Well we would actually be in the clear for almost 2 years - as the amortization cost would be £120 million a year and we are allowed to run a deficit of about £100 million over 3 years
(if we take for granted that we break even on FFP for the last 3 seasons - which we dont do)
No seriously - this is why what Chelsea did was SORT of clever (and why FFP only considers 5 year contracts now ) .
Let's say for case of argument they signed just 5 players for £100 million each on 10 year contracts last summer - and then sold us Mount for £60 million (he is pure profit)
The cost in terms of FFP will be £10 million each season pr player signed - so £50 million in total pr season for 10 years. Short term this is brilliant - long term ..... not.... as they need to include these players in their FFP cost for 10 years. But short term - as long as Chelsea sell home grown talent for £50 million a year - they break even in terms of FFP against the 5 hypothetical players they signed.
The problem is of course that they need to sell £50 million of homegrown talent simply to cover the cost of the players they signed last summer - if they were to sign another expensive player for £100 million - they now need to conjure up £20 m (£100 m divided by 5 years) extra to cover that cost. So chances are that Chelsea need to sell at least one expensive homegrown player each year to be compliant with FFP
And let's be realistic - they haven't got that many anymore.