We had our time when we were doing that. We made several of the most expensive transfers in history, all within a couple of years of one another. They all turned out terribly
Romeo Lavia | Chelsea bound?
- Thread starter bosnian_red
- Start date
True this. Its basically starting from zero from the Chelsea point of view from board to players. Minimum is CL place and tittle is the bonus for them. They just litterally crash down the whole house and rebuild it. I always have soft spot for Chelsea and kinda envy their way of doing the business with football side.
Their owners were and are ruthless and cut throat with the way they dealing with players and the footballing system be it loophole and ways of circumvent it. Sometimes i think United are tie down by the view that we are holier than thou and morally look down on others that we enjoy all the hate but scoff at some of the ways other clubs doimg business. Cant we be ruthless and good at the same times with players and the footballing authority.
Chelsea are a striker signing away from being a real threat and I would not put it past them signing one either.
I know right. I thought after roman left they'd be finished but Boehly is just roman supercharged
I know right. I thought after roman left they'd be finished but Boehly is just roman supercharged
Some clubs have all the luck.
Are the scousers looking at signing any strikers?
What are you so impressed by with Chelsea's way of doing business?
It amounts to throwing a lot of money at relatively unproven talent. No real mastery behind that. It's money talking, paying over the odds on many of them which of course means the deals happen.
It's brave from Boehly, I'll give him that because he's chucking a billion quid at something and trusting his sporting and recruitment team to produce. But it's more the mountains of cash that is to be envied than an enviable way of doing business from my perspective. I think every football fan wants to see more cash being spent.
The way of doing business in a ruthless way and find ways of getting the talents either by paying the money or through youth set up. They get a lot of best talents and recycle them year on year and sell at a good price point. They have a very good set up with the business side. You see us having bad players that will stay around for years and our decision with players sales or loan are so out of point compare to other clubs. Chelsea has money, City do, so do us, we spend more that them according to the data and see what got us, it just we dont know how to spend and dont know when to sell. Eg, Sancho, we have to wait for him to turn good, to be fit and after 2 years, he still the same, this year hes going to be bad again. Then we wont be able to sell him.
We can say that Boehly is nuts and spend like crazy and will have problem with FFP but then again City and other club that win will still win. We see him build an entire new team and start afresh with all the talents that im sure most of us wants on here. I think he knows that the football money is not drying up like we think, juat look at the American football and Basketball. The potential for football is still huge becaue its a global sport that plays and watch globally.
Im not saying that we dont love and take care of our players as a club but sometimes we have to be ruthless and be on point with our decision. Maybe its the Glazers that are responsible because everything have to go through them. You see that Chelsea always win every 3/4 years and we still clutching at straw after 10 years.
I think a lot of the praise you're dishing out is more attributable to the old regime than the new. After all Boehlynomics has only been in place for a year, and it does represent quite a sea change from what Abramovich was doing. Back then it was ruthless but it was also strategically sound and the decision making was correct. So I don't think it can be all thrown under one blanket. Ultimately they were absolutely dreadful last season in the one season under Boehly and that was at least partly due to decisions he made, especially with weak managers combined with a high turnover of players. Football moves on and Chelsea have moved on, I don't think the fact they won every 3/4 years is relevant to this new strategy which will stand or fall on its own merit.
We won't be saying Boehly is fantastic if most of these players flop and they're lumbered on long contracts. We won't be saying the rationate for all this spending was fantastic if they don't substantially improve and compete for trophies within a couple of seasons. So I'd say it is very much under the microscope at the moment and we'll see.
The thing I envy is that they have a lot of money and aren't afraid to spend it more than anything amazing I've seen within their setup. We have spent money, pissed it away, but we also haven't spent what this club was capable of if all of its resources could be used, or the ownership pumped some in occasionally. Boehly seems to have more money than God and that's what they are hoping moves the needle more than anything.
Agree that most i said was attribute to the old regime but i still praise him for what he did. I think maybe he did it calculately and know that most players that was there last year wasnt gonna cut it fornwhat they hope to achieve in 2/3 years term. They might just go ahead spend the billions in 1 go and get all the best talents they can get (most are what the caf are dreamimg about honestly) and let the coach work it out with them in 2/3 seasons and hopefully win major trophies. They do it now rather than waiting to change it incremently.
Regading the players gelling, i think moat are young and if they dont perform to the max they hope for, i think Chelsea will still find wasy to sell for good price. They are good at selling and very on point with when to sell. Also, most are young and coming together as a new team and could be mould into something the coach wants and most wont be so egotistical as the old guards.
I think Boehly knows that the football business has still huge potentail to grow because its not even make near the American football or NBA and has still rooms to grow internationally. Football is the most popular sport after all and thats why we see him and his peers are willing to spend big in 1 go to build a new young team that if work it out can be together a lot longer. And we see now that the Glazers are still reluctant to sell.
Chelsea have clearly learned from what barca did to them last summer
We would have been better off spending 60 on this guy than mount. You can point to casimero being our dm but think he can easily be more in the mould of say a jordan Henderson as he surprisingly showed last season.
Absolutely!
That despite the two of them playing in completely different positions.
I told you not to laugh; now see what you did.
But you don't know yet whether all their unproven kids they signed are going to turn out to be good. It's a risky gamble at this point
Thread can be closed. Deal will be announced soon!
Romeo Lavia contract = £53m plus £5m in add-ons after rejecting a higher offer of £60m from Liverpool.
7-year-long contract signed.
Romeo Lavia contract = £53m plus £5m in add-ons after rejecting a higher offer of £60m from Liverpool.
7-year-long contract signed.
Romeo Lavia contract = £53m plus £5m in add-ons after rejecting a higher offer of £60m from Liverpool.
Why does this constantly keep happening? This part is beyond me.
Many current day players started watching football after Chelsea (and may be, City) became the most dominant club(s) (trophy-wise) in English football. Many were born in the post-Abramovich era.
The actual difference between Liverpool and Chelsea is that ironically, there's a better chance of winning trophies if you're at Chelsea, along with other obvious incentives like a better city, better money, better social media presence, and so forth.
Unless someone supports Liverpool, or the club's manager sells the idea that the player is guaranteed to start most matches (thus, better development), I don't see too many reasons why a 20-year-old would choose Liverpool over City in 2023, especially if he an overseas player.
History is only important for some of us, old fools'. Youngsters live in the present.
Can someone explain to me, has Uefa restricted the length of contract so Chelsea can't sign all these players on 7,8 years and spread the FFP.
UEFA changed FFP guidelines so that the books presented for FFP can only have transfer fee amortisation spread over a maximum of 5 years, even if the contract is longer.
This is correct; also worth pointing out that the PL still allows for amortisation over any length of contract but has announced that they intend to follow UEFA's approach from next summer onwards.
But surely it's a rolling 5 year period, mathematically speaking. So year 1 is highest amortisation, which they can use current sales to offset. Then the next year the reduced capital value will be spread over 5 years, reducing the amortisation in year 2 and so on.
I believe they restricted the ability to amortise the transfer fee over more than 5 years. Teams can still sign players to that contract length.
No, this is incorrect.
Amortisation is distributed evenly over the length of the contract. If a player signs an extension to their deal, however, the remaining book value yet to be accounted for gets further amortized over the length of the extension. Chelsea were doing something sneaky with this as well since Enzo, for instance, signed an 8.5 year deal with one year as an option, which has already been triggered. So his cost was higher last year and has gone down slightly going forward.
I don't know. It's generally assumed the remaining value to amortise is spread evenly over the X years. Amortisation also supposedly reflect the use you had of the asset and its growing obsolescence -in my understanding- and that makes more sense for machines to assume it's a flat rate. Perhaps clubs are allowed to spread it differently ? I'll let an accountant enlighten us.
It's because footballers are considered depreciating assets through the duration of their fixed term contracts. There has to be a standardised way to establish player value for bookkeeping purposes since they get sold partway through deals all the time - and using some sort of rating system or whatever based on data would be impossible to justify and would be easily exploited. As such, transfer fees are simply divided by the years remaining on the deal, with the player's book value decreasing linearly.
Chelsea won the lifetime jackpot didnt they
First Roman, now this guy.
First Roman, now this guy.
It's all a bit hollow, isn't it? Chelsea are a very soulless club.Chelsea won the lifetime jackpot didnt they
First Roman, now this guy.
What big club isn't these days? All PR and money. That's top flight football.
That was what I assumed but not being an accountant I couldn't definitely answer the question. It would be of course a very wide loophole if you could shift around the rate of amortisation. Players are not machine but it's the most sensible compromise to treat them as any other physical asset.
I think the part that is hard to wrap around is that amortisation is a theorical value, it's not a payment due and does not correspond to money moving. It's an accounting convention (and not one uniform, as UEFA has different rules than the PL presently) to calculate the value of an used asset. It only ever gets "real" when the player is sold mid-contract to determine if you sold it at a loss or not. (That's the baby talk explanation but I believe the broad lines are correct).
You can't levy year after year 5x the spending because you spread amortisation, at one point if 200m have gone out you need to have 200m come in (either through revenue, player sales, sponsorship, etc).
Well, they have a lot to prove. Roman brought many PL titles and two CL's.Chelsea won the lifetime jackpot didnt they
First Roman, now this guy.
Yeah exactly - people constantly get it confused with payment schedules and/or deferred payments, and that's totally independent of amortisation and purely a cash flow issue.
FFP has nothing to do with how much actual tangible money a club has sent to another club in a given year, it's purely about accounting.
Your explanation is correct - this is part of why there was such a kerfuffle over Maguire insisting on a payout to go to West Ham. He was essentially being sold for the remainder of his book value with no profit for United accounting-wise, but if he had been paid off he'd have represented a negative item for FFP purposes for this year.
These players have grown up seeing Chelsea successful but also, and I still think its a big factor for players, is the London factor
Official
Remember when shirts had no sponsor ? *sighs*
But if UEFA are capping it at 5 years, then isn't the contract effectively being 'extended' each year if a player has a base contract of longer than 5 years. For example, Enzo has 8.5 years left now, so UEFA will use 5 years for FY24. But as we move to FY25, is the remaining balance not going to be divided by 5 again instead of 4 years? For example, suppose someone is bought for 100m on a 10 year contract: UEFA will use an amortisation of 100m/5 = 20m in year 1. The net carrying value will be 80m after the amortisation. So next year, do they not amortise 80m/5 = 16m in year 2 (still 9 years left on the contract) vs. the 20m in year 1? And this will continue until less than 5 years are left.
Chelsea won the lifetime jackpot didnt they
First Roman, now this guy.
Probably best not to judge that yet considering where they finished last year. I certainly wouldn’t care for supporting 11 new players each season.
Oh that's a really good point. I don't think it's rolling though - I believe that for the next 5 years Chelsea have to account for Enzo's entire transfer fee, then for the last 3.5 years of the deal he's more or less free accounting-wise?
It could be how you've described as well, however this would be inconsistent with how contract extensions are dealt with I think e.g. a player has 2 years left and then signs a new 5 year deal, his remaining balance is amortised over the new contract.
If it is rolling, it's easier for Chelsea to manage FFP. However, if Chelsea struggle to shift underperforming big money signings, it will eventually catch-up.
Another thing that could be happening is the player's wages may be loaded towards the end of the contract when amortisation will be much lower (assuming it's rolling).