Over 1b on 18 months is worse than over 1b in a decade.
There is no resale value in selling flops and all but 1 or 2 are in that squad.
They’re literally a mid table side. It’s outrageous really .
Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea (hopefully)
- Thread starter UnitedSofa
- Start date
There is no resale value in selling flops and all but 1 or 2 are in that squad.
They’re literally a mid table side. It’s outrageous really .
£1.5bn in 11 years compared to 1 year? Great comparison.
Significant resale value?
Sanchez = 30m
Ugochukwu = 27m
JAckson = 37m
Disasi = 45m
Lavia = 62m
Caceido = 116m
Enzo = 121m
Murdryk = 100m
Cucurella = 65m
Fofana = 80m
I dont see how any of these players will have "Significant" re-sale value.
Jose into 3/1 for next Chelsea manager !
Bring it on…. the Prem is always more interesting with that fecker stiring up shit
Bring it on…. the Prem is always more interesting with that fecker stiring up shit
Jose into 3/1 for next Chelsea manager !
Bring it on…. the Prem is always more interesting with that fecker stiring up shit
Needs to happen before the cup final on 25th Feb.
Would he really chose Chelsea over Arsenal or Liverpool?
They'll just loan Mudryk to a Serie A team for a year or two if he dosen't show anything in next 12 months. Then eventually sell.
Their big problem is the game changing signings haven't shown anything so far. Caciedo has been a complete shadow of what he was showing at Brighton. Enzo Fernandez is a nice player to watch in possession but compare him to Odegaard and I just don't think he can produce to that level, before long Barca or Real Madrid will probably want him and he'll want out.
They also need to get shot of Sterling. Decent start to the season but coming up to 30 and past his peak. Also misses too many clear chances, look at that miss at 1-2 down yesterday. He scores that and Chelsea probably win the match.
Nkunku is a good player and riddled by injuries.
Guess a plan is signing an Oshimen type CF and then having Nkunku and Palmer either side and that should be decent.
Still got to sort the backline out as it's just too rash as we saw yesterday with Cunha and Neto strolling around and beating them all for pace.
The thing is that with all the money they have spent, there’s barely a player in their team I’d want at Bayern. And I’m fairly certain fans of other top clubs would agree. That’s what makes this all so funny.
There isn't a single Chelsea player that would get in to the Bayern starting eleven!
Yuh when you break it down like that honestly it’s just so fecking hilariously bad.
it isn’t Football Manager where a players potential ability is pre determined and they’re guaranteed increase in value. Then again this is literally a club who have hilariously appeared to have adopted a football manager like transfer policy. Would love to have been a fly in the room when they were concocting this idea up, bet they were all brown nosing each other about how great an idea it was.
Mourinho never going to work with private equity owners or young players.
Will be surprised if we see round 3 of the now bitter and deluded one.
No point in changing Poch when the owners are the problem.
Will be surprised if we see round 3 of the now bitter and deluded one.
No point in changing Poch when the owners are the problem.
Not disagreeing, but there’s still a lot of Chelsea fans who would want Jose back.
For a 10 year contract, yeah.
Nobody will pay Mudryk his wages at Chelsea and he’ll go nowhere because of it. We’ve seen this at United and we’ll see it here.
This is where the 8 year nonsense kicks them in the ass. A normal 5 year ffp bracket means they could keep him for a few seasons, get a loan fee for another 1/2 and make a big loss on the player but save themselves ffp trouble. 8 years means you could sell him after 3 seasons and still be on the books for 5 more. Thats a horrendous ffp black hole they have on their hands and they literally have a dozen more examples of that. It’s a huge loss on transfer fees and it tanks their ffp.
It’s insane just thinking about it. Chelsea will have paid Mudryk around 40m when his contracts up!
Mou has a bit of a false reputation regarding younger players, when he finds players who buy into his style he loves them. He just wants to win stuff so if you offer him a transfer, he will take a senior player every time.
For what it's worth, his style of play will suit Chelsea well in my opinion short term. Lots of pace up top, some fast, physical defenders and CMs. He won't care about possession or playing nice stuff but he'll make them a nightmare to play against. I reckon he might see Palmer in the Ozil role he had at Real, feeding a rapid forward line of some trio of Mudryk/Nkuku/Jackson/Sterling combination. With two of Caceido/Lavia/Enzo sat behind in the pivot.
I reckon Mourinho could do well with this Chelsea team. Relatively young, don't think there are necessarily any big egos in there.
Sterling is on 325k a week until 2027. He isn't going anywhere!
No irony. We have been terribly run on a sporting level since 2005. Throwing good money after bad for well over a decade as you said. But the general rule is that the more money you spend, the better the performance of the team. We are an outlier. It just shocks me that anyone could have matched our long-term incompetence within a year or two, and take a team that just won the CL to utter mediocrity.
Over the top Mourinho celebration when he wins it with Chelsea
You've got some of those figures massively over egged. Mudryk for example cost 62 mil, not 100.
Still a feckton of course.
Disruptive owners, managerial questions and financial concerns: Chelsea are a $1bn mess | Chelsea | The Guardian
"You don’t see much of Todd Boehly these days. In the first weeks after he fronted the Clearlake takeover of Chelsea, he was a regular presence, telling European football what it could learn from US sport, proudly announcing his disruptive intent. Which is a shame: it would be good to know exactly where spending $1bn to transform a Champions League-winning squad side into one that sits 11th in the Premier League fits into his master plan.
There had been a thought around the turn of the year that things might be falling into place for Chelsea. They reached the Carabao Cup final and won three league games in a row to haul themselves into the top half of the table. Maybe Mauricio Pochettino was at last starting to find some order amid a chaotic squad. The last two games have obliterated that idea.
Having let in four while being comprehensively outplayed at Liverpool in midweek, they leaked another four at home to Wolves on Sunday. The former may be understandable, the latter is not. This wasn’t a team having four chances and taking them all; Wolves were much the better side and could easily have won by more. Chelsea were a shambles, players arguing among themselves as sections of the crowd called for Pochettino to be sacked and wistfully sung about the Roman Abramovich era.
The problems go far deeper than results. In the short term, Chelsea’s activities since the Boehly/Clearlake takeover are not a problem. The football finance expert Swiss Ramble noted in August that the transfer activity since the takeover was exactly neutral, with £143m in wages plus £116m in amortisation from purchases offset by a £192m reduction in wages and £62m in amortisation from sales. Even better, there was a £215m profit in terms of player sales.
Which looks excellent – in the short term. But Chelsea’s signings have committed them to £1.9bn of future spending. And this is a club that has posted operating losses in each of the past 10 seasons, a picture that has been getting worse in the past four years. In 2021-22 operating losses were £224m, bringing total losses over the decade to £944m. That has to an extent been balanced by £706m in player sales.
Taking into account the reduction in wage bill, and projecting other income and outgoings for this season, Swiss Ramble calculated estimated losses of £131.6m for 2023-24 to go with £70.2m last season and £121.4m the season before that. There are allowable deductions for ‘healthy’ spending such as that on the academy and women’s team, which can be estimated at £40m or so a season. Which, when the extra allowances for losses in the Covid season are taken into account, kept Chelsea just above the threshold of £105m in losses for the three-year period up to 2022-23.
For 2023-24, though, they would appear to be in big trouble, with Swiss Ramble estimating their losses at £201m – and that was on an assumption they would finish sixth, which now looks extremely optimistic.
Uefa’s regulations are not immediately relevant but it is changing its FFP model to a cost control ratio, by which player wages, transfers and agent fees will by 2025 be limited to 70% of revenue and profit on player sales. At the moment, Chelsea’s is around 90%.
Chelsea are already being investigated for possible historical breaches of FFP in the Abramovich era, which could lead to points deductions (or worse) that would make their job even harder going forward. And it is extremely hard already. They just about kept their heads above water in the three-year period to last June but that was with exceptional sales. They don’t have many academy products or fully amortised players left. Say they sold Moisés Caicedo next summer for the £100m they paid for him: yes, they would reduce costs from his amortisation and wages, but his eight-year contract means the profit would only be £100m minus his book value which, with seven of the eight years of his contract remaining would be £87.5m: that is, £12.5m.
To keep making the sort of profits that have sustained them over the past decade will be extremely difficult. Those academy products who remain, the likes of Conor Gallagher and Reece James, are likely to find the owners extremely eager to listen to offers. And of course this is the reverse of standard footballing wisdom, that clubs benefit from having a core of players brought up in the ways of club, the John Terry and Frank Lampard figures, who have an attachment to the institution that goes beyond salary.
Perhaps Chelsea will be granted additional dispensation for losses suffered after the imposition of sanctions on Abramovich, although there are no guarantees, but with the likelihood of no Champions League football, it’s hard to see how revenues will rise significantly next season. With 12 players on contracts of eight years or more, the amortisation trick looks increasingly like an albatross.
This is a club in a terrible mess and the only people who can really be blamed are the disruptive new owners".
"You don’t see much of Todd Boehly these days. In the first weeks after he fronted the Clearlake takeover of Chelsea, he was a regular presence, telling European football what it could learn from US sport, proudly announcing his disruptive intent. Which is a shame: it would be good to know exactly where spending $1bn to transform a Champions League-winning squad side into one that sits 11th in the Premier League fits into his master plan.
There had been a thought around the turn of the year that things might be falling into place for Chelsea. They reached the Carabao Cup final and won three league games in a row to haul themselves into the top half of the table. Maybe Mauricio Pochettino was at last starting to find some order amid a chaotic squad. The last two games have obliterated that idea.
Having let in four while being comprehensively outplayed at Liverpool in midweek, they leaked another four at home to Wolves on Sunday. The former may be understandable, the latter is not. This wasn’t a team having four chances and taking them all; Wolves were much the better side and could easily have won by more. Chelsea were a shambles, players arguing among themselves as sections of the crowd called for Pochettino to be sacked and wistfully sung about the Roman Abramovich era.
The problems go far deeper than results. In the short term, Chelsea’s activities since the Boehly/Clearlake takeover are not a problem. The football finance expert Swiss Ramble noted in August that the transfer activity since the takeover was exactly neutral, with £143m in wages plus £116m in amortisation from purchases offset by a £192m reduction in wages and £62m in amortisation from sales. Even better, there was a £215m profit in terms of player sales.
Which looks excellent – in the short term. But Chelsea’s signings have committed them to £1.9bn of future spending. And this is a club that has posted operating losses in each of the past 10 seasons, a picture that has been getting worse in the past four years. In 2021-22 operating losses were £224m, bringing total losses over the decade to £944m. That has to an extent been balanced by £706m in player sales.
Taking into account the reduction in wage bill, and projecting other income and outgoings for this season, Swiss Ramble calculated estimated losses of £131.6m for 2023-24 to go with £70.2m last season and £121.4m the season before that. There are allowable deductions for ‘healthy’ spending such as that on the academy and women’s team, which can be estimated at £40m or so a season. Which, when the extra allowances for losses in the Covid season are taken into account, kept Chelsea just above the threshold of £105m in losses for the three-year period up to 2022-23.
For 2023-24, though, they would appear to be in big trouble, with Swiss Ramble estimating their losses at £201m – and that was on an assumption they would finish sixth, which now looks extremely optimistic.
Uefa’s regulations are not immediately relevant but it is changing its FFP model to a cost control ratio, by which player wages, transfers and agent fees will by 2025 be limited to 70% of revenue and profit on player sales. At the moment, Chelsea’s is around 90%.
Chelsea are already being investigated for possible historical breaches of FFP in the Abramovich era, which could lead to points deductions (or worse) that would make their job even harder going forward. And it is extremely hard already. They just about kept their heads above water in the three-year period to last June but that was with exceptional sales. They don’t have many academy products or fully amortised players left. Say they sold Moisés Caicedo next summer for the £100m they paid for him: yes, they would reduce costs from his amortisation and wages, but his eight-year contract means the profit would only be £100m minus his book value which, with seven of the eight years of his contract remaining would be £87.5m: that is, £12.5m.
To keep making the sort of profits that have sustained them over the past decade will be extremely difficult. Those academy products who remain, the likes of Conor Gallagher and Reece James, are likely to find the owners extremely eager to listen to offers. And of course this is the reverse of standard footballing wisdom, that clubs benefit from having a core of players brought up in the ways of club, the John Terry and Frank Lampard figures, who have an attachment to the institution that goes beyond salary.
Perhaps Chelsea will be granted additional dispensation for losses suffered after the imposition of sanctions on Abramovich, although there are no guarantees, but with the likelihood of no Champions League football, it’s hard to see how revenues will rise significantly next season. With 12 players on contracts of eight years or more, the amortisation trick looks increasingly like an albatross.
This is a club in a terrible mess and the only people who can really be blamed are the disruptive new owners".
They should hire him the week before the final so that it would be the complete opposite of what happened to him at Spurs!
Depends what the target is. If it's just floating around 6th or 7th then he can obviously get them into that area but beyond that I don't think so.
In his last spell he obviously did very well the first season but he inherited a very good squad and then they signed Fabregas and Costa, world class players in positions they needed an upgrade.
Then it imploded the next season so weirdly it didn't even get to a third year where everything starts to go wrong.
Only thing for Chelsea to cling on is Liverpool might decline pretty quickly and we'll probably go back down the league if we're in CL so if 5th is a live CL position next season they'd have a chance of that with a good start.
Signing him on a 5 year deal wow, was what 28 at that point?
That’s because you’re judging them based on their time at Chelsea. Some of them would have been nice signings for Bayern without the awful stench of Chelsea on them cloaking their real quality.
27.
Perfectly reasonable to sign a 27 year old on a 5 year deal. Even 28, should be quite normal.
Their next 10 games is brutal too.
- Villa away (fa cup)
- Palace away
- City away
- Spurs home (postponed for some other date though)
- Liverpool cup final
- Brentford away
- Newcastle home
- Arsenal away
- Burnley home
- United home
This is genuinely mad. For all of their struggles I assumed they were at least doing a little better than last year.
The only difference is Trivago logo
They are in for the tough ride.
They will suffer same as AC Milan did after Berslusconi. Difference is that Milan is massive club while Chelsea is wank stain on your boxers after naughty dreams.
And you gotta love how some of their fans here are mentally checked out after few bad seasons. They are already looking for City season tickets.
They will suffer same as AC Milan did after Berslusconi. Difference is that Milan is massive club while Chelsea is wank stain on your boxers after naughty dreams.
And you gotta love how some of their fans here are mentally checked out after few bad seasons. They are already looking for City season tickets.
Jose returning back to Chelsea would be hilarious.
Not going to happen though. They are a really poor side with an owner who's maybe worse than the Glazers at managing a club.
Not going to happen though. They are a really poor side with an owner who's maybe worse than the Glazers at managing a club.
But you bought nobodies? Not just nobodies but nobodies for 3x their worth. If they didn’t play for Chelsea then nobody would know who they are. All we judge these players by is their price tag, they have zero body of work behind them
Would love to see Mourinho return 'home' and embed another layer of toxicity in an already broken club. They're made for each other.
If i was Boehly i would go for a total leftfield appointment for the next coach and just hire Cesc Fabregas with 5 year contract.
Been there for only ~2 years and he ruined it much more than Woodward and co. in 5
Enzo is not a nobody of course, Caicedo was wanted by Liverpool too, again not a nobody. Nkunku is a brilliant striker. Sterling is of course well established...and on and on and on. I think with a better manager they play much much better