Romeo Lavia | Chelsea bound?

Sure the prem doesn't limit it to 5 years but next year when they are in EL or CL, they'll be under the FFP restrictions of Europe where it is limited and they'll still have to sell a good chunk of players to draw even. They might be able to, but their list of players they can sell is getting smaller and the sums won't be anywhere near as high.

Generally I think their plan is try to break even, pay the fine and possible 1 year European competition suspension if not and be fine for the following year. Which I guess still works out for them.
 
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...
Wesley Fofana seems like their Phil Jones, unfortunately. Will be hard for him to fulfill his potential after another serious injury.

I'm sure they could eventually shift Mudryk if they really wanted to, but Cucurella could definitely be there for a while.
 
bosnian_red said:
Sure the prem doesn't limit it to 5 years but next year when they are in EL or CL, they'll be under the FFP restrictions of Europe where it is limited and they'll still have to sell a good chunk of players to draw even. They might be able to, but their list of players they can sell is getting smaller and the sums won't be anywhere near as high.

Generally I think their plan is try to break even, pay the fine and possible 1 year European competition suspension if not and be fine for the following year. Which I guess still works out for them.
Click to expand...

There is yet another caveat in FFP as they were relaxed due to the pandemic. There's something called "updated FFP" (or a similar terminology) coming into effect in 2024. The current FFP is in an “adaptive-trial mode”. This will last up to 2024, after which there will be a three-year cycle of the new FFP; i.e from 2024 to 2027.

I am no expert in FFP, but I believe that the Yanks have fully exploited (within legal boundaries) whatever loopholes there are in the current system.

(P.S. If everything resets in 2024, then Chelsea may end up having two teams of solid 22 young players by then! Although, I'm not too sure of how things will change in 2024).
 
TheLord said:
Please explain what I am missing.
Click to expand...

Why are you looking at it from a this year buys vs this years sales perspective. While you are right about the amortisation of buys vs full value of sales idea but what about the amortisation of previous year transfers. Plus like it has been explained the full value of sales only works for a couple of players like Mount & Gallagher but for all the people they signed it’s only what’s remaining on the books. I am unsure how this is sustainable without finding a Mount & Gallagher year after year.
 
Care_de_Bobo said:
I'm sure they could eventually shift Mudryk if they really wanted to, but Cucurella could definitely be there for a while.
Click to expand...
How could they shift Mudryk? 100m player who is in fact Elanga level, but with Fred level wages. It would be a challenge to get over 10m for him even
 
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...

are you assuming that every sale is paid for in full up front?
 
McGrathsipan said:
are you assuming that every sale is paid for in full up front?
Click to expand...
Does it matter? Genuine question. From accounting terns I don't know if receivables is counted as immediate income or deferred in FFP standards.
 
Ayush_reddevil said:
Why are you looking at it from a this year buys vs this years sales perspective. While you are right about the amortisation of buys vs full value of sales idea but what about the amortisation of previous year transfers. Plus like it has been explained the full value of sales only works for a couple of players like Mount & Gallagher but for all the people they signed it’s only what’s remaining on the books. I am unsure how this is sustainable without finding a Mount & Gallagher year after year.
Click to expand...
I am not looking at it from a "one year perspective" at all. That is what I've been trying to clarify all along.

In 2023/24
Total profit already: 222 m (see post #1390 for details).

In 2022/23
Total buys: 611m, amortised over 5 years = 122m
Total sales: 68m
Total loss on FFP per year = 54m per year loss

In 2021/22
Total buys: 118m, amortised over 5 years = 24m per year
Total sales: 148m
Total gain on FFP = 124m one-time profit

Do you see where this is going? My one incorrect assumption is that I have assumed all sales were fully amortised. However, they need to be weighted relative to the number of "book-years" remaining, but that incorrect simplicity aside, I hope you see how cleverly Chelsea have beaten the FFP and their three-year cycle of accounting.

They could go on to buy another few players after Caicedo and Lavia and still be okay, FFP-wise. In two years time, all the purchases of 2021 will be taken off the books anyway. And they will keep selling academy players. No wonder they have uncountable young players.
 
TheLord said:
I am not looking at it from a "one year perspective" at all. That is what I've been trying to clarify all along.

In 2023/24
Total profit already: 222 m (see post #1390 for details).

In 2022/23
Total buys: 611m, amortised over 5 years = 122m
Total sales: 68m
Total loss on FFP per year = 54m per year loss

In 2021/22
Total buys: 118m, amortised over 5 years = 24m per year
Total sales: 148m
Total gain on FFP = 124m one-time profit

Do you see where this is going? My one incorrect assumption is that I have assumed all sales were fully amortised. However, they need to be weighted relative to the number of "book-years" remaining, but that incorrect simplicity aside, I hope you see how cleverly Chelsea have beaten the FFP and their three-year cycle of accounting.

They could go on to buy another few players after Caicedo and Lavia and still be okay, FFP-wise. In two years time, all the purchases of 2021 will be taken off the books anyway. And they will keep selling academy players. No wonder they have uncountable young players.
Click to expand...

Again you are making the same mistake assuming every sale is 100% profit. The sales they made in previous season you should check what the player book value was, what was the sale price and that will give net profit. Same for this year too, all the transfers that are not academy players are not 100% profit but added every single one of them as 100% profit.
 
TheLord said:
I am not looking at it from a "one year perspective" at all. That is what I've been trying to clarify all along.

In 2023/24
Total profit already: 222 m (see post #1390 for details).

In 2022/23
Total buys: 611m, amortised over 5 years = 122m
Total sales: 68m
Total loss on FFP per year = 54m per year loss

In 2021/22
Total buys: 118m, amortised over 5 years = 24m per year
Total sales: 148m
Total gain on FFP = 124m one-time profit

Do you see where this is going? My one incorrect assumption is that I have assumed all sales were fully amortised. However, they need to be weighted relative to the number of "book-years" remaining, but that incorrect simplicity aside, I hope you see how cleverly Chelsea have beaten the FFP and their three-year cycle of accounting.

They could go on to buy another few players after Caicedo and Lavia and still be okay, FFP-wise. In two years time, all the purchases of 2021 will be taken off the books anyway. And they will keep selling academy players. No wonder they have uncountable young players.
Click to expand...
This is like saying 5x5x9 equals 25 and waving away ignoring the 9 as just a simple incorrect simplicity that doesn’t matter.

Book values would change the numbers by hundreds of millions. Ignoring them makes your calculations completely pointless.

And even allowing that assumption, it’s still wrong as you aren’t including the correct amortisation expenses to get the profit.
 
McGrathsipan said:
are you assuming that every sale is paid for in full up front?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is how it is done for FFP accounting, I think. There is one incorrect assumption about inadequate amortisation of players sold that I have alluded to in post#1412.

The calculations are crude, obviously. A very accurate accounting will probably be half a day's work in Excel. My only idea was to show how Boehly has "played" the FFP and now Chelsea, who despite spending insanely, still have FFP cash to burn.

There is so much profit already, that the valid points made by @roonster09 and @limerickcitykid (which I've already acknowledged) shouldn't matter. It certainly won't equate to an error of 100s of millions as someone just mentioned. I will let some Twitter guy do the dirty Excel work for the exact results.
 
VP89 said:
Does it matter? Genuine question. From accounting terns I don't know if receivables is counted as immediate income or deferred in FFP standards.
Click to expand...


If we can count purchases as paid over ten years and sales as instant income when it isnt then FFP is utterly pointless. Unless Chelsea are getting all sales fees upfront
 
Satissh12 said:
Click to expand...

Wonderful, if true.
By unnecessarily bidding for Caicedo, they forced Chelsea to up their bid for Caicedo by 10m, and in turn, the Scouse were forced to shell out an extra 10m for Lavia, because Chelsea had a counter offer for Lavia.

Good for them both!
 
McGrathsipan said:
If we can count purchases as paid over ten years and sales as instant income when it isnt then FFP is utterly pointless. Unless Chelsea are getting all sales fees upfront
Click to expand...
Yes, utterly useless. It has to be counted as a one-time buy and a one-time loss for it to make any sense. But again, that comes with a huge problem for smaller clubs, as they would never be able to buy an expensive player unless they have someone equally valuable to sell.
 
This is so funny. Glad we're not caught up in this shambles.

Neither him or Caicedo are worth anywhere near what's being offered.
 
Further consolidation of my points with incoming news that Kepa has left Chelsea ON LOAN to Real Madrid, which means Chelsea, least bothered by any FFP issues, will again spend big on a first choice keeper before the window closes.
 
TheLord said:
There is so much profit already, that the valid points made by @roonster09 and @limerickcitykid (which I've already acknowledged) shouldn't matter. It certainly won't equate to an error of 100s of millions as someone just mentioned. I will let some Twitter guy do the dirty Excel work for the exact results
Click to expand...

I might be wrong here but players wages is also added to the cost, not just transfer fee.
 
Liverpool still don't rate Lavia more than £40m. I hope this is another one of our ruse to get that ten year old petulant Elon Musk like Boehly to bid higher and then sign Lavia for £65m+.

Showing the world everything it needs to see.
 
izec said:
Would be funny if he rejected them for Chelsea
Click to expand...

The one thing I do give credit to Lavia for is he's not money oriented. He wants to be at a properly run and managed football club.

Edit: even though I don't want him for £60m. Like I said I hope we're still playing games.
 
TheLord said:
Further consolidation of my points with incoming news that Kepa has left Chelsea ON LOAN to Real Madrid, which means Chelsea, least bothered by any FFP issues, will again spend big on a first choice keeper before the window closes.
Click to expand...
Don’t see it. Sanchez will be our #1 and we’ll bring in an inexpensive veteran who is 35 as our backup.
 
Dumbstar said:
The one thing I do give credit to Lavia for is he's not money oriented. He wants to be at a properly run and managed football club.

Edit: even though I don't want him for £60m. Like I said I hope we're still playing games.
Click to expand...

I think you need him and you would take him for 60m as well, even if overpriced.
 
roonster09 said:
I might be wrong here but players wages is also added to the cost, not just transfer fee.
Click to expand...

You aren't wrong at all Wages are Definite part of FFP calculations as well as other expenses , that's why all these calculations about FFP by twitter experts as well here are mostly academic as proper data isn't just available even if you know how it works there is no way you can correctly calculate it .
 
gajender said:
You aren't wrong at all Wages are Definite part of FFP calculations as well as other expenses , that's why all these calculations about FFP by twitter experts as well here are mostly academic as proper data isn't just available even if you know how it works there is no way you can correctly calculate it .
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true.
 
there's a write-up on Reddit about Chelsea and FFP but someone who seems to know they're on about

 
izec said:
I think you need him and you would take him for 60m as well, even if overpriced.
Click to expand...

We need him for sure. But we can get just like him for £20m+ cheaper elsewhere. He's not Caicedo level talent.

But before we look elsewhere we need to keep on the pretence we're after him to get Chelsea to bid £65m+ just like we teased £115m out of them. The world needs to see and we're in a position to show them.
 
Signing him would be overkill anyway. We already have Santos and Ugochukwu . He should go to Liverpool.
 
I really don’t get why people are so hung up on the proposed fee for Lavia. At 19 a talent like this can lock down a place in the Liverpool or Chelsea sides for 8-10 years. And if he does that you’ll look back at £55-60m as a huge bargain.

When players like McTominay or Gallagher are being quoted between £45-50m these days I’d say Lavia who is easily better than both already and has the talent to get WAY better than he is now is worth the asking price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.