Romeo Lavia | Chelsea bound?

Waynne said:
Someone please explain to me how the feck Chelsea is able to throw around money like this with all this FFP nonsense going on?

Did I miss something because aren't these guys now close to $1 Billion spent on transfers in the last few windows?

It's fecking insane.
Click to expand...
What are they gonna do, ban them from the CL?
 
Waynne said:
Someone please explain to me how the feck Chelsea is able to throw around money like this with all this FFP nonsense going on?

Did I miss something because aren't these guys now close to $1 Billion spent on transfers in the last few windows?

It's fecking insane.
Click to expand...

Amortisation. £100m over 5 years is a £20m outlay per year. Whereas a £60m sale is booked at £60m.

I read that the 5 year length only applies to UEFA, for the PL they can amortise Caceidos £115m over 9 years so it's only a £10m hit per season.

Bit dumb but everyone could be doing it if Chelsea are. The yanks love a good bit of financial engineering.
 
mu4c_20le said:
What are they gonna do, ban them from the CL?
Click to expand...
Just confused how they are throwing around that kinda money left and right to snap up anyone and everyone and some of them on super long contracts too.
 
marktan said:
Bit dumb but everyone could be doing it if Chelsea are. The yanks love a good bit of financial engineering.
Click to expand...

It really is extremely risky. Considering how regularly signings fail for nearly every club they will be truly lumbered with some flops for years.
 
Waynne said:
Just confused how they are throwing around that kinda money left and right to snap up anyone and everyone and some of them on super long contracts too.
Click to expand...
FFP cannot stop them, they can only punish them afterwards, and it's usually a fine or maybe europe ban if serious, but they aren't getting in for the next two three years anyway.

It's not like match fixing so they won't get a points deduction.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
It really is extremely risky. Considering how regularly signings fail for nearly every club they will be truly lumbered with some flops for years.
Click to expand...
Yep it is available for everyone to do but at the same time extremely risky as you aren’t shifting anyone on any time soon if they are a failed signing. Just looking at some of the contract lengths for their players, it’s pretty insane. They could have a stack of failed transfers just collecting pay checks for years.

Enzo - 9 years
Badiashille - 8yrs
Mudryk - 8yrs
Madueke - 8yrs
Caicedo - 8yrs
Wes Fofana - 7yrs
David Fofana - 7yrs
Nkunku - 6yrs
Cucurella - 6yrs
Broja - 6yrs

Looking just at the list above, there’s only really 3 of them that look like they have a good chance of being regular first teamers.
 
Chief123 said:
They could have a stack of failed transfers just collecting pay checks for years.

Enzo - 9 years
Badiashille - 8yrs
Mudryk - 8yrs
Madueke - 8yrs
Caicedo - 8yrs
Wes Fofana - 7yrs
David Fofana - 7yrs
Nkunku - 6yrs
Cucurella - 6yrs
Broja - 6yrs
Click to expand...
Enzo or Caicedo are unlikely to flop. But some others like Mudryk or Cucurella could just sit there on huge wages like very expensive Phil Jones doing nothing for many a year
 
If this one is true I suspect either Andrey Santos will go out on loan or Gallagher will be forced out as his sale would help massively with FFP. Thought he was fantastic earlier and clearly wants to be here so would be a shame if that's the case.
 
marktan said:
Amortisation. £100m over 5 years is a £20m outlay per year. Whereas a £60m sale is booked at £60m.

I read that the 5 year length only applies to UEFA, for the PL they can amortise Caceidos £115m over 9 years so it's only a £10m hit per season.

Bit dumb but everyone could be doing it if Chelsea are. The yanks love a good bit of financial engineering.
Click to expand...
The long contracts would even allow you to “renegotiate” and move contract money into years where there were more room.

Salary cap accounting is an actual University major and specialty here, so you are right.

They won’t miss FFP. In the coming years they will be 5 and 6 deep at each spot with world class talent between all their teams, and they will probably start showing positive revenues on the people that move on because they couldn’t nail down a role that satisfies them.

They don’t particularly want to sell Chalobah and Gallagher, but those guys want to be nailed in starters and they probably arent here. I think being outplayed by Bashir in preseason was the writing on the wall for Trevoh.

They weren’t fighting over things like structure because they were worried about FFP if they bought Caicedo. They wanted it right so they could buy Caicedo, maybe Lavia, Kudus/Olise, and possibly a GK without being forced to sell.

If they do sell more, all the better.

The more established the team is, the more you will only be seeing youth purchases and maybe a selective upgrade here and there.

Still not sure I want Lavia though.
 
Alemar said:
Enzo or Caicedo are unlikely to flop. But some others like Mudryk or Cucurella could just sit there on huge wages like very expensive Phil Jones doing nothing for many a year
Click to expand...
Some of the people with the longest contracts are incentive heavy contracts with lower base pays. If Mudryk takes off, he will want to negotiate. If he doesn’t … he makes less than 100k a week. Cucurella is higher, but not super high, and his contract is up in 5.
 
Can't understand why Lavia would join Chelsea with Fernandez and Caicedo already there. Surely he won't get much playing time.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
Enzo replaces Jorginho
Caicedo replaces Kante
Lavia replaces Kovacic
Click to expand...
Apart from the world-class Kante, the incoming players are at par or better players than the ones they've replaced.

Enzo was fantastic in the first match, Caicedo is class, and Lavia has huge potential. The last time the Chelsea midfield oozed so much class was nearly 20 years back when the likes of Makalele, Essien, and Lampard were playing (on different formations).
 
RedRonaldo said:
Strange move for him it seems. He is happy to play backup for Enzo Caicedo? Why not he moved to Liverpool instead? I don’t get it.
Click to expand...
If Lavia comes in we’ll probably play with 3 in midfield since Nkunku is out long term.
 
TheLord said:
Apart from the world-class Kante, the incoming players are at par or better players than the ones they've replaced.

Enzo was fantastic in the first match, Caicedo is class, and Lavia has huge potential. The last time the Chelsea midfield oozed so much class was nearly 20 years back when the likes of Makalele, Essien, and Lampard were playing (on different formations).
Click to expand...
That was some Chelsea engine room with a rampaging Didier Drogba ahead of them. Class side that.
 
It will take time but Lavia-Enzo-Caicedo is one tasty midfield in terms of potential.
 
Orc said:
If Lavia comes in we’ll probably play with 3 in midfield since Nkunku is out long term.
Click to expand...
Yeh but that’s makes him a backup when everyone’s back.

Enzo - age 22
Caicedo - age 21
Nkunku - age 25

And same situation could last for very long term for him.
 
foolsgold said:
Probably out paying Liverpool and London is a more attractive destination.
Click to expand...
Can understand the money, but I don't see what people see in London, whenever I am in England I can't wait to get back up North, better beer, people and scenery.
 
Canuckred64 said:
Can understand the money, but I don't see what people see in London, whenever I am in England I can't wait to get back up North, better beer, people and scenery.
Click to expand...
London is a fantastic city for a young man with a big bag of money . Amazing club & party scene , top models & actresses .. A young mans dream !!
 
And even after dishing out another cool 170m on Caicedo and Lavia (amortised over 10-year-old contracts, or even for 5 years under the new UEFA rules), Chelsea will still be in the profit for 2023, FFP wise, if they make another sale, say for example, Gallagher for 50m! Beohly is absolutely playing by the rule-books and taking the mickey out of FFP with utter disdain.

FFP doesn't work if there are rich and clever negotiators. Every year Chelsea can sell one or two of their insanely hoarded youth talent and get the 'next big thing'. The cycle of buying two to three 100m players, amortising their costs over several years, and selling one or two academy or unwanted players, will return a net FFP profit for that particular year in an endless positive loop. There will be some seasons, when he can make a huge profit selling three-four players and without buying anyone. The cycle won't stop unless several of their 100-m players flop and can't be moved on, which is highly unlikely. You already know that players like Caicedo, Enzo, Lavia and Nkunku won't flop. Some definitely will flop, but Boehly has that situation already considered. And with lots of 20-year-old players, he can reduce his investment every successive year.

Boehly is playing a smart game. For the system to function properly, he needs to buy very young players with a huge potential, who have an enormous resale value. It is risky, but the rewards are very high. He can beat the FFP every season, unless UEFA scrap the entire concept of amortisation and only calculate a net profit-loss every year.

However, from the economic perspective, the 'actual' cost involved in building such a team will only be offset if the team goes on to win major trophies and keep reinforcing the Chelsea brand. Beating FFP is easy, winning major trophies isn't.
 
TheLord said:
And even after dishing out another cool 170m on Caicedo and Lavia (amortised over 10-year-old contracts, or even for 5 years under the new UEFA rules), Chelsea will still be in the profit for 2023, FFP wise, if they make another sale, say for example, Gallagher for 50m! Beohly is absolutely playing by the rule-books and taking the mickey out of FFP with utter disdain.

FFP doesn't work if there are rich and clever negotiators. Every year Chelsea can sell one or two of their insanely hoarded youth talent and get the 'next big thing'. The cycle of buying two to three 100m players, amortising their costs over several years, and selling one or two academy or unwanted players, will return a net FFP profit for that particular year in an endless positive loop. There will be some seasons, when he can make a huge profit selling three-four players and without buying anyone. The cycle won't stop unless several of their 100-m players flop and can't be moved on, which is highly unlikely. You already know that players like Caicedo, Enzo, Lavia and Nkunku won't flop. Some definitely will flop, but Boehly has that situation already considered. And with lots of 20-year-old players, he can reduce his investment every successive year.

Boehly is playing a smart game. For the system to function properly, he needs to buy very young players with a huge potential, who have an enormous resale value. It is risky, but the rewards are very high. He can beat the FFP every season, unless UEFA scrap the entire concept of amortisation and only calculate a net profit-loss every year.

However, from the economic perspective, the 'actual' cost involved in building such a team will only be offset if the team goes on to win major trophies and keep reinforcing the Chelsea brand. Beating FFP is easy, winning major trophies isn't.
Click to expand...

Any links for that?

Also FFP isn't just like they sign players for 1 billion on 5 year contract, so that's 200 million per year, sold players for 250 million so 50 million profit. There will be transfer fee that will be carried from previous season and before that.

There are lot of factors to consider.
How many players are on the books who were signed within last 5 years who still carry book value
The players they sold, what was their book value which actually determines the net transfer profit made on the player. For this reason, academy players are pure profit.

This season they will be spending close to 350 million pounds, that's 70 million this year.
They sold close to 250 million worth of players but all that is not pure profit. Mount, RLC, Ampadu are. Havertz was signed for around 75-80 (depends on which report on believes) and sold for 65 million. His book value was around 30-35 million, so that's 30 million profit.

The calculation I did is not even correct, all I'm saying is it's not simple sell and its 100 profit, whatever you buy it is divided by 5. Transfer fee accumulates from last 5 years if the player is still on books.
 
Alemar said:
Fair enough. But what will you do with all other midfielders who won’t have much playing time, but sit on fat lengthy contracts?
Click to expand...

I think besides those they will have Gallagher, the new kid they got as senior midfielders. 5 midfielders senior midfielders for 2 spots is not overkill.
 
RedRonaldo said:
Strange move for him it seems. He is happy to play backup for Enzo Caicedo? Why not he moved to Liverpool instead? I don’t get it.
Click to expand...
Did he even have an option to pick? Doesnt't look like Liverpool were prepared to go above 45m for him so never had a bid accepted. Chelsea just stumped up 55m and job done.

If this spending spree doesn't work out im not sure where that will leave Chelsea, will/can they keep up this kind of spending? Doesn't fit the atypical America style of ownership we have come to expect.
 
jeff gurr said:
London is a fantastic city for a young man with a big bag of money . Amazing club & party scene , top models & actresses .. A young mans dream !!
Click to expand...

Canuckred64 said:
Can understand the money, but I don't see what people see in London, whenever I am in England I can't wait to get back up North, better beer, people and scenery.
Click to expand...

Don't really like London myself tbh but It's maybe less of a goldfish bowl type scenario. If you're playing for Liverpool or United and living in the north west you're in the public eye whenever you step out of your front door. Obviously as a Chelsea player, there's going to be attention in London, but it's definitely less all consuming in a bigger city. A degree of anonymity and a semblance of a private life are possible. Plus, all the models and nightlife obviously.
 
TheLord said:
And even after dishing out another cool 170m on Caicedo and Lavia (amortised over 10-year-old contracts, or even for 5 years under the new rules), Chelsea will still be in the profit for 2023, FFP wise, if they make another sale, say for example, Gallagher for 50m! Beohly is absolutely playing by the rule-books and taking the mickey out of FFP with utter disdain.

FFP doesn't work if there are rich and clever negotiators. Every year Chelsea can sell one or two of their insanely hoarded youth talent and get the 'next big thing'. The cycle of buying two to three 100m players, amortising their costs over several years, and selling one or two academy or unwanted players, will return a net FFP profit for that particular year in an endless positive loop. There will be some seasons, when he can make a huge profit selling three-four players and without buying anyone. The cycle won't stop unless several of their 100-m players flop and can't be moved on, which is highly unlikely. You already know that players like Caicedo and Enzo won't flop.

Boehly is playing a smart game. For the system to function properly, he needs to buy very young players with a huge potential/already proven and have an enormous resale value. It is risky, but the rewards are very high. He can beat the FFP every season, unless UEFA scrap the entire concept of amortisation and only calculate a net profit-loss every year.
Click to expand...
And we all know that "beating FFP" is among the most coveted trophies in football. Beat FFP and win the transfer window! That's a double!
 
roonster09 said:
Any links for that?

Also FFP isn't just like they sign players for 1 billion on 5 year contract, so that's 200 million per year, sold players for 250 million so 50 million profit. There will be transfer fee that will be carried from previous season and before that.

There are lot of factors to consider.
How many players are on the books who were signed within last 5 years who still carry book value
The players they sold, what was their book value which actually determines the net transfer profit made on the player. For this reason, academy players are pure profit.

This season they will be spending close to 350 million pounds, that's 70 million this year.
They sold close to 250 million worth of players but all that is not pure profit. Mount, RLC, Ampadu are. Havertz was signed for around 75-80 (depends on which report on believes) and sold for 65 million. His book value was around 30-35 million, so that's 30 million profit.

The calculation I did is not even correct, all I'm saying is it's not simple sell and its 100 profit, whatever you buy it is divided by 5. Transfer fee accumulates from last 5 years if the player is still on books.
Click to expand...
Do the maths yourself. The spending on players is insane, but player-sales is equally good.

The prices are in Euros as I collected my info from transfermarkt. Prices are approximate. I will assume all contracts are amortised over 5 years (even though they're longer). I will also assume Caicedo and Lavia are done deals. I will also assume Gallagher has been sold. I will conveniently ignore all add-ons.

Players bought this year
1. Caicedo: EUR 130m over 5 years = 26m for this year
2. Axel Diasi: EUR 45 = 9m this year
3. Nicholas Jackson: 7m this year
4. Lesley Ugochukwu: 5m this year
6. Robert Sanchez: 5m this year
7. Angelo: 3m this year
8. Romeo Lavia: EUR 55m = 11m for this year

Total spent: 330m= 66m for this year

Sales this year
1. Havertz: EUR 75m
2. Mount: 64m
3. Kovacic: 29m
4. Koulibaly: 23m
5. Pulisic: 20m
6. Mendy: 18m
7. Loftus-Cheek: 16m
8. Ampadu: 8m
9. Gallagher: 35m

Total sales: 288m already (a few more could yet leave, like Ziyech, Chalobah).

288m - 66m = (+ve) EUR 222 million.

Even after considering every other factor you mentioned, like remaining book value, etc, Boehly has rendered FFP useless.
 
marktan said:
Amortisation. £100m over 5 years is a £20m outlay per year. Whereas a £60m sale is booked at £60m.

I read that the 5 year length only applies to UEFA, for the PL they can amortise Caceidos £115m over 9 years so it's only a £10m hit per season.

Bit dumb but everyone could be doing it if Chelsea are. The yanks love a good bit of financial engineering.
Click to expand...
There's a possibility I've misunderstood amortisation, but why are selling clubs accepting Chelsea doing this? Surely it's in their interests to get more up front?
 
TheLord said:
Do the maths yourself. The spending on players is insane, but player-sales is equally good.

The prices are in Euros as I collected my info from transfermarkt. Prices are approximate. I will assume all contracts are amortised over 5 years (even though they're longer). I will also assume Caicedo and Lavia are done deals. I will also assume Gallagher has been sold. I will conveniently ignore all add-ons.

Players bought this year
1. Caicedo: EUR 130m over 5 years = 26m for this year
2. Axel Diasi: EUR 45 = 9m this year
3. Nicholas Jackson: 7m this year
4. Lesley Ugochukwu: 5m this year
6. Robert Sanchez: 5m this year
7. Angelo: 3m this year
8. Romeo Lavia: EUR 55m = 11m for this year

Total spent: 330m= 66m for this year

Sales this year
1. Havertz: EUR 75m
2. Mount: 64m
3. Kovacic: 29m
4. Koulibaly: 23m
5. Pulisic: 20m
6. Mendy: 18m
7. Loftus-Cheek: 16m
8. Ampadu: 8m
9. Gallagher: 35m

Total sales: 288m already (a few more could yet leave, like Ziyech, Chalobah).

288m - 66m = (+ve) EUR 222 million.

Even after considering every other factor you mentioned, like remaining book value, etc, Boehly has rendered FFP useless.
Click to expand...

Your math is clear if your believe Chelsea spend only 1/5th of fee they agreed to pay and accounts reset to 0 after every year.

You have considered this year spend, likewise they spent in last 5 years too, which will be cumulative for this year FFP accounts.
 
Mr Smith said:
There's a possibility I've misunderstood amortisation, but why are selling clubs accepting Chelsea doing this? Surely it's in their interests to get more up front?
Click to expand...

amortisation is just the accounting treatment and nothing to do with the payment
 
roonster09 said:
Your math is clear if your believe Chelsea spend only 1/5th of fee they agreed to pay and accounts reset to 0 after every year.

You have considered this year spend, likewise they spent in last 5 years too, which will be cumulative for this year FFP accounts.
Click to expand...
Exactly, there will be considerable costs already on the books from previous years when they bought players.
The only time it’s pure profit is for an academy player or with us and martial where his cost is already fully amortised
 
TheLord said:
Do the maths yourself. The spending on players is insane, but player-sales is equally good.

The prices are in Euros as I collected my info from transfermarkt. Prices are approximate. I will assume all contracts are amortised over 5 years (even though they're longer). I will also assume Caicedo and Lavia are done deals. I will also assume Gallagher has been sold. I will conveniently ignore all add-ons.

Players bought this year
1. Caicedo: EUR 130m over 5 years = 26m for this year
2. Axel Diasi: EUR 45 = 9m this year
3. Nicholas Jackson: 7m this year
4. Lesley Ugochukwu: 5m this year
6. Robert Sanchez: 5m this year
7. Angelo: 3m this year
8. Romeo Lavia: EUR 55m = 11m for this year

Total spent: 330m= 66m for this year

Sales this year
1. Havertz: EUR 75m
2. Mount: 64m
3. Kovacic: 29m
4. Koulibaly: 23m
5. Pulisic: 20m
6. Mendy: 18m
7. Loftus-Cheek: 16m
8. Ampadu: 8m
9. Gallagher: 35m

Total sales: 288m already (a few more could yet leave, like Ziyech, Chalobah).

288m - 66m = (+ve) EUR 222 million.

Even after considering every other factor you mentioned, like remaining book value, etc, Boehly has rendered FFP useless.
Click to expand...
And what about the players bought in the past few years? Would their amortisation not count this year? Genius.
 
Mr Smith said:
There's a possibility I've misunderstood amortisation, but why are selling clubs accepting Chelsea doing this? Surely it's in their interests to get more up front?
Click to expand...

The payment terms can be 2 years. But amortisation is all about the buying clubs accounts. If us Manchester United buy a player for 20m on a 4 year contract we say he costs us 5m per year in our accounts.
 
roonster09 said:
Your math is clear if your believe Chelsea spend only 1/5th of fee they agreed to pay and accounts reset to 0 after every year.

You have considered this year spend, likewise they spent in last 5 years too, which will be cumulative for this year FFP accounts.
Click to expand...
Yes, I briefly looked into that too, as it was too much work to calculate individual contracts accurately.

There are many 100% profits, like Mount, Gallagher, Loftus-Cheek and many other players who had already played for nearly 5 years before being sold (implying that they were nearly off the books), like Kovacic, Pulisic, etc.

The worst deal, FFP-wise, is when a player is bought for a huge fee and has to be sold early at a loss.

My maths are only approximate, as I don't have the time to compute every individual contract, but Chelsea could go on to buy another goalkeeper, and another fullback, along with Caicedo and Lavia, on top of the 300-odd million they've already spent, with absolutely no problem.

Amortisation is a huge loophole for rich clubs. Spending for five incoming players for 50m a piece is easily offset by selling one academy player for 50m, or an aging player to the Saudi League for 50m (after playing for 5 years). Additionally, FFP accounting works in three-year cycles, I think. So clubs don't need to be perfect every year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.