial year we reportedly still need to raise extra money in, rather than the year before or the year after, but you still seem to need some help getting there.

Going by the UEFA quote behind your link, depending on the structure of the deal it is possible to make the sale go in the books for the current 23/24 season (assuming the obligation being triggered is considered 'a virtual certainty') or the 24/25 season if the wording of the conditions is something more ambiguous and the deal only gets sorted out after the turn of July 2024. In either case, never in a million years will it ever go into the financial year that actually ended two months before Hall even moved on the initial loan.
 
Rnd898 said:
I know. But I ask you again: why would a transfer completed as an initial loan in August 2023 with a view of making the move permanent in the summer of 2024 ever be included in the accounts for the financial year ending in June 30th 2023?

I swear you're actually really fecking close to understanding just why the Hall sale would be included in the exact financial year we reportedly still need to raise extra money in, rather than the year before or the year after, but you still seem to need some help getting there.

Going by the UEFA quote behind your link, depending on the structure of the deal it is possible to make the sale go in the books for the current 23/24 season (assuming the obligation being triggered is considered 'a virtual certainty') or the 24/25 season if the wording of the conditions is something more ambiguous and the deal only gets sorted out after the turn of July 2024. In either case, never in a million years will it ever go into the financial year that actually ended two months before Hall even moved on the initial loan.
Click to expand...

I think the message is very clear, loan with obligation to buy is as good as permanent transfers if there are no conditions attached to it or if the conditions are simple enough.

Clubs do it for lot of reasons, one of them being cash flow.
 
roonster09 said:
Clubs do it for lot of reasons, one of them being cash flow.
Click to expand...

What are some of theother reasons?

Cash flow issues were always solved by just agreeing payment terms rather than "loans with obligations" (which are a pain in the arse because they take up a loan slot).

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see a single benefit for the buying or selling club to a "loan with obligation" over a straight purchase where they agree to pay the money at a later date.
 
duffer said:
What are some of theother reasons?

Cash flow issues were always solved by just agreeing payment terms rather than "loans with obligations" (which are a pain in the arse because they take up a loan slot).

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see a single benefit for the buying or selling club to a "loan with obligation" over a straight purchase where they agree to pay the money at a later date.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any, maybe the people who are dealing with these numbers know.

Like I said, the rules are as clear as they can be, loan with obligation is not something that started with FFP either. So why did they do at that time when they could have just agreed on payment plans.
 
roonster09 said:
I can't think of any, maybe the people who are dealing with these numbers know.

Like I said, the rules are as clear as they can be, loan with obligation is not something that started with FFP either. So why did they do at that time when they could have just agreed on payment plans.
Click to expand...
I don't remember any loans with unconditional obligations to buy prior to FFP. If you can remember some (or even one) then fair enough.

It always used to be a loan with an obligation to buy IF the player met some condition (play 30 games, play x minutes etc).
 
duffer said:
I don't remember any loans with unconditional obligations to buy prior to FFP. If you can remember some (or even one) then fair enough.

It always used to be a loan with an obligation to buy IF the player met some condition (play 30 games, play x minutes etc).
Click to expand...

Even I don't remember, i don't remember any loan deals from 2010 and before.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Fair enough - didn't know that and shouldn't have used the word "any".

That said, this doesn't apply in Hall's case or just about any that I can think of given that there are specific requirements in the deal.
Click to expand...
The man has 104 minutes played in the league, what requirements are there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.